The nullity of the Romish faith, or, A blow at the root of the Romish Church being an examination of that fundamentall doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Churches infallibility, and of all those severall methods which their most famous and approved writers have used for the defence thereof : together with an appendix tending to the demonstration of the solidity of the Protestant faith, wherein the reader will find all the materiall objections and cavils of their most considerable writers, viz., Richworth (alias Rushworth) in his Dialogues, White in his treatise De fide and his Apology for tradition, Cressy in his Exomologesis, S. Clara in his Systema fidei, and Captaine Everard in his late account of his pretended conversion to the Church of Rome discussed and answered / by Matthevv Poole ...

CHAP. V. Of Orall Tradition, and the Testimony of the pre∣sent Church.

§. 1. BUt because I am resolved to do their cause all the right that may be, and give them all the favourable allowance they can desire, I shall consider the singular conceits of their private Doctors, where the authors are any whit considerable. and their opinion hath any thing of plausibility. There is then another shift, which some subtle Romanists have lately invented; who perceiving how their brethren have been beaten out of

the field by strength of Scripture and argument, in their conceit about the infallibility of the Pope or Councel; come in for their succour with an Universal Tradition, and the authority of the present Church. This is the way of Rushworth in his Dialogues, Mr. White, and Holden, and Sr. Kenelm Digby, and S. Clara. Their defence and dis∣course is this, for I shall give you their opinion in their own words. A man may prudently believe the present Church for her self, and ought so to do: A man needs not, nor is not obliged to enquire further; —there he may safely fix, (a) 1.1 saith S. Clara. Thus the L. Faulkland's Adversary: That society of Christians, which alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers, and they from theirs, and so from the Apostles, they must needs hold the truth which first was delivered: for if they could teach falsehoods, then some age must either have erred in un∣derstanding their Ancestors, or have joyned to deceive their posterity, neither of which is credible. But the Church of Rome, and they only, pretend to teach nothing else &c. Ergo they must needs hold the truth. The acute Mr. White ex∣plains the opinion more exactly and fully, and the strength of his and their notion I shall give you in his words.

1. The nations did understand the doctrine taught by the Apostles, and practised it, and highly valued it, as most necessary for them and their posterity, and to be preferred be∣fore all other things.

2. Those first Christians even at their death, both could and would, and therefore doubtlesse did most vehemently com∣mend this doctrine to their Children: and the Fathers did al∣waies deliver the same doctrine which they received from

their Parents, and under that notion because they had recei∣ved it.

3. If any delivered another doctrine, he could be proved a lyar by the rest of the world; or if all should agree against their consciences to deliver a new doctrine, under that notion (scil. of a doctrine delivered from their Parents) that whole age would be guilty of treachery and parricide, and should agree to murder themselves, which is impossible.

4. There was a perpetual succession of Pastors, who took care of Faith and manners; and it is evident, that the Pa∣stors and people had the same faith.

5. And there arose heresies, by which the truth might be more cleared, and they that maintained the antient doctrine might be distinguished from Innovators: which Innovators did not publickly reject the Apostles doctrine, but pleaded it was not rightly understood, and the other part kept the name of the Catholick Church.

6. It is necessary, that that congregation, which alwaies kept the antient discipline, should alone profess that she recei∣ved her opinions from Christ by perpetual succession, and that she neither did nor could receive any thing into the Ca∣non of their Faith under another notion.

7. As certainly therefore, as one may know, that the con∣gregation of believers, which at this day is called Catholick, is animated with a number of learned and wise men, so cer∣tainly will it be known, that she is not conscious of any new∣ness of doctrine, and therefore there is no new doctrine.

8. Following ages cannot be ignorant, what former ages believed about those things which are explained in Sermons, Catechisms, Prayers, and Sacraments, and such are all things necessary to the Catholick Faith.

9. This doctrine delivered from hand to hand was con∣firmed by long custome, diverse laws, rewards and punish∣ments both of this and the following life, monuments of wri∣ters, by which all would be kept in it.

10. Following Rulers could not change the doctrine of their Predecessors without schisme, and notorious tumult in the Church, as dayly experience proveth(a) 1.2 To the same

purpose also Holden discourseth in his Treatise of the re∣solution of Faith. This is a new Plea, and deserves speci∣al consideration.

§. 2. For Answer, 1. I give Mr. White and his wor∣thy Partners humble thanks for the great favour or ra∣ther justice done by them to the Protestant cause. For, whereas this is the perplexing question, wherewith they think to puzzle us, How we can know the Scriptures to be the word of God without the Churches infallible au∣thority? and from the supposed impossibility thereof, they infer the necessity of the Churches authority: these kind-hearted Gentlemen have helped us out of the bry∣ars: for now it seems, and it is a truth, and so far the argument from Tradition is really conclusive, that we may know the Scripture to be the word of God without the Churches infallible authority, viz. by tradition. And the argument of Tradition would not at all lose its strength if the Church were wholly stript of the capacity of a Judg, and retained only the qualification of a witnesse, and con∣sequently the Churches authority is not at all necessary. And if the Church should boast of her authority against or above tradition, it may be said to her according to these mens principles, as the Apostle said to the Gentiles, Rom. 11. If thou boast, thou bearest not Tradition, but Tradition thee, for so say these Doctors. Mr. White spends one en∣tire chapter upon the proof of this Proposition, That the succession of doctrine is the only rule of Faith(a) 1.3, and saith, that whether we place this infallibility in the whole body of the Church, or in Councels, or in Scriptures, in each of these their authority is resolved into and all depends upon Tradition(b) 1.4. And he spends several chapters to shew,

that neither the Pope, nor Councels can give any solidity, or certainty to our Faith but what they have from Tradition: If it be said Tradition is conveyed to us by the Church, and so there is still a necessity of her Authority. I an∣swer plainly no: It followes onely that there is necessi∣ty of her Ministery, but not of her Authority. A Pro∣clamation of the King and Councel could not come to my hands, (If I live at Yorke) but by a Messenger, and by the Scribe, or Printer: But if any from this necessity of his Ministery infer his Authority, I may well deny the consequence; but because it is unhansome to extenuate a courtesie, I hold my self obliged further to acknow∣ledge the great kindnesse of our Adversaries, who not contented to assert the validity of the Protestants foun∣dation of Faith have also overturned their own, which that you may the better understand, I shall briefly re∣present to you the sweet Harmony of those Cadmaean Brethren, and how God hath confounded the language of Babels; Builders: so that they have little to do, but to stand still, and see the Salvation of God while these Midianites, and Amalekites thrust their Swords in one anothers sides.

The opinion and language of most Papists in the world is this. That Tradition is therefore only infallible because it is delivered to us by the Church which is infallible:(a) 1.5 If you ask Bellarmine what it is by which I am assured that a tradition is right, he answers, because the whole Church, which receives it cannot erre. (b) 1.6 So the late

Answerer of Bishop Laud. There is no means lest to believe any thing with a divine infallible Faith, if the Authori∣ty of the Catholick Church be rejected as erronious, and fal∣lible, for who can believe either Creed, or Scripture, or un∣written Tradition, but upon her Authority. (a) 1.7 Nay, S: Clara himself notwithstanding his Romantick strain: That Tradition and the naked Testimony of the present Church is sufficient, yet elsewhere confesseth the Chur∣ches infallibility must necessarily be supposed to make my Faith certain: His words are these: The Testimony of the Church by which Traditions come to us, is infallible, from a Divine Revelation, because it is evident from the Scripture that the Church is infallible: And presently after, If the Church were not infallibile, it could not produce in me an infallible Faith, (b) 1.8 And this was the constant Do∣ctrine of the Romish Masters in all former Ages: Now come a new Generation who finding the Notion of in∣fallibility hard beset, and that Pillar shaken, they support their cause with a quite cōtrary position: That it is not the Churches infallibility that renders Tradition infallible (as their former Masters held) but the infallibility of Tradition that makes the Church infallible, and therefore they say, the Church her self is no further infallible then she followes Tradition. Thus Mr White plainly tells us that Councils are not infallible, because the speciall assistance of Gods spirit makes them infallible, but because by irrefragable testimony

they confirm the succession of their Doctrines, and are such witnesses of tradition as cannot be refused.

Thus Holden having told us that the Popes infallibility is controverted on both sides by just, godly, and most learned Catholicks, as well antient, as modern, and neither ••svde con∣demned by Authentick censure (a) 1.9 (which by the way discourses the desparatenesse of the greatest part of the Romish Church at this day which ventures their Soules, and rest their faith upon what themselves confesse to be a doubtfull foundation, viz. the Popes infallibility) (b) 1.10 All Divines (saith he) confesse it is not certain with a Di∣vine, and a Catholick Faith, he comes to lay down this conclusion that the Infallibility of the Church is not from any Priviledge granted to the Romans sea, or St Peters suc∣cesseur but from the universall and Catholick tradition of the Church(c) 1.11 and Councels fare no better then Popes. They are (saith he) not Founders, but only Guardians, and Witnesses of revealed truths(d) 1.12 so M^r White allowes neither Pope nor Councels any infallibility, but what they have from tradition, as wee have seen, and tels us in expresse termes, that Tradition is overthrown, if any other principle

be added to it: for here lies the solidity of Tradition that nothing is accepted by the Church but from Traditi∣on (a) 1.13.

§. 3. Well, what shall the poor unlearned Romanist do, that finds his great masters at variance in the very foundation of his Faith: Here are two contradictory assertions: one of them must unavoidably be false: A man may with probability at least assert the falshood of either of them, having the suffrage of diverse of their own most learned Catholick Authors for him in either opinion; but whether they be true or false, their cause is lost:

1. If they be true, and 1. If that be true, that Tradi∣tion be the foundation of the Churches Infallibility: then 1. Whence hath Tradition this Infallibility? From Scripture? That they utterly disclaime. From Traditi∣on? Then why may not Scripture give Testimony to it self as well as Tradition? And whence hath that Tradi∣tion its Infallibility? and so in infinitum. Is it from the reason of the thing? So M^r White implies who at∣tempts to prove it by a rationall and Logicall Discourse, but himself hath prevented that, while he saith To leane upon Logicall inferences is to place the foundation of our Faith and the Church in the sand (b) 1.14. And S. Clara gives a check to this: It is more reasonable and wise, even for the most learned and acute persons to rely upon the Autho∣rity of the Church then to adhere to our own reasonings how plausible soever (c) 1.15. And that is largely disproved in

the following discourse. Is it then from the Churches Infallibility? This they deny and allow the Church no infallibility independent upon Tradition.

2. Seeing they grant the Church may erre, if she re∣ceed from Tradition I can never be sure she doth not erre unlesse I be sure she keep to Tradition: And there∣fore I must examine that, and judge of it, and so private men are made judges of controversies, which they so much dread.

3. Hereby the Authority of the Pope and generall Councels of Bishops is rendred unnecessary: I prove it thus: If these be necessary onely as witnesses to Traditi∣on, then their Authority is not necessary: For it is not Authority, but knowledge and fidelity which renders a witnesse competent: A lay hearer of S^t Paul may be as competent a witnesse of the Doctrine he heard S^t Paul Preach, as a Bishop, supposing a parity in their knowledg, fidelity, and converse with the Apostle, and another Bishop may be as competent a witnesse as the Bishop of Rome and consequently as Infallible, and any congre∣gation of discreet and pious Christians who heard S^t Pe∣ter Preach are as infallible witnesses as the Church of Rome, and if there were a generall assembly of lay men of equall knowledge and experience, they are as infallible witnesses what the Faith of the next precedent age was, and what the Faith of the present Church is, as a Coun∣cell of Bishops: Nay (to speak truth) they are more cre∣dible witnesses, because lesse byassed by interest affecti∣on or prejudice. These rocks the first branch throwes them upon.

2. If they flie from his and make the Churches infal∣libility the foundation of Traditions (as the most Papists do) then they must demonstrate that Infallibility from Scripture, Fathers, or Councels, which we have seen, they cannot do. So that, if either of their positions be true, their cause is lost.

But 2. If either of them be false, they are gone too: For if tradition be not Infallible in it selfe without the Churches Authority (as the one side saith) then the Pa∣pists have no certaine rule for the Church to steere i••s course by (for the Scriptures they do not own as such) and if the Church be not infallible, but by vertue of this Tradition (as the other side saith,) then they con∣fesse the insufficiency of all their proofes from Scripture and from the Authority of Fathers and Councels, and their Authority is no more, then that of any faithfull or credible Historian, and instead of a Divine the Papists have nothing but an Historicall faith. I shall conclude this first Answer with one syllogisme from the words and assertions of M^r White: Tradition is overthrown, if another principle of Faith be added to it: But the most and Learnedest Doctours of the Romish Church do adde another principle to it, viz. the Churches Authority and infallibility as I shewed from their own words: Ergo, either Tradition and all this new devise, or the Authority of the Romish Church is overthrown.

4. Answ. 2. This new conceit directly thwarts the designe of God in the Writing of the Scripture, and in∣deed the common sence and experience of all mankind: for hereby a verball Tradition is made a more sure way of conveyance to posterity then a Writing. It hath been the Wisdome of God in forme•• ages to take care that those things might be Written, which he would have kept in remembrance. Exod. 17. 14. Write this for a memoriall in a Book: So little did God trust this (now supposed infallible) way of orall Tradition, that he would not venture the Decalogue upon it (though the words were but few, and the importance of them so considera∣ble, both in truth, and in the apprehensions of the Jewes, that if M^r Whites Argument have any strength in it, it was impossible posterity should ever mistake it) but

write it with his own finger once and againe after the breaking of the first Tables: And although, whilest the Church was confined to a few families and divine revela∣tions were frequently renewed a verball Tradition was sufficient, yet when the Church came to be multiplyed and especially when it comes to be dispersed into all Na∣tions and Revelations cease, then Writing proves of ab∣solute necessity: How farre the first and wisest Chri∣stians were from M^r Whites opinion appeares from hence, that not daring to leane upon the broken reed of Orall Tradition, they did earnely desire the Apostles to commit their Doctrines to Writing. Eusibius reports that S^t Peters hearers were not content with this way of Tra∣dition from Peters mouth, but (for want of M^r VVhites presence there to convince them of their folly,) They earnestly begged it of Marke that he would leave them that Doctrine in VVriting which they had received by word of mouth (a) 1.16. And Hierome tels us That S^t John the Evan∣gelist was almost forced to write by all the Bishops of Asia (b) 1.17: who (it seems) were raw novices that did not under∣stand their Catechisme nor the first principle in it viz. The sufficiency and infallibility of orall Tradition. And S^t Luke gives it us under his hand (not fearing either M^r VVhites anger or his Argument) that he wrote his Gospell ad majorem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that Christians might have the greater certainty Luk 1 3,4. When Iob desires the perpetuall continuance of his words he wisheth, O that my words were now VVritten! Oh that they were Printed in a Book! Job. 19.23. And David in the same case

would not rely upon Tradition, but takes this course for assurance: This shall be written for the generation to come, Psal. 102.18. But because M^r VVhite undoubtedly is a better Philosopher and Divine then either Luke or Iob or David were, (and therefore good reason they should all vaile to his more penetrating wit and deeper judgment) he shall do well to remember that God him∣selfe was of the same judgment—Go, write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever Isa. 30.8. And to this agrees the com∣mon experience of mankind: Vox audita perit, litera, scripta manet verball Traditions, quickly vanish, onely writings are durable: Hence those famous Lawes of Ly∣curgus, institutes of the Druides Philosophy of Pythagoras are upon the matter wholly lost and onely some few fragments reserved, because not committed to writing: but this will be put out of doubt by reflecting upon the History of mankind, wereby the aierinesse of this phan∣tasme will be discovered, and the great difference be∣tween Tradition and writing in point of certainty de∣monstrated: Adam and Noah the two successive heads of mankind did doubtlesse deliver the true Doctrine to their posterity with the same important circumstances, (which M^r VVhite supposeth in the Doctrine of the Gospell) as a Doctrine of everlasting consequence, and they so received it, and for a season transmitted it to their Children: But alas! how soon was all obliterated, and in this sense all mankind (some very few excepted) did agree to murther themselves, and they actually did that which M^r VVhite saith was impossible: And so from hence forward let all Logitians take notice of it, that Ab esse ad posse non valet consequentia. Well, some centuries after comes Moses and by Gods command delivers a Law in Writing and this law abides, and the Jewes to this day retaine it in remembrance and venera∣tion

and for above 3000 years together have been thereby kept from those Pagan opinions and Idolatries which all the Scholars of Tradition almost in the whole World have fallen into: and consequently writing is a sure; and orall Tradition, an unsafe and uncertaine way of conveyance: and this principle hath had universall influence upon the actions of wise men, in all ages, and in all things: Hence care hath been alwaies taken for the writing of Canons of Councels, decrees of Courts, Acts of Parliament (though the importance of them were many times so great and evident, that according to this new notion, writing was superfluous, and verball Traditi∣on Infallible:) And if those wise men durst never trust unwritten Tradition with their estates and worldly con∣cernments, shall we be so mad as to venture our Souls upon it? Let Papists do so, who having given up their consciences to the Pope cannot say their soules are their own, but let them not be displeased, if we desire to make a wiser bargaine. But our English Apostate hath a distinct∣ion to salve this grosse absurdity: It is true (saith he) of Doctrines meerly speculative, that the memory is not so safe a depository as VVritten records, but not of such as may be made as it were visible by practise: And he is pleased to give us an instance in the Doctrine of the Sacrament and Christs reall unfigurative presence in it, which (saith he) was more securely and clearly delivered by the Churches practise, then could be by books VVritten, their prostrations and adorations demonstrated their assurance of his real pre∣sence, where every mans saying Amen at the Priests pronoun∣cing Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi, expressed their confession of that presence with exclusion of all tropes and figures in the businesse. Exomol. §. 1. c. 8. And are these the great and visible assurances of Doctrines to which all the security of Writings must strike saile? Are these grounds so evident that the Doctrines could not possibly, have

been more securely propagated and more clearly and in∣telligibly delivered to posterity in Writing as Cressy da∣ringly asserts? See Exomolog. Sect. 1. chap. 8. O the besotting nature of Popery! O the tremendous judg∣ment of God punishing Apostacy with an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a reprobate sence! Dare this miserable man say these are clearer evidences of the reall presence then if it had been said in terminis. This is my body in a proper and cor∣poreall sence, or this bread is converted into the very sub∣stance of this body which you now see? These men may well say what they please for it appeares they can believe what they list.

May I with the Readers leave in few words, discover the shamefull weaknesse and horrid impudence of this asser∣tion: Is it true indeed that the prostrations and adora∣tions, of Christians discover'd their assurance of the reall corporall presence? And of all men living could Mr Cressy say this, who had so oft seen others receive and himself received the Sacrament in England and Ireland in a po∣sture of adoration viz. kneeling, with an assurance of the falshood of that opinion of the reall corporall presence? Why might not the speciall yet spirituall presence of Christ in the Sacrament occasion this prostration, as well as the speciall and Spirituall presence of God in the Arke occasioned the Jewes to fall down and worship at his footstoole? And must the poore Clarke come in with his Amen to help the lame priest over the stile? Why there is not a Protestant but when he heares these words pronounced this is my body will say his Amen to it, and acknowledge it so to be, but still Christs words must be taken in Christs sence, and that is, though figurative yet very frequent in such cases: In short, since these are the practicall visible Arguments alledged as instances of the Infallible certainty of orall Tradition, above all that can be said in writing: I hope the Reader (who con∣cernes

himselfe either in matters of credit or conscience) will easily discerne and ingeniously confesse, both the ab∣surdity of their Arguments and assertion, and the solidity of this second Answer, and the advantage of writing a∣bove unwritten Tradition.

§. 5. Ans. 3. If this assertion be true and solid, and Tradition be an Infallible foundation of Faith as those men pretend no errour could come into the Church un∣der pretence of Tradition from the Apostles: That is evi∣dent in it selfe (else an infallible Authoritie is liable to er∣ror which is a contradiction) and it is granted by our Adversaries, who therefore tell us that all Hereticks re∣cede from the Tradition of their Fathers and broach new and unheard of Doctrines, as we have seen.

But errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition. Here all the doubt lies, and therefore I shall indeavour to make it good, a taske which would be wholly superfluous if the impudence of our Adver∣saries, and the desperatenesse of their cause did not ob∣lige them to require, and us to give the proofe of the most evident verities: I might insist upon the Doctrine of the Chiliasts (which the Papists confesse to be false) which was commended to the Church by Papias and Ire∣naeus too as an Apostolicall Tradition, and so received by the generality of Orthodox Christians (saith Iustin Mar∣tyr:) This Argument is renderd more considerable by the pitifull evasion wherewith M^r VVhite shuffles it off, saying, That the Chiliasts were deceaved by Cerinthus who feigned he had this from the Apostles in private discour∣ses, not in publike Preaching (a) 1.18. For (to say nothing of this that the Fathers derive its pedegree from another root) whatever was the occasion and ground of this mi∣stake

in that Tradition it sufficiently proves what I in∣tend viz. that many or most of the guides of the Church may receive false Doctrines as comming from the Apo∣stles, and so transmit them to their Posterity, which is the thing now denied. It was an old Observation of Irenaeus concerning the Hereticks of his time (one would think the words were not onely Historicall of them, but also propheticall of the Papists) When Hereticks are re∣proved out of the Scripture; they begin to accuse the Scrip∣ture, as if truth could not be discovered by those that know not Tradition (a) 1.19.(b) 1.20 The Arrians pretended they had their Doctrine by Tradition from their Ancestors: particularly they named Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, and Lucian the Martyr by whose hands their Doctrine had been conveyed to them, as Baronius acknowledgeth Epipha∣nius tels us the Cajani pretended St Paul as the Author and founder of their Hereticall Doctrines: The Pela∣gians boasted of their Doctrine, That it had been alwaies celebrated by the Learning of Holy men(b) 1.21. The Doctrine of rebaptisation (which the Papists acknowledge to be erroneous) was brought in by Cyprian and the African Bishops under a pretence of Tradition: The words of Cyprian are these: We do not now broach a new Doctrine, but one long fince decreed by our Predecessors (c) 1.22. It is true Pamelius saith he meanes this of his immediate Prede∣cessors Agrippinus, and the rest: and that will serve my turne, if M^r VVhites Argument will hold: for then no

Age (and consequently not this) could either be ignorant of, or knowingly recede from the Doctrine of their Fa∣thers, nor they from their Fathers, and so upward to the Apostles: And indeed Cyprian carries it higher, even to the Apostles whiles he calls it The Faith of the Catholick Church, and reckons it amongst the Apostolicall and E∣vangelicall precepts(a) 1.23. And Firmilian expressely affirmes it was delivered by Christ and his Apostles (b). And will these mens confidence yet serve them to assert that no error could come into the Church by Tradition?

If all those Eminent African Bishops and Churches might either misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their posterity (as M^r White cannot deny they did e••••••er the one or other) why might not the Spanish, or French, or Romish do it. If it be said, there was a promise to the contrary at least for the Church of Rome. To say no∣thing of the manifest weaknesse of that pretence I answer two things: 1. That M^r White expressely rejects this Infallibility by promise. 2. However this Argument be∣ing of another nature and depending not upon the pro∣mise of God, but the nature and evidence of the thing is by this instance irrefragably overthrown.

Answ. 4. That way of proving which was rejected by the Prophets and godly Jewes, by Christ and by the Apo∣stles is not to be approved, much lesse preferred before that way which they approved and used; but this way of proving the truth of a Doctrine by Tradition from their next Ancestours and the Testimony of the present Church was rejected by the Prophets &c. and by Christ

and the Apostles: Ergo, It is not now to be approved. For the Minor (in which all the doubt lies) it consists of two Branches: The first relating to the old Testament; The second to the New:

The first is: That this way was disowned by the Pro∣phets and godly Jewes under the old Testament: It is true some of the Jewes did owne this Popish opinion as you may read I••r. 44.17. But the Prophets were of ano∣ther perswasion. Ezek. 20.18. Walke not in the Statutes of your Fathers. And from Tradition they used to send their people to the Law and Testimony Isa. 8.20. And the godly Kings of Iudah did not make Tradition (as the Papists do) but the written Law (as the Protestants do) the rule of their reformation: Thus David 1 Chron. 16. 40.—to do according to all that is Written in the Law: Thus Hezekiah 2 Chron. 31. he did all, as it is Written in the Law of the Lord: So Iosiah 2 Chron. 34.30, 31. and 35.12. The like did Ezra long after Ezra 6.18. and Nehemiah chap. 8. They dwelt in Booths, as it is Written. Here Scripture recovers what Tradition had lost, for though God had commanded this, yet since the daies of Ioshua they had not done so vers. 17. By all which we evi∣dently discerne how different their opinion was from this of the Papists, and how little confidence they put in Tra∣dition, Iosiah would not so much as make Hezekiahs re∣formation his rule nor Hezekiah take his patterne from Iehoshaphats reformation, but still every one had immedi∣ate recourse to the written Word; For it seems it was a Language that these Holy men understood not, That Scripture was a corrupt writing, a leaden rule, a dumb master.

§. 7. There is indeed one Objection against the con∣sequence from the Jewes to the Christians and from the Old Testament to the New: I shall give it you in the words of one of the acutest of our Adversaries, i e.

Mr White, The Law of the Iewes was delivered in Tables of Stone and the volume of the Law, to which it is expressely opposed that God will write the Law of Christians in their hearts.(a) 1.24

I Answer, 1. The words are not to be understood ab∣solutely (as they sound) but comparatively, not as if they did wholly deny that the Mosaicall Law was written in the Heart (for that is affirmed in other places as Deut. 30.6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed) or as if they did affirme that the Christian Law was written only in mens hearts and not in Paper (which the Papists themselves dare not assert) but onely it is a comparative expression like that, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach, i. e. principally and primarily, for else the one as well as the other was enjoyned by God: And so it is here implied that the Christian Law should be written more eminently, upon the hearts of Christi∣ans, then it ordinarily was upon the hearts of the Jewes, and that it should be writ in a more legible Cha∣racter.

Answ. 2. If we examine in whose hearts this Chri∣stian Law is written, we shall find it concernes not the Tradition, of the Church by which all things are to be regulated: For I demand of them was this promise made and performed to all that are called Christians, or onely to the elect and sincere Christians, or onely to the Pope and Bishops? If they say the first then one Chri∣stian as well as another is furnished with this rule of all Controversies, and consequently as able to judge of Con∣troversies,

then lay-men and Ministers have this Law equally written in their hearts; if they say the second, That it is onely the elect and sincere Christians (as indeed it is), then it must be something else beside Tradition which is no lesse known to the hypocriticall pretender then to the sincere professor of Christianity; If they say the third, That this Law was written onely in the hearts of the Pope and Bishops met in Councell (As what is there so ridiculous which some of our Adversaries will not say rather then confesse their errours and give glory to God?) They are evidently confuted by the words of the place, Jer. 31.34. They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every one his brother, saying, know the Lord for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest—for I will forgive their iniquity. And besides Mr White himselfe saith, This Law is written onely in cordibus sid lium in the hearts of the faithfull: Now in what Dictionary we shall find fidelis to be translated Atheist, Sodomite, Magitian, &c. (Epithetes not without cause given to Popes and Popish Bishops by their own Authors) I would gladly be informed.

Answ. 3. If we enquire what this is, which is here said to be written in their hearts, we shall see Mr VVhites invention was better then his judgment or his conscience: with what Spectales do these men read this Writing in the heart, that tell us this was the Doctrine of Transub∣stantiation, Indulgences, Invocation of Saints, Popes Su∣premacy, the Churches Infallibility? But you must know though this Writing was from God, yet the inter∣pretation belongs to the Pope, whose will stands for his reason, and his word for a Law: But if we consult the Prophet: If with the Popes good leave God may be his own Interpreter: He tels you this was the Inscrip∣tion 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Know the Lord. The knowledge of God Ier. 31.33. and the fear of God Ier. 32.39, 40.

And this Law written in the heart was so far from being appointed by God for a rule to walke by (much less was it to justle out the word, as the Papists now abuse it) that the use of this was only to help them to make the word their rule Ezek. 26 27. I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes Hence that in Is. 59.21. My Spirit that is in thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depar•• out of thy mouth: So this objection being discharged, the consequence remaines in full force, and Traditions being disapproved under the old Testa∣ment cannot be approved under the new: But I shall more fully prove that in the next branch, which is this.

§. 8. 2. This way of proving the truth of Doctrines by verbal tradition is disallowed by Christ and the Apo∣stles: He knowes nothing of the Pharisees, and indeed but little of the New Testament, that knowes not that this was the great Doctrine of the Pharisees: And from their school the Papists had this Doctrine of the certain∣ty of Tradition: So little reason had Du. Moulin to write a book about the novelty of Popery when diverse of their Doctrines have such a venerable Antiquity that they are as old as the Pharisees. No wonder the Church of Rome hath diverse Doctrines that Christ never delivered to them, for they had a great part of the leaven of the Pharisees left them for a legacy. And from them they had their bold expressions by which they advance Tradition above the Scripture: The Author of the book called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath this saying, think not that the written law is the Foundation of our Faith, but the law of orall Tradition, And again in the book Iuchas. p. 158. Without this orall law (of Tradition) the whole law would be in darknesse; and again, all those things which our Rab∣bins taught us we are equally to believe as the Law of Mo∣ses. But this is so known, that it is frivolous to multiply

testimonies of this kind: The footsteps of this principle you may discern in diverse places of the New Testament: They made the Tradition of the fathers, the rule of their Faith Mat. 15.2. VVhy do thy Disciples transgresse the Tradition of the Elders. S^t Paul mentions it as one of his Pharisaicall errours, that he was exceedingly zealous of the Traditions of his Fathers Gal. 1.14. And S^t Peter speaks of it as a part or effect of their redemption by Christ that they were delivered from a vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers. 1. Peter. 1. this sufficiently shews what their opinion was. Now let us hear what reflection Christ and the Apostles made upon it: And there you shall find that which would end the controversy with ingenious adversaries viz. That whereas the Romanists tell us that the deserting of Tra∣dition is the true cause and spring of all errours, on the contrary, our Saviour makes this the Fountain of their errours, their forsaking the Scripture, not their receding from the Tradition of their Ancestors, Mat. 22.29. Ye do erre not knowing the Scriptures, we are beholden to the Papists that they do not say, there is a corruption in the Text, and Scripture is put in for Tradition: For surely if Christ had been of the mind of those Gentlemen, he never had a fitter opportunity to utter it, then now, for the Sadduces were noted as enimies to Traditions. And the Doctrine of the resurrection, was but darkely deli∣vered in Scripture at lest in the Pentatuch, and more plainly by Tradition: So now or never was the time for Christ to say to the Sadduces (as doubtlesse M^r White would, if he had been present, and Christ should, if M^r Whites Argument be good) you erre, because you take no heed to the Traditions of your Ancestors. But here is not a syllable about that, but all is cast upon their not knowing the Scriptures: Thus in the resolution of that great controversy concerning the Messias, Christ doth

not confute the Jewes, nor stablish the Truth from Tra∣dition (though there was eminent occasion for it at that time, there being such a Tradition then rise amongst them, that the time of the coming of the Messias was at hand, Daniels week being nigh exspired, and with it a general expectation of him) but from ••cripture: Christ proves himself to be the true Messias by several Arguments, by the Testimony of Iohn (who was a Pro∣phet, yea, and more then a Prophet) by his Fathers voice from heaven by his miracles, and above all by the Scri∣pture, how came Christ to omit that which (if those men do not deceive us) was more considerable then all the rest viz. Tradition and the Testimony of the present Church. A strange oversight, you will say, but it seemes it was a discovery denied to Christ, and all the A∣postles, and reserved to these last times. Answerable to this was the practise of the godly Bereans who did exa∣mine S^t Pauls Doctrine not by Tradition (as the Papists do) but by the Scripture Acts 17.11. And St Paul him∣self evidenceth the soundnesse of his Doctrine not by its conformity with Tradition (which our Adversaries lay such stresse upon that S. Clara with severall others a∣ffirme that they receive the Scripture onely so farre as they agree with Tradition (a) 1.25 but by its consonancy to the Scriptures, saying, That he witnessed none other thing then what was in Moses and the Prophets, Act. 26.22. and Act. 24.14, 15. So then, the question now is, which is the more rationall way to resolve a Christians doubts and

ground his Faith, whether that which hath had the ap∣probation of all the Holy-men of God in both Testa∣ments, or the ingenious devise of these witty Doctors that come with their quintum Evangelium into the World, that is, whether Scripture or Tradition. I know one thing will be said, That the Apostles did urge Tra∣ditions as well as Scriptures, to this purpose we oft heare of that, 2 Thes. 2.15. Hold the Tradition which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle; To which I Answer briefly:

1. That if the Papists can demonstrate any of their Traditions to be indeed Apostolicall (as these were) we shall receive them, if conformable to Scripture; but if they be dissonant from Scripture, we have commission from S^t Paul to renounce them though they be either of Apostolicall or Angelicall originall. Gal. 1.18.9.

2. The Argument I confesse is right of the Romish stamp viz. The Thessalonians were bound to receive what they heard immediately from St Pauls mouth in such things as for the substance of them were contained in the Scripture: Therefore we are now bound to re∣ceive all those Traditions which the Church of Rome tell us they had from those, that had them from those, that had them from those, that told them their Ancestors, were told by their Ancestors that some of their Ance∣stors had it from Paul 1600 years agoe—risum teneatis amici? This may serve for the fourth Answer.

§ 9. Ans. 5. If this Doctrine be true, Scripture proof is not necessary for any point in Religion (for it asserts the sufficiency of Tradition in it self and without the Scripture:) But Scripture proof is necessary for confir∣mation of points in Religion: This I might prove from Scripture, but that hath been done allready in the former Answer, therefore I shall here confute this Argument of Tradition by Tradition and the testimony of the Fa∣thers:

To pick up all they have to this purpose would fill Volumes; I shall therefore single out some few Illustrious Testimonies: Nothing can more evidently overthrow this goodly structure then those forementioned words of Cyprian, We ought not to regard what others have done before us, but what Christ who was before all thought fit to be done: For we must follow Gods Truth, not mens custome (a) 1.26. What Protestant can say more in few words then Clemens Alexandrinus in few words: We assert no∣thing without Scripture (b) 1.27: Therefore he thought not Tradition a sure evidence, though so near the Fountaine, much lesse can it now give us any certainty having con∣flicted with hazards and been exposed to the infection of 1300 years. S^t Basil is expresse: It is necessary that every word or thing be confirmed by the Holy Scriptures (c) 1.28. And else where he tells you, It is a manifest defection from the Faith and token of Pride, either to rej••ct any thing that is written, or to introduce any thing that is not writ∣ten (d) 1.29. And Constantine speaking of the rule by which all things were to be examined and judged, confines it to the Scripture. The Books of the Prophets, and Apostles (saith he) do plainly instruct us what to think of Divine things: therefore laying aside hostile discord, from the words which were divinely inspired, let us take our expositions of quoestions. (e) It is a pitiful shift of Bellarmines to say

that Constantine was a better Emperor then Doctor, whereas in this particular Theodoret assures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying, nor did any of the Antients ever condemne him for it: And indeed the practise of the Synod shewes their approbation of the Speech and consequently gives us another Argu∣ment for they determined the controversy according to the Scriptures saith Ambrose (a) 1.30, and Athanasius too whose words are these, The Bishops congregated at Nice, col∣lecting tog••ther all things they could out of Scripture to de∣fend their opinion, they affirmed that the Son was consubstan∣tiall to the Father (b) 1.31. And Bellarmine himself confesseth it: The Councell of Nice, when they defined the Son to be consubstantiall to the Father, they drew their Conclusion out of the Scriptures(c) 1.32. Notable is that place of Chryso∣stomes because it acquaints us with his own judgment and the judgment of the Christians of that age, If any thing be asserted (saith he) without Scripture the minde of the hearer wavers—But when Scripture comes, that confirmes the speakers words and settles the hearers mind (d) 1.33. Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Her∣mogenes, that things were made of prae existent matter with, I never read it, let Hermogenes shew where it is written, or else let him fear the woe denounced against those those that adde to the Scripture (e). And againe, I do

not receive what thou bringest of thy own without the Scrip∣ture (a) 1.34. And againe, Take away from Hereticks the things they have in common with Heathens, that they may referre their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand (b) 1.35. But the Papists are of another mind, for if you will believe them, if Scripture alone must judge Controver∣sies, Heresies will never fall. Theodoret professeth he was not so bold as to assert any thing wherein the Scripture was silent(c) 1.36. Thus Origen: It is necessary that we call in the Testimony of Scripture, for without this our expositions have no credit (d) 1.37. Austin is most full and plaine, I will men∣tion but one place, Whether they have the Church they can∣not shew but from the Canonicall Books of Scripture: And yet there is no question wherein Tradition seems more pertinent, and where the Papists urge it with more vehe∣mency. I might adde a thousand pregnant places more, but either these or none will suffice to prove that the Antients did judge Scripture proofe necessary for the confirmation of any Doctrine in Religion, which the Ro∣manists now judge not necessary. The Fathers preten∣ded Tradition for their opinion, and the Papists pretend it now: Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then, or it deceives the Papists now: Either will serve our turne to shew the Fallibility of Tradition. If it be said there are no les••e expresse Testimonies alledged by the Papists on the behalfe of Tradition, and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalfe of the Scrip∣ture.

I Answer, 1. If the Fathers do in some places assert the sufficiency of proof from Tradition, and in other places the necessity of Scripture proofe, these assertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of Religion: For so say the Lawyers most justly and truly, Testis pugnantia diceus fi∣dem non facit.

2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition (especially if you compare them with those alledged for Scripture) that they do plead Tradition onely as a secondary Argument to confirme that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture, but it is as clear as the Sunne that they ever made Tradition strike faile to the Scripture, and made no scruple of deserting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments stood on the other side.

Answ. 6. The Romanists themselves are undeniable instances of the vanity of their own Argument: They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us: Why Tradition hath deceived them: There are diverse contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome, about 300 are reckoned out of Bellarmine: The dissenters, though never so implacably divided amongst themselves, do agree in this, That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers, and so from the Apostles; Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived some of them, or both the parts of a contradiction may be true: I shall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions, nor take notice of pettie differences a∣mongst obscure Authors, but shall instance in two mate∣riall points, viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace, and mans will, and the appurtenances as they are controverted be∣tween the French and Italian Papists: In both of them, it is clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradi∣tion: Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncer∣taine

found, for Tradition tels the Jesuites this is truth, That the will is determined to good actions, not by Gods grace, but by its own inclination and agency: Tradition tels the Dominicans and Jansenists that this is a grosse falsity: So for the Church if you enquire in whom Su∣preme Authority and Infallibility resides (for that is the great question.) Tradition tels the Jesuites, it is in the Pope; Tradition not long since told the Councels of Basil and Constance that it was in a Councell, not in the Pope, and so it tells many of the French Doctors at this day; And (I will tell you a thing in your eare) both these are Apostolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary: It is true that S^t Iames saith, No Fountaine can yield both Salt-water and Fresh, Chap. 3. 8.12. But that is to be understood onely of the Foun∣taine of the Scripture, but the Fountain of Tradition can yield both Salt and Fresh, both bitter and sweet. You may well allow Tradition to be Infallible, for you see it can work wonders, and reconcile contradictions: If this seem strange to you, you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of M^r VVhites Apology for Tradition demonstrating that Contradictoria possunt esse simul vera, to be dedicated to the Defenders of Tran∣substantiation; but to returne: What say our masters to this difficulty; why, I will faithfully acquaint you where their strength lies, and what their pretences are: I find three things which are or may with some colour be said for them to safeguard the Infallibility of Traditi∣on against this dreadfull shock.

1. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles, not of any great consequence to Christians: Thus the controversies between the Jesuites and Domi∣nicans about Gods free grace and mans free-will (they say) are but Scholasticall niceties, wherein the substance of Religion is not at all concerned: So for that point of

Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter, The dissenters onely seek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is, by whose mouth we are to know, which be our Articles of Faith, whether by the Popes or Councels or both, which is not much materiall (saith Rushworth's second Edition Dial. 3. §. 9.) to our purpose whatever the truth be, supposing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but such as have descend••d to us from Christ and his Apostles;

For Answer, I would know whether a private Chri∣stian can Infallibly know what are those Articles of Faith which came from Christ and his Apostles without the de∣cision of Pope or Councell, or not: If they say he can know it, then it followes that private Christians may be Infalli∣ble of themselves, and consequently there is no necessity of Pope or Councels, for what need any more then Infal∣libility? If they say he cannot, then an Infallible guide, judge, and interpreter is necessary to Tradition as well as to Scripture, and without this Tradition cannot make us Infallible, and consequently, if it be doubtfull and dis∣putable who this Judge is, it must be also doubtfull whe∣ther the Tradition be right; and therefore Tradition can∣not make me Infallible: It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it so materiall as that they assert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine, and make no scruple of sending us to Hell for want of such a Decider, should say this a∣mongst themselves is not materiall, for (as to use and be∣nefit) it is all one to have no decider of controversies, and not to be agreed who it is, according to that known maxime of the Lawyers, Idem est non apparere & non esse: As for the other points between the Jesuites and Domi∣nicans, how materiall they are we will take their own judgments: If we may believe either one or other of them, the points are of great moment: If you aske the Jansenists or Dominicans their opinion of the Jesuiticall

Doctrine, they tell you that it is the very poison of the Pe∣lagian Heresy, yea, it is worse then Pelagianisme, that they are contemners of Grace, such as rob God of his honour, taking halfe of it to themselves, that it is here disputed, Whether God alone be God, or whether the will of man be a kind of inferiour, yet (in part) an Independent Deity. These are M^r Whites words in his Sonus Buccinae. quaest. Theolog. in Epis & in parag. 7.

And for the Jesuites, they are not one jot behind hand with them in their censure of the Dominican Doctrine; which (say the Jesuites) brings back the stoicall para∣dox, robs God of the Glory of his goodnesse, makes God a lyer and the Author of sinne; and yet when we tell them of these divisions, the breach is presently healed, these savages are grown tame, their differences triviall, and onely some School niceties, wherein Faith is not con∣cerned: And now both Stoicks and Pelagians are grown Orthodox, and the grace, glory, soveraignty and holinesse of God, are matters but of small concernment: and so it seems they are to them, else they durst not so shame∣lesly dally with them: But it is usuall with them to make the greatest points of Faith like Counters, which in com∣putation sometimes stand for pounds, sometimes for pence, as interest and occasion require. And it is worth Observation, These very points of difference when they fall out among Protestants, between Calvin and Armi∣nius, they are represented by our Adversaries as very materiall and weighty differences, but when they come to their share they are of no moment.

2. It may be said, Tradition may deceive some of the Romanists but not all: Now it is the Church which is said to be Infallible, not particular Doctors: For An∣swer, let it be remembred that I am not now speaking of the deception of some few private Doctors, but the points alledged are controverted amongst as learned and

devout men (as they call Devotion) as ever the Church of Rome had; here is Order against Order, University a∣gainst University, Nation against Nation, all of them pre∣tending Tradition for their contrary opinions with grea∣test confidence and eagernesse. Premising this, I An∣swer, That Tradition which hath deceived thousands of the best and Learnedst Romanists may deceive ten thousand, That which deceives the Jesuites in some points may deceive the Dominicans in others, the Fran∣ciscans in others: If it deceive the French Papists in some points, it may deceive the Italians in others, and so is not Infallible in any: Or else, what bounds will these men set to the Infallibility of Tradition? Will they say Tra∣dition is only Infallible in France, and those of the same perswasion, who plead Tradition for the Supremacy of the Councell above the Pope? Or will they say the In∣fallibility of Tradition is kept beyond the Alpes among the Italian Doctors, who urge Tradition for the Popes Supremacy above Councels? But what security will they give us, That the Fallibility of Tradition cannot passe over the Alpes and get from one side to the other? Indeed Infallibility may happily be a tender piece not able to get over those snowy Mountains: But Fallibility can travell to all parts and at all times: In short, it being certaine that Tradition doth deceive thousands of them it may deceive the the rest: Nor can this be any way prevented, but by pretending the promise of Infalli∣bility; but this is Heterogeneous to the present enquiry, and they are now pleading for another Infallibility from the nature of Tradition, and that is hereby disproved; and for the fiction of a promise, I have discovered that before.

But the third and last pretence is most frequent; That however in lesser points they may be mistaken and divi∣ded, yet they are agreed in all that is de fide, in all points

of Faith, that is, in such things as have been decided by Pope or Councell: I answer in few words, and thus I reinforce my Discourse. If Tradition might deceive them before such a Decision, it might deceive them after∣wards; because the Decision of a Councell doth not al∣ter the nature and property of Tradition: It is true (ac∣cording to the opinion of some Papists) such a decision of a point may cause him to believe a Doctrine which before he doubted of or denied, because he may judge the Churches Authority so infallible and obliging to him, that Tradition with Scripture and all other things must strike saile to it: But the decision of a Councell cannot make that a Tradition, which was no Tradition, nor can it hinder, but that Tradition did deceive me before, and consequently might deceive me afterwards. For instance: If the Pope determine the controversie between the Jan∣senists and Jesuites about Predestination, Grace, Frewill, &c. his determination in favour of the Jesuits possibly may change some of the Jansenists judgments, because peradventure it is their principle that the Pope is the In∣fallible Judge of Controversies, to whom they must all submit: But (supposing that the Popes decides according to the verity of Tradition, and that must alwaies be sup∣posed a thousand of his decisions cannot hinder, but that all the Jansenists and Dominicans had untill that time been deceived by Tradition: So it seemes Tradi∣tion in that point was Fallible for above 1600 ye••rs to∣gether after Christ, and now upon the Popes determina∣tion An. 1653. it is momento turbinis grown Infallible; but neither will this do their work, for the nature of Tra∣dition being the same, either it must be infallible in the foregoing ages, or else it must now be acknowledged. Fallible.

§. 11. Answ. 7. Although this one Answer might suffice to all their perplexing Arguments tending to shew the im∣possibility

of any mutation or corruption where Tradi∣tion is pretended, viz. that it is apparent, there have been severall mutations and corruptions where Tradition is owned: As it was a sufficient confutation of that Philosophers knotty Arguments alledged to prove that there was no motion, when his Adversary walked be∣fore him; though happily the other brought some Argu∣ments, that might puzzle an able disputant to Answer. (which in that point is not hard to doe:) Or if any man should urge a subtile Argument to prove the impossibi∣lity of Sins comming into the World, because neither could the understanding be first deceived, nor the will corrupted without the deception of the understanding, it were sufficient to alledge the universall experience of mankind to the contrary: So the undoubted experience of manifest corruptions in the Church so called, which no man that hath the use of his Eyes, and exercise of his reason or conscience can be ignorant of, might justly silence all the cavils of wanton wits pretending to prove the impossibility of it: yet because I will use all possible means to convince them, if God peradventure may give some of them repentance that they may recover them∣selves from the snare of the Divell, I shall proceed far∣ther and easily evince the possibility of corruption in that case, and point at some of those many fountaines of cor∣ruption, from whence the streames of errour might flow into the Church, notwithstanding the pretence of, and ad∣herence to the Doctrine of Tradition. And because the answer of the Lord Falkland reduceth all to two branches: If (saith he) a company of Christians pretending Tradition for all they teach, could teach falshoods, then some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors, or have joyned to deceive their posterity; but neither of these are cre∣dible. I shall apply my Answer to him, first in generall, and then to the severall branches of his Argument.

§. 12. In generall, the whole Argument is built upon a false supposition, as if the misunderstanding or deceit must needs come in as it were in one spring tide, as if it were impossible that the Tares of Errour should be sowne in the Church while men slept and never drea∣med of it: The basis of this Argument lies in an asser∣tion of the impossibility of that, which the nature of it shewes to be most rationall and probable, and the expe∣rience of all ages shewes to be most usuall, i. e. that cor∣ruption of Doctrines and manners (for in this both are alike) should creep in by degrees: As Iasons ship was wasted (so Truth was lost) one piece after another: Nemo repente fit turpissimus: Who knowes not that errours crept into the Jewish Church gradually, and why might it not be so in the Christian Church? We know very well, Posito uno absurdo sequuntur multa: One error will breed an hundred, yet all its Children are not borne in one day. S^t Paul tels us the mystery of iniquity began to worke in his dai••s, but was not brought to perfection till many ages after. The Apostle hath sufficiently co••∣suted this sencelesse fancy, whilest he tels us that Heresy eats like a cank••r or a gangreen, i. e. by degrees, and is not worst at first, but encreaseth to more ungodlinesse, 2 Tim. 2. 16, 17. As that cloud, which at first appearance was no bigger then a mans hand, did gradually overspread the whole face of the Heavens; so those opinions which at first were onely the sentiments of the lesser part, might by degrees improve and become the greater, or at least by the favour of Princes, or power & learning of their ad∣vocates, become the stronger, untill at last, like Moses's Rod they devoured the other Rods, & monopolizing to them∣selves the liberty of writing & professing their Doctrines, and suppressing all contrary Discourses & Treatises, their Doctrine being proposed by them as Catholick Doctrines and the Doctrines of their own and former ages (which

was frequently pretended by severall Hereticks) and this proposition not contradicted by considerable persons, (which in some Ages were few and those easily byassed) or the contradiction being speedily suppressed, (which is very possible and hath been usuall•• it could not probably fall out otherwise, but that their opinion should be trans∣mitted to their Successors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day, neither in a civil, nor in a Spirituall notion. And de facto, that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees, hath been so fully demonstrated, that I need onely point the Reader to those Authors who have done this worke, especially to Momeys mystery of Iniquity, and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean.

2. I answer particularly, and in opposition to the first branch, I lay down this position: That the following Age, or the Major part of those called Christians, might easily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age, of which many rationall accounts may be given. 1. There was no certaine way, whereby (for example) the particular Christians of the third Age, might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the second Age. Remember the question is not how probably they might believe, but how infallibly they might know it, for nothing will serve the Romanists turne, short of Infallibility: It is true, the Christians of An∣tioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there, and they of Ephesus what was there delivered, but no Christian could without miracles infallibly know, what were the Doctrines delivered to the Christians in those innumerable places where the Gospell had got soot∣ing. Hence then I offer this Argument: Either this is sufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition, that the Chri∣stians in severall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in such places, and would not de∣ceive

their posterity in it, or it is not sufficient, but it is ne∣cessary that Traditions should be compared, and the Truth discovered in a generall Councell: If they say the former, then they assert the Infallibility, not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome, or of a generall Coun∣cell, or of the Catholick Church, but of every particular City: And to say Truth, Either this plea of Tradition is fallacious and absurd, or every particular Church is In∣fallible: For (to use their own words) if the Christians (suppose of Ephesus) could be deceived, then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered, or they did willingly deceive their posterity; but neither of these were possible: Ergo, The Church of Ephesus was Infallible: If they will eat their own words, (as they will do any thing sooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth) and say the Church of Ephesus, might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Posterity, then so might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria, and so the rest, and what then becomes of Infallibility? If they say the latter, viz. That there is a necessity of a generall Councell to com∣pare Traditions and declare the Truth, then they are desired to remember, that as yet there had been no gene∣rall Councell, and consequently no Infallibility, and there∣fore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding, yea many mistakes: What else will they say? Will they say that a Christian might Infallibly know the Truth by tra∣velling to all places and companies of Christians, and hea∣ring it from their own mouths? This, though it might give satisfaction to such a Christian, yet it could not sa∣tisfy others who had no such evidence. Or will they say the Christians knew it by Testimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions? Why such Testimonials are not so much as pretended to have been required, or given, and if they had been

given, yet that could satisfy none, but those few eyewit∣nesses of them. It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Christians of the third Age might be assured of the genuine Traditions of the second. (which was the thing to be proved) And the solidity and satis∣factorinesse of this one Answer, (if there were no more) appeares plainly from hence, that the great Architects of this devise make it essentiall to such a Tradition that it come from all the Apostles, so Mr White informes us, since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately & ex∣actly, define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostle\`s we may safely conclude, where two Apostles teach differently, n••ither is Tradition. Apology for Tradition Encounter 6 & elsewhere his reply to our instance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this, That it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles, not all, in some countries not all. En∣counter. 2. Hence then I thus argue, The following Christians could have no assurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apostles without a generall Councell of all the Churches, severally taught by the severall Apo∣stles; but such generall Councell there was none in the third Age: Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apostolicall Traditions delivered in the second, which was the thing to be proved.

§. 14. 2. There are many instances which may be gi∣ven of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the pre∣ceding age: We have one instance among our selves, con∣cerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding ••ge in the Quinquarticular points, The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us, that she maintained their Doctrines: Their Adversaries tell us, she held the contrary: and there are Books written, and Arguments urged on both sides; he that doubts of this, let him look into M^r ••rin on the one side, and D^r H••ylin on the other: And why might it not be thus

in former ages? And seeing there are great mistakes daily committed, and fresh disputes managed, about the opi∣nions of those Authors, who have left us their mind (as plainly as words can make it) in books, which are alwaies present to our perusal; how can it be sense for a man to say, that one may infallibly know their mind by a tran∣sient hearing of them? what tedious controversies are there about the judgment of S. Augustine, and others of the Fathers, in sundry points of great moment, wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do, or useth to do? Suppose now the Fathers preach the same things and words which they have left us in writings, (as diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons) can any man without nonsence say, that the diligent Reader may be mistaken, and the attentive Hearer is infallible? We all know the five Propositions of Iansenius condemned lately at Rom••. The Jansenists deny that to be the sense of Iansenius his words, which the Pope and the Jesuits affix to them: both parties are agreed in his words, (which seldome happens in Orall Traditions, and consequently makes the argument stron∣ger) yet they differ in the sense, which one side saith is Heretical, the other aver it is innocent. Why might not in like manner several parties, though it be supposed they perfectly remembred the words delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before, (which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak) what hin∣ders but that they may understand them in contrary sen∣ses, and so derive from them contrary conclusions, and yet both pretend to assert nothing but the doctrine deli∣vered from S. Peter's mouth? Are there not sharp con∣tests among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverse points, and that too among those who were present upon the place, and heard their debates? And will these men still undertake to prove that

Snow is black, or (which is equivalent to it) that it was im∣possible to do t••at which is usually done, viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age? Let us consider one Scrip∣ture instance. S. Paul tels us, a man is justified by faith ••th∣out the works of the law, and that Abraham was thus justi∣fied: the Papists remember the words, but mistake the sence. Now put case S. Paul had preached the same words (as he did unquestionably the same things) which he wrot, who can say (that hath any care what he saith) that they that mistook the sense of those words when they read them in a Book, could not as easily have mistaken them, when they heard them from his mouth? Especially if it be considered, that St. Iames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words seemingly contrary to these. My Question now is, what should hinder, that the several hearers of those Apostles, perfectly remembring their various expressions, might not derive contrary Traditions from them? why might not the one side have apprehended Paul as exclu∣ding all works in the Protestant sense from Justification, and the others have understood Iames (as the Papists at this day do) as conjoying faith and works in justificati∣on? And if this cannot be denied, then it follows unavioid∣ably, that errors may come into the Church under pre∣tence of Tradition, which was the thing to be proved. Another instance we have in the Sadduces, whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition: for when Antigonus Sochoeus a Master in Israel, was teaching, that if there was no future reward, no immortality of the Soul, no resurrection of the body, yet we ought to serve God: his Scholar Sadok so mis-un∣derstood him, that he broached a new doctrine, and tur∣ned his Hypothetical Proposition into a Categorical, and asserted, that there was no resurrection of the body, nor immortality of the soul, &c. And will these men pawn their souls on it, that it was impossible for the Apostles

hearers to commit the same mistakes in the doctrines they heard from their mouths? Hath not S. Iohn given us an Instance of easiness and earlinesse of such mistakes in Joh, 21. where, upon that expression of Christ's concerning Iohn, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? the Evangelist observes, that a Tradition was delivered among the brethren, that that Disciple should not dye, vers. 22.23. In a word, if it be so familiar a thing (as daily experience shews) for common hearers to mis-understand the words, and mistake the sense of a Preacher, when they are but newly come from him, and all things are fresh in their memory, what a desperate assertion is this, that a man can certainly remember the words, and infallibly un∣derstand the sense of those Sermons he heard from his former Ministers, it may be twenty years ago? And if it be granted (as it cannot be denied) that the hearers of the second age might mistake the doctrines delivered by the teachers of the foregoing age in some things; why might not the hearers of the third age mistake their predecessors in other thinks, and so of the fourth, and further, untill at last the Systeme of Divinity came to that ruthful habit in which it is delivered in the Church of Rome? To clear this further, consider (what I have already intima∣ted.)

§. 15. 3. The words of our predecessors may be remem∣bred, and yet the sense wonderfully perverted. Now as it is not words, but the sense of them wherein the soul lyes, so all or most of the controversies in the Church are about the sense of words. And in this, Scripture and Tradition are equally lyable to the same fate, the words may be a∣greed, and the controversy arise solely about the sense of them. For example, the Tr••dition of the first age was this, That God alone was to be worshipped, not men, not Angels, not Images: Nor is it possible that any man should expresse his mind more plainly and positively then

the Fathers unanimously did in this particular. Now comes the next age, and they receive indeed this Traditi∣on, but then here ariseth a question, In what sense they said God alone was to be worshipped? S. Austin takes it up, and saith, they meant that God alone was to be wor∣shipped with Latria, and the Saints with Dulia. And although it is evident enough, that by Dulia S. Austin meant nothing but a civil worship (because he ascribes it to the living as well as the dead, and when he takes Dulia for a religious worship, he appropriates it to God (a) 1.38), yet this unhappy distinction falling into the hands of his per∣verse successors, gave rise to another controversy, viz. In what sense S. Austin ascribes Dulia to the creature? And thus, as in the throwing of a stone upon the water, one cir∣cle begets another, so doth one controversy ingender ano∣ther, and every one of them is a convincing evidence of the fallibility of Tradition. Take one Instance more: S. Gre∣gory, the great Pope, delivers this doctrine to posterity, as his doctrine, and the doctrine of his Ancestors, that whosoever cals himself Universal Bishop, is proud, pro∣fane, abominable, wicked, blasphemous, and the forerunner of Antichrist. This is confessed. Now Gregory's successors have an itch after the name and thing of Universal Bi∣shop: in order to this they start a question (where in deed there was none to men that had either science or conscience) viz. In what sense Gregory condemned this title of Universal Bishop? For this is a Maxime, let the Pope speak what words he please, the sense is alwaies or∣thodox: Oh, say these Sophi, Iohn of Constantinople called himself Universal Bishop, as if he were the onely Bishop, and all others but his Vicars. and that they must not so much as have the name of Bishop, a sense that poor Iohn never

dreamed of, nor any man of that age (for then surely Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch, and Mauritius the Emperour would never have written to Gregory (as they did) that it was but a frivolous thing that Iohn desired:) so now by this ingenuous device, here comes in a new, contrary, and that too (forsooth) a Catholick Tradition, viz. That the Pope is, and ever ought to be, and ever was Universal Bishop. But whether the Popish glosse be sound or rotten, it equally serves my purpose, which is to shew, how controversies may arise about the sense, and errors come in at that door, though Tradition hath made a true report of the words, (which it seldome doth.) I might multiply instances, but these will suffice for a candid Adversary, and others nothing will suffice.

§ 16. 4. This will be made more probable, if you consider the quality of some former ages, which might and did give great advantage to error to creep in under the mask of Tradition, and consequently evinceth how easy it was for one age to mistake the doctrines of the preceding age. To this end consider with me the condi∣tion of the tenth age, of which I shall desire you to judg according to the testimony of their own authors. The words of Baronius are these. In the nine hundredth year of Christ, the third Indiction, a new age begins, which by rea∣son of its asperity and barrennesse of good is wont to be called the Iron age, from the deformity of abounding wickednesse, the Leaden; and from the scarcity of writers, the obscure age(a) 1.39. And Genebrard, though according to the man∣ner of the Beast he chargeth it upon the Lutherans, that they only call it saeculum infelix, an unhappy age, yet he

elsewhere forgets himself (therein the more inexcusable, because he was one of them who ought to have good me∣mories) and in his Chronology plainly tels us, This is cal∣led the unhappy age, being barren of ingenuous and l••arned men(a) 1.40: and he tells you, that the Popes of that age (the principal conservators of Tradition, and the subjects of Infallibility) had altogether fallen from the vertue of their Ancestors, and were rather Apostates then Apostles(b) 1.41. Can any man doubt of the power of Papists to make a Transubstantiation, when we see with our eyes that they can turn every piece of wood into an infallible Doctor? I think I need say nothing for the confutation of Mr. White's argument, but barely repeat it, that the Reader may compare it with the state of this age. It is this: The whole Church, or major part of it in every age were so knowing, that they infallibly understood all the do∣ctrines of the foregoing age, and so carefull and pious, that they would not deceive themselves, nor their poste∣rity. Answer the argument I need not, but only observe 3 things in this age, which will pr••ve 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not onely the possibility but a great probability both of mis∣taking their ancestors, and of deceiving themselves and their posterity. 1. Ignorance, 2. Carelesness and Profane∣nesse, 3. Scarcity of Writers. No man can adjudg Infalli∣bility to such an age, unlesse he will offer violence to all his rational powers.

§ 17. 1. Here was grosse ignorance in the generality of the Clergy, the Popes themselves not excepted. The whole world was overspread with darkness, as thick as that in AEgypt, saith Baronius (c) 1.42. It is reported, that at that

time there were no publick Schools, saith Carolus Sigoni∣us (a) 1.43. And the Synodus Rhemensis, cited by Baronius, plainly say, that at that time, it was reported, that there were scarce any learned men at Rome (b) 1.44. He that saith so ignorant an age could not mistake, must needs be in a dream, and when he awakes I shall give him further an∣swer. If any prudent man (who will not suffer his eyes likes Sampsons to be put out, that he may grind in the Pope's mill) reflect upon the state of some ignorant Country-congregations among us, if he please to examine them, he shall find them so far from understanding in∣fallibly the doctrines delivered by their Ancestors and former Ministers 20 or 30 years before, that they do not understand the opinions of their own age, no nor so much as those which their Minister (though an able pain∣ful and plain Preacher, such as were very few in that age) hath been preaching upon for diverse years together. And yet (forsooth) a company of such men as these (by Mr. White's argument) are free from all possibilities of mis∣takes what were the doctrines delivered by the age be∣fore them.

§ 18. 2. There was an universal carelesness and profanesse upon mens spirits. Neither Ministers nor peo∣ple did much busy their heads about such matters, but minded only the advancement of their secular interest, and the pampering of their bellies, (say their own Historians:) the Clergy then were universally negligent in teaching and instructing the people, (whose ignorance they saw most serviceable to their designes) and the people were as carelesse to understand the concernments of religion. And if this very carelesnesse and profanesse did utterly

lose and extinguish all the sentiments and doctrines of true religion, delivered by Adam and Noah, in their po∣sterity, why might it not be so after Christ's time? Mr. White and his Partisans venture their salvation upon the truth of this absurd Proposition: That it was impossible the same cause should produce the same effects. Nor is it to any purpose that Rushworth alledgeth to prove the disparity, viz. That onely one man and one woman were wit∣nesses of those high wond••rs (whereas the Gospel had innume∣rable miracle•• witnessed to multitudes of people in diverse countries) that the hearers could hardly b••lieve them, that they had but a sl••ight care of recommending God's service to their children, and that they w••re taken up with the worlds plantation, and other secular affairs: and there was no set form and institutions of Priests and governours to joyne all nations in communion, no chief Bishop &c. Dialog. 3. §. 15. For 1. supposing that (which Divines generally believe) viz. that Adam truly repented of his sin; it is contrary to common sense to believe, that he who had such a fresh knowledg and lively sense of the difference between highest feli∣city and utmost misery, should be carelesse in the con∣cernments of religion, that he that had been the unhappy instrument of ruining all his posterity, should not use all possible diligences to heal the wound himself had made; and with greatest instances and importunities indeavour the perpetuation of religion to his posterity. 2. It is false to say there were then no Priests, no chief Bishop to take care of religion: for though there were none that had the names, yet there were that had the office, and did the work, viz. the heads of families, and especially the great and common Father and universal Bishop of all mankind. And it is both against reason and experience and charity to think this natural Bishop would take less care of the conservation of Religion among his own natural children, then the Bishop of Rome would do among his titular re∣lations.

3. As for the wonders of the Creation, they were so great and glorious, and innumerable, and at that time so evident and unquestionable, that it is the greatest wonder of all how they could disbelieve them, or so soon wear out the memory of them; especially when Adam lived above 900 years to demonstrate the verity and in∣culcate the story of them, whereas the Apostles were dead, and all the eye witnesses of their miracles in a fourth part of that time. In a word, though it be easy in this, and all other resemblances, to devise several dissimilitudes and disproportions, yet in the maine there is an agree∣ment, That the carelesnesse of posterity may blast the most powerful and important Traditions. If it be further pre∣tended, that there is a disparity, because God hath pro∣mised his Spirit to guide the Christians into truth, and to preserve them from mistake: I shall only say two things, having fully answered this before. 1. Whatever promise or priviledge of the Spirit is made to Christians, surely it is a most absurd and unreasonable thing, to pretend the donation of this priviledge, and the performance of this promise unto such, as we have now described; concer∣ning whom the Scripture expresly tels us, that they are sen∣sual, not having the spirit, Jud. v. 19. and they cannot re∣ceive the spirit of God, Joh. 14.17. Where the Spirit of God is, it brings light with it, it turns men from dark∣nesse into a marvelous light, it rowseth men out of the sleep of carelesnesse, and makes them give all diligence to make their calling and election sure. And therefore where ignorance and profanesse are allowed and predominant, (as apparently they were in this age) we may safely say, such have not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in them, for where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, especially that which is the principal part of it, a liberty from the bon∣dage of sin and Satan, by whom that age was so wofully captivated, that we need not many arguments to shew,

that they were not influenced by God's Spirit, but acted by the rulers of the darkness of this world, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience. 2. This is impertinent to the present argument, which is drawn not from the efficacy of a divine promise, but from the nature of the thing, and the common prudence of men, and that natural principle of self-preservation, (as you will plainly see, if you look back upon Mr. White's words.) This ar∣gument proceeds as if it were morally impossible for men wilfully to deceive themselves and their posterity, which is not from the influence of a divine promise, but from an instinct of nature, and so this evasion is insufficient. To return therefore (having removed this rub out of the way) and to make good what I have said concerning the carelesnesse and wickednesse of the age, that this disease had overspread the whole body Civil and Ecclesiastical, the Pope himself not excepted, you shall hear from the approved Authors of the Romish Church. Platina cals several of those Pope's, Monstra & portenta hominū, mon∣sters of men. Iohn the 11^th is called by Cardinal Baronius (one who, we may be sure, would do the Popes no wrong, and the Protestants no right) rather a defiler then ruler of the Romane seat(a) 1.45 They were prodigious Popes, saith Genebrardus (b) 1.46. Pope Sergius, saith Baronius, was a slave of all vices, and the wickedest of men (c) 1.47. And of Iohn the 10^th he saith, Then whom none was more filthy (d) 1.48. And such characters they give to diverse of the Popes of that age: and these are the supreme Heads of the Church, the prime subjects and fountains of Infallibility. And con∣formable

to the head were the generality of the members of that politick body, the ministers and governours, (as well as the people) of that age, as you heard acknowledg∣ed by their own most approved Authors. Now compare this with their argument for Tradition, and you will be able to judg of the solidity of it. The two Pillars upon which the infallibility of the argument from Tradition is built, are these, (I shall give you them in the words of Rushworth in his applauded Dialogues 3. §. 15.1.) It was no hard matter for the Church to conserve the truth of her doctrine, if she were carefull; which histories plainly bear witnesse she was. 2. That nature forceth men to have care of Religion, and therefore it was impossible any error should creep into the Church. And elsewhere saith he, Nature permits not men to be sleepy in Religion, §. 8. To which discourse I reply three things, which plainly evince the folly of this opinion. 1. That the infallibility of Tradi∣tion by these arguments depends upon the faith of some few Historians, whom all confesse to be fallible, which is a contradiction. 2. That the supposed carefulness (upon which the infallibility of Tradition depends) being the effect of thatnature which is equally in all men, if it make any person or Councel infallible, it must make e∣very particular Church, nay every Christian infallible, (at least such ashave common konwledge and prudence in them:) 3. Observe the impudence of this sort of men, that dare avouch those Histories for witnesses of the Churches care, which have so expresly and unanimously record∣ed her carelesnesse both in this and other ages. See ch. 4.

§. 19. 3. There is another thing very considerable in this matter, viz. There was a great scarcity of writers, which cuts the sinews of that grand objection which they urge in all their Treatises; That there could be no change in doctrine without schism and a notorious tumult (as White saith:) and they prove there was no change, because

we cannot shew the Authors, times, and places of them. (As if one that had got the plague, might say he is free from it, because he knows not how, nor where, nor from whom he got it.) Now here appears the unreasonableness of their demand and the absurdity of their argument; how can it be expected that we should give an account of all the occurrences and mutations of that age, when they confesse so few books were written, and those that were, were written by such as, were either wholly, or in part leavened with the corruption of the time, and therefore (for their own honour) obliged to conceal all such chan∣ges and defections, as themselves had an hand in. And if any reputed Heretick durst venture to betray any of the secrets of the mystery of Iniquity which was then work∣ing, his book was presently suppressed, and he and it both confuted by an argument fetched out of the fire, or rather thrown into it. So the Papists do by us, as if a man should blow out all the Lights, and then blame me for not finding what I was making inquest after; or as if one should burn my principal evidences, and then charge me that I cannot make out my Title. And yet notwith∣standing all the frauds and force of the Romish Sea, God hath not left his Truth without witnesse, nor us without notable testimonies, even from among themselves, of the successive depravations and corruptions in religion by them foisted into the Church: but that hath been fully proved by others, and therefore I shall say nothing of it. I shall adde onely this, that although I have instanced but in one age, yet indeed there were several other ages o∣verspread with the same deluge of ignorance, and care∣lesnesse, and loosnesse, and consequently lyable to the same mistakes: such as the age before the reformation of Religion was, and diverse others, wherein learned men were thought to be Conjurers, and reading of Greek was counted as hard, as the quadrating of a Circle, and

skill in the learned languages made a man half an here∣tick: and this all records are full of. I think I need say no more to prove the firs•• branch, viz. That it was possible for some ages, or the major part of them to mistake the mind of their Predecessors in matters of Religion. But I must not omit Mr. Whites animadversion upon this consi∣deration, which he cals a ridiculous cavill, and a slander so palpably absurd, that he can scarce perswade himself to think they that use it, are not rather blinded with malice th••n ignorance. You will easily judg his reason runs low, be∣cause his passion flies so high: and what is the reason of this clamor? why (saith he) The Protestants acknowledge the doctrines (of the Roman•• Church) which th••y call errors, were already flourishing some hundreds of years before these times of Ignorance. Apolog: for Tradition, Encounter 1. Shall I return Mr. White his own language? What shall I ascribe this intolerable mistake to? shall I attribute it to his ignorance? I cannot tell how to do so to one of his parts and reading. Dare he say that all the present do∣ctrines of the Church of Rome were flourishing some hundreds of years before the tenth age, whose ignorance I have represented and proved? Or if he say and think so, yet dare he say the Protestants are of this mind, if he ever looked into any Protestant Author? Is it not evident to the whole world, that the Protestants do both univer∣sally deny, and solidly disprove this audacious assertion, and evidently prove (even by the suffrages of learned Papists) the far later novelty of many of their errors? Shall I then ascribe it to his malice? I am loth to do so: although none more frequently guilty of that crime, then they that most boldly charge it upon others. One may by this & such like passages imagine, how vain a thing it is, to expect sincerity and honesty from these men in the handling of controversies, when such a one as Mr. White. (a person of more repute for candour and ingenuity then

most of their writers) shall not fear to assert in Print in the face of all the Protestant world, That the Prot••stants do boldly acknowledg the Romane ••hurch hath had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith, ever since S. Grego∣ries dayes, which is now a thousand years! then which no∣thing can be said more notoriously false, and monstrous∣ly absurd. But againe, suppose the age most famous for its ignorance were after S. Gregories dayes, who knows not (that is not a meer stranger to all Antiquity and Ec∣clesiastical History) that there was in some ages before S. Gregory, at least among the generality of Christians and many Ministers, so much ignorance, as might easily betray them to mistakes in several doctrines, and pretended Traditions? And finally if all he aims at were granted, it signifies not much, and cannot pretend to prove any more then this, That in the first ages errors did not creep in at that door, which may be granted without any consi∣derable prejudice to the Protestant assertiō, since in other ages most of their great errors might come in that way, and in all ages they might come in several other wayes.

§. 20. The second Branch is this. That as some ages might mistake the doctrines of their Fathers so they might knowingly deliver to their posterity, not the doctrine they received from their Ancestors, but some other. And of this many reasons may be given, but I shall confine my self to three.

§. 21. 1. It might be from Gods just judgment, giving men up to believe what was false, viz. That such doctrines did come from the Apostles by their Ancestors, which indeed did not. Nay what these men would needs perswade us was impossiible, the H. Ghost hath assured us is certain and future, 2 Thes. 2.10, 11, 12. Because they receiv••d not the truth in the love of it, God shall send strong delusions, that they should believe a lye: a place more con∣si••erable, because it is particularly levelled at the Romish

faction (as might be evidently shewed, if it were not ex∣travagant from my present businesse. That the character here described suit, with the quality of divers ages fore∣mentioned, viz. that they were such, as did not receive the truth in the love of it, that they had pleasure in un∣righteousnesse; he that reviews what hath been here said, will find no cause to doubt: and therefore that the judg∣ment here denounced should be inflicted upon them, is no more then what might be expected from the faith∣fulnesse of God, and the usual course of his providence. And if they might believe other lyes of greater impor∣tance, and more dangerous consequence, why might they not believe such a lye as this, viz. That a doctrine came from the Apostles, which indeed did not? And because the generality of the forementioned ages, the Clergy and Popes not excepted, were apparently guilty of the sins here deciphered, and consequently obnoxious to the judgment here predicted; therefore it is intolera∣ble impudence to assert, that those men were infallibly g••ided into all truth, whom that God, who cannot lye, hath threatned to give up to believe lyes; of which this is not the least considerable and dreadful, to believe such persons to be infallible.

§. 22. 2. The greatest part of the Church in one age might knowingly recede from the doctrine of their immediate Ancestors, and deliver another doctrine to their posterity; because they might believe, that the Chu••ches and Fathers of the next foregoing age might fall into some errors: for that which is actually believed by Protestants now, might possibly be believed by the Fathers then, Ab esse ad posse valet argum••ntum. And this is sufficient for the answer of this argument, and the defence of our cause: but ex abundanti I adde, That de facto, this was the faith of the greatest part of the Church and writers in some ages, as I have already shewed out

of undeniable testimonies. To which I shall only adde 2 or 3 passages out of Cyprian, by which the Reader may evidently discern, how little weight was then laid upon (that which is now said to be infallible) Tradition, and the testimony of the present Church. Tradition indeed was the plea urged by the Bishop of Rome against Cyprian and the African Bishops: now mark what the reply is. Two things Cyprian answers: 1. That th••y of Rome did not observe all antient Traditions, and this (saith he) ap∣pears from their opinion about Easter: which, by the way, discovers the vanity of that supposition, which they lay as a basis of the present position, viz. That the Church of Rome delivers nothing, but what she professeth to have received from her Ancestors. 2. He answers, That this was but a humane Tradition, and therefore not infallible (a) 1.49. And it is considerable, that he writes thus to the Pope, by which we may sufficiently understand, what was Cy∣prian's judgment, and the faith of that age concerning the infallibility of Tradition, as also of the Pope, and Church of Rome. And conformable to Cyprians was the decision of the whole Councel of Carthage, When truth is manif••st, (say they) let custome yield to truth, and although hitherto none did baptize Hereticks in the Church, now let them begin to baptize them(b) 1.50. And in another place, Cy∣prian speaking of the custome of mixing wine and water in the Sacrament, hath these words: Nor should any one think that the custome of some is to be followed, for we are to enquire whom they followed, for onely Christ is to be followed: and he addes, that we are not to r••gard what others have done before us, but what Christ, who is before all, first did; for we

must not follow mens customes, but Gods Truth(a) 1.51. And in another place he positively asserts, that when any thing is out of order, the onely way to be satisfied is to go to the fountaine, to the head and originall of Divine Tradition, to Evangelicall and Apostolicall Tradition (b) 1.52. From all which it undeniably followes that Cyprian and his bre∣thren, did not judge the Tradition of the next preceding Age Infallible, nor the Testimony of the present Church sufficient, (as these Gentlemen now do) and consequently thought it might introduce opinions contrary to what they received from their Ancestors, when by these alle∣gations it appeares as plainly, as if it were written with a Sun beame, they judged it lyable to mistakes and errours; and this is the very Doctrine of the Protestants.

§. 23. 3. There might be an agreement and designe amongst many persons and eminent members of the Church, to corrupt the Doctrine received from their An∣cestors for their wordly interest and carnall ends, of which almost all Ages afford us wofull and innumerable in∣stances. With the Readers leave, I will exemplify this Proposition in a notorious instance, in a Doctrine of great concernment, (which is the prora & puppis, The founda∣tion stone and corner stone of the Romish Religion, and if you will take Bellarmines word, necessary to Salvation) I meane the Popes Supremacy, I beg the Readers pardon, if I do a little more largely insist upon it, then my man∣ner is, because the story is remarkable, and strikes at the root of this novel conceit, concerning the impossibility of a wilfull deception: Mr White tels us, the Church cannot be deceived in Tradition, and especially the Church and

Bishop of Rome (who by the consent of all the Papists have been the most faithfull conservators of Tradition): The Papists generally agree, that they have an authentick and universall Tradition, on the behalfe of the Popes Supremacy, of which the right of appeales is a principall branch, and the greatest evidence: And this Tradition (say they) came to them from the Apostles, by the Fathers of all Ages successively. Well then, to come to the story. In the year 417▪ There was a famous Councell at Car∣thag••, (owned by Bellarmine and Baronius by the name of The generall Councell of Carthage) consisting of 217 Bishops, among whom was Alypius and St Austin. Zo∣simus being Pope at that time, sends his Legates thither, and pretends a right of appeales from the African Chur∣ches to himself at Rome, and to make this good, he alledg∣eth for it some of the Canons of the Councell of Nice, for he ascends no higher, the more silly wretch he! for if the Doctrine of the present Church of Rome be true, he might have brought that, which was more evident and irresistible then 100 Canons of Nice, (which now all the World rings of, and all their discourses are full fraught with) viz. The institution of Christ, the supremacy of Peter devolved upon him, the universall Tradition of the whole Church. But of all these here is altum silentium. for you must conceive these were Arguments laid up in store (like the Treasure in S^t Mark•• Chest) for some high future exigencies, or wisely reserved for a season, wherein the World should wonder after the beast, and be most capable of such impressions. Well, The Fathers consi∣der his Petition (for as yet the Popes were not masters of their Art, and had not Learned their lesson of volumus, statuimus, mandamus) and marvell at the proposition, and tell Faustus and his collegues, that they find no such Ca∣nons in their Copies of the Councell of Nice as were al∣ledged, and had indeed been forged at Rome (as is ac∣knowledged

even by that Popish Councel of(a) 1.53 Florence) Hereupon a motion is made and agreed, that they send forthwith to the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, for their Copies of the Acts of that Coun∣cell. (A sawcy trick it was not onely ••o deny the Popes Infallibility, but also to question his verity) when they re∣ceive them, they finde that the pretended Canons were not there, and so conclude, there should be no appeales from Africa to the Roman Bishop: (A strange boldnesse in this Councell, to reverse the institution of Christ, and usurpe upon S^t Peters jurisdiction, and provoke him upon whom they wholly depended for the Confirmation of all their decrees! it is great pitty they were not better advised: Well, you may imagine what sad tidings this was at Rome: You will desire to know what their An∣swer is, why then for your satisfaction, I pray you take notice: They have a Tradition at Rome, (it is part of that inscription upon Seth's Pillars, erected before the flood, which Iosephus mentions, the Counterpart whereof they have in the Vatican) that when ever his Holinesse is gravel'd with an hard Argument, and can do no good a∣bout the premises, it may be lawful for him, or others plea∣ding for him, to deny the Conclusion: Bellarmines words are expresse: The African Fathers were deceived through ignorance (b) 1.54. What pitty was it that Bellarmine was not their Secretary to informe them better? The Afri∣can Fathers did rashly, and depart••d from the example and obedience of their Ancestors, saith Stapleton(c) 1.55 q d. they

were naughty boyes and deserved to be whipped into better manners- The more inexcusable the Pope that did not thunder them into order by his Excommunications; But why do I mention these: Behold, a greater then Bellarmine or Stapleton is here; Enter Boniface the second who thus VVrites in his Epistle to Eulabius (an Epistle owned for his by Pighius, Lindanus, Sanderus, Turrianus, Alanus, Copus and Harding, though Bellarmine being ur∣ged with it, pretends it is suspected, but dare not say it is forged:) Aurelius with his collegues (whereof S^t Au∣stin was one) by the instigation of the Devill, began proudly to exalt themselves against the Church of Rome(a) 1.56 So it seemes these Fathers were wickedly resolved against the Supremacy of the Pope, with a Flectere si n••queo superos, Acheronta movebo, and they, whom so many of the Lear∣ned Papists affirme to be infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, his Holinesse declares they were acted by the Di∣vell: By this time I hope the Reader, that is not wholly blinde, may see the vanity of this Argument from Tra∣dition: Catholick Tradition is pretended at Rome for the Popes Supremacy and Infallibility: This Tradition with oth••rs comes to them by uninterrupted succession from the Apostles, wherein (by the Argument I have now in consideration) it was impossible for the Bishops or Governours of the Church, either to misunderstand the mind of their Ancestors, or wittingly to deceive their posterity: That which they make impossible to be done, the instance proposed discovers to be certainly done, it being impossible that the Fathers, should make such a de∣cree, if they had not either been ignorant of such a Tra∣dition (as Bellarmine chargeth them) or wilfully and ma∣liciously

opposed it (as the Pope accuseth them) And forasmuch as these Fathers pleaded a Tradition directly contrary to that which the Romanists pretend viz. That there should be no appeales to Rome, it irresistibly fol∣lowes that Tradition hath deceived, either them formerly, or the Papists at this day. I shall dismisse this Answer with a remarke upon the whole matter, that if the Pope and Popish faction durst for their own base and ambiti∣ous designes, use such palpable forgery in a time of so much light, when they had so many diligent observers and potent opposers, I leave to the prudent Reader to imagine, what forgeries might be expected from them in after Ages, in times of ignorance and carelesnesse, when all the VVorld was in a deep sleep, and the Pope onely vigilant to improve all occasions to his advantage, and had allmost all Princes and People in the Christian VVorld at his Devotion. And thus much may serve for the seventh Answer, wherein I have been the more pro∣lix, because it strikes at the root of the Argument, & not onely proves the possibility of deceit in Traditions, but also discovers the wayes and modes, by which mistakes may be committed, and falshoods introduced under pre∣tence of Tradition.

I will adde but one thing more.

§. 24. Answ. 8. and last. If the Tradition preten∣ded, give us infallible assurance that the Doctrines of the present Church of Rome are come from the Apostles: then the Romish Church holdeth no Doctrines, but such as they have received from the Apostles: But the Ro∣mish Church holdeth many Doctrines which she hath not received from the Apostles: This I might take for gran∣ted, having allready proved it in that fundamentall Tra∣dition of the Church of Rome concerning the Popes Su∣premacy: I might refer the Reader to what I have re∣ported out of diverse Popish Authors of greatest note,

concerning their acknowledgments of their departing from the Doctrines and practises of the Fathers: and ha∣ving said so much there, I shall content my self with men∣tioning two particulars: The first shall be (that which hath been more large••y discussed Chap. 3. whither I refer the Reader) about the Blessed Virgins conception in Ori∣ginall sin. The present Doctrine of the Romish Church (or at least of the far greatest part and most eminent members of it) is for her immaculate conception, as I shewed before from the decrees of Popes and Universi∣ties, &c. and innumerable of their most approved Au∣thors: How much this opinion was favoured by the Councell of Trent, sufficiently appeares from their De∣cree about Originall sin, (though cunningly and doubt∣fully delivered, as the Devils Oracles used to be) in which Decree, they declare that they would not comprehend the Blessed Virgin: The sence of which decree (accor∣ding to that favourable glosse which M^r White puts upon it) was this, That the Councell did judge both opinions probable: Now from the businesse thus stated I gather two undeniable Arguments to prove the Fallibility of Tradition. 1. Tradition told the Antient Fathers that one of those opinions was positively false viz. That the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in sin: Tradition told the Councell of Trent that either of these opinions was probably true, which is an implicit contradiction. 2. See∣ing in this hot contest not yet ended between the diffe∣rent factions of the Romanists in this point, both sides pretend Tradition for their contrary opinions (and both agree in this to hold nothing but what they have by Tra∣dition) Therefore Tradition must needs have deceived one of them, Ergo, it is not Infallible To which I shall adde that the Doctrine which the most and learnedest of them hold viz. of immaculate conception was not received by Tradition from the Fathers, as I have shew∣ed

from the ingenuous confessions of their most Learned VVriters, to which I may adde those words of Melchior Canus, That the Bless••d Virgin was wholly free from Originall sinne cannot be proved out of Scripture, according to its genuine meaning: But that is but a small matter to give the Scripture a goeby, let us see what he saith of the Golden rule of Tradition, therefore he addes present∣ly, Nor can it be said that it came into the Church by Apostolicall Tradition, for those Traditions could not come to our hands by any other then those Bishops, and holy Authors which succeded the Apostles: But it is evi∣dent that those antient writers did not receive it from their Ancestors for then they would have faithfully delivered it to their posterity (a) 1.57 And yet (if M^r Whites Discourse be solid) in spight of your eyes you shall believe, not onely that no Doctrine is delivered by the Church of Rome which hath not been conveyed to their hands from Fa∣thers to Children, even from the Apostles dayes, but that it was impossible any other Doctrine should creep in.

The other instance is that of the Canon of the Scrip∣ture imposed upon us by the Church of Rome, which they say is another Apostolicall Tradition, and yet their own prime Authors, confesse the most Antient Fathers to be on our side, at least as to severall of their Apocryphall Books: Sixtus Senensis gives them to us in generall: The Antient Fathers did hold the controverted Books to be

un-canonicall (a) 1.58 Bellarmine gives us Epiphanius, Hi∣lary, Ruffinus, and Hierom; (b) 1.59 Canus gives us Orig••n, Da∣mascen, Athanasius, and Melito (c) 1.60 a famous and antient Father, who flourished Anno 170, and was a man of great judgment and ven••rable Sanctity, saith Sixtus Senensis, who purposely travelled to the Eastern Churches (where the Apostles had their principall residence and employ∣ment) to learne out the true Canon, and brings a non est in ventus for the Apocryphall Books, and returnes with the very same Canon which we own, so that in him we have the Testimonies of all those flourishing and A∣postolicall Churches, to which Tertullian directs us for the discovery of the Truth: Nor to this day have the Papists cited one Father or Councell, within the compasse of 600 (I think I may say a 1000) years, who did receive their whole Canon, and consequently none of them (for ought appeares in their Writings) knew any thing of this pretended Tradition, but (as it seemes by the story) when the Image of Diana dropt down from Heaven, she brought this Tradition along with her: The like might be shewed in ••undry other particulars: In the caelibacy of Priests, which is onely de jure humano, not divine, by the confession of Thomas, Durandus, Lombardus, and Scotus, four principall pillars of the Papall Church, and Turria∣nus was noted by Cassander as the onely man of all, both old and late Writers of the Popish party who maintained the jus divinum of it: But if it were an Apostolicall Tradition, it was de jure Divino, and the Councell of Nice would▪ never have dispensed with a divine Injunction: So in the worshipping of Images, Transubstantiation,

Purgatory, and many other considerable points wherein I need say nothing, because it hath been so fully cleared by diverse Learned Protestant Writers, particularly, by Iewell, Vsher in his Answer to the Jesuites Challenge; Moulins Novelty of Popery, Dallaeus in severall pieces, Rainolds de Libris Apo••ryphis, Whitaker Chamier, and innu∣merable others: But manum de Tabulâ.

This I hope, may suffice for the refutation of this novell invention, concerning the Infallibility of Tradition, and the Testimony of the present Church, where I have been more large, because it is a late plea, and lesse hath been said of it by Protestant Authors. And so it remaines unshaken; That a Papists Faith hath no solid Foundation in orall Tradition, and the present Churches Authority, which was the businesse of this Proposition.

Notes

• (a) 1.1

  Prudenter Ecclesiae praesenti propter seipsam credi potest & debet, b. e. —non est opus, nec obligatur home ad inquirendum ulterius, ibi tutò sisti potest. System. fidei c. 10. ubi disertè asserit testimonium praesentis Ecclesiae esie infallibile.
• (a) 1.2

  1. Gentes intelligebant, quòd Aposioli docuerunt, & opere complebant, eam{que} doctrinam magni aestimabant, & summè neces∣sariam sibi & posteris suis & caeteris omnibus negotiis praeponendam. 2. Illi ergo primi Christiani doctrinam istam filiis & successoribus & potuerunt & voluerunt, etiam morientes, enixissimè commendare, ideòque indubiè hoc secerunt. Et patres filiis eandem doctrinam sem∣per tradiderunt, quam ipsimet acceperant à majoribus, & eo titulo credebant quia acceperant. 3. Si quisquam aliam (doctrinam) tra∣deret, mendacii à reliquo orbe convinceretur, vel si omnes novam co∣narentur eo titulo tradere, conscientiâ teste, perfidiae & parricidii tota illa aetas condemna••etur, & veluti ad se occidendos conspirarent, quod impossibile est. 4. Pastores perpetuò successerunt, qui curam fidei & morum gererent; (constat autem quòd populi & pastorum una fuit fides, una doctrina. Idem trac. 2. § 5. pag. 114.) 5. Et hae∣reseso tae sunt quibus veritas magis elucesceret, & distinguerentur ret••n••ores doctrinae antiquae contra novatores. Qui quidem novato∣res non palam aversabantur doctrinam Apostolorum, sed esse malè intellectam. contendebant Reliquae autem parti mansit nomen Ca∣tholicae Ecclesix. 6. Necesse est autem eam fidelium congrega∣tionem quae semper antiquae disciplinae tenax erat, solam profiterise à Christo per successionem perpetuam dogmata sua accepisse, nec quicquam aliot tulo recipisfe in fidei Canonem, neque unquam re∣cipere posle. 7. Quantâ itaque ceititudine quisquam agnoscere potest congregationem illam fidelium, quae hodie Catholica dicitur, esse virorum prudentium & docto••um multitudine animatam, tantâ certitudine ipsi constabit eam non esse consciam sibi de aliqua doctri∣nae novitate, idee{que} nullam esse novitatem. 8. Nullo modo potest latere succedanea saecula, qu'd praeeuntia crediderint circa ea quae concionibus, catechesibus, orationibus, & sacramentis exponuntur: talia autem sint universa ad fidem Catholicam necessaria. 9. Con∣firmata erat haec doctrina per manus tradita longâ consuetudine, va∣riis legibus, praemiis & poenis tum hujustum sequentis vitae, scripto∣rum monumentis, quibus omnes in ea retinerentur. Thomas Anglus in sono bu••cinae, De fi et tbeol. tract. 1 parag. 4. & 5. 10. Rectores suc∣eedanei non poterant decessoris doctrinam immutare absque schisma∣te, & notorio Ecclesiae tumultu, ut quotidiana experientia comp••ebat. De fide & Theol. trait. 2. parag. 3.
• (a) 1.3

  De fide et Theol. tract. 2. Parag. 18.
• (b) 1.4

  Sive infallibilitatem in corpore Ecclesiae—statueris, firmit as & passessio doctrinae, quam habet est traditio; sive in Gonciliis,—sive in Scrip∣turis, earum authoritas in traditionem resolvitur. De fide & Theol. tract. 2. parag. 18.
• (a) 1.5

  Labyrinthus Cantuariensis p. 68
• (b) 1.6

  Quando Universa Ecclesia aliquid servat, vel aliquid tanquam fidei. Dogma amplectitur quod non est scriptum, necesse est dicere ab A∣postolis traditum. Ratio est quia cum Ecclesia universa errare non possit. 1. Tim. 3. & certe quod Ecclesia de fide esse credit, sine dubio est de fide: De verbo Dei lib. 4. cap. 9.
• (a) 1.7

  In Lauds Labyrinthich. 2. pag. 17.
• (b) 1.8

  Dico secundo quod testi∣monium Ecclesiae per quod nobis illae veritates (traditae) innotescunt in∣fallabile est, nempe. ob. revelatio••em divinam: quia manifestè habemus in Scripturis, Ecclesiam esse infallibilem—si igitur illa (Authoritas Ecclesiae) noa esset-infallibilis, non produceretur in nobis fides infallibilis System fidei c. 10. Num. 3. non quid speciali spiritus sancti instinctu in∣fallibilitas iis affletur, sed quia irrefragabili testimonio successionem Do∣ctrinae roborant—& sunt irrecusabiles testes traditonis, pro iis decertan∣dum est. De fide & Theol tract. 2. Parag. 25.
• (a) 1.9

  An summorum Pontificum decreta sint ex institutione Christi ab omni errore libera—hec inquam, in utram{que} partem ventilata vi∣demus a piissimis quam plurimis & doctissimis Catholicis Authoribus tam antiquioribus, quam retentioribus quorum neutram partem audivimus ùn∣quam fuisse censuris aliquibus authenticis prohibitom alit improbatam: Quaepropter evidentissime constat Catholicum nemiuem astringi aut huic aut alteri parti adhaerere tanguam fidei Catholicae & Divinae. articulo —De resolut. fidei lib. 2. c. 1. p. 174.
• (b) 1.10

  Nec opus est, mea judicio, divinam infallibilitatem. Romanae sedi annectere (quod omnes Theolgi agnoscunt non esse divina & Catholica fide certum) id ib. p. 178.
• (c) 1.11

  Ecclesiae infallibilitas non Privilegio aliquo aut sedi Romanae, aut Sti Petri suceessori divinitus impartito—sed universae & Catholicae traditioni Ecclesiae—praecipuè tribuenda est: Idem ib. p. 174
• (d) 1.12

  Episcopi in Consitiis sunt tantummodo Custodes, ac Testes veritatum revelatarum, non autem conditores Holden lib. 1. c. 9. p. 153.
• (a) 1.13

  Everfitur traditio, si aliud fedei principium ei addatur. Inde enim est traditionis firmitas quod nihil nisi ex ea ab Ecclesia acceptetur. De fide & Theol. lib. 2. parag. 18.
• (b) 1.14

  Logicis uiti ratiunculis, est fidei & Ecclesiae fundamina in Sabul•• collocare ubi supra tract. 2. parag. 18.
• (c) 1.15

  Dieo igitur quod rationabi∣lius & sapicntius est, etiam respectu Doctissimorum & deutissimorum hominum, Authoritati Ecclesiae, quam ratiun••ulis nostris licet apparentissi∣mis adhaerere: System. fide cap. 12. n. 9.
• (a) 1.16

  A Marco multis & variis precibus contendebant, at monumentum illud doctrinae, quod sermone & verbo illis tradidisset. etiam Scriptis man∣datum apud eos relinqueret. Histor. lib. 2. cap. 14.
• (b) 1.17

  Iohannes ab Asiae Episcopis penè omnibus coactus est ad scribendum Praefat. in Evang Mat.
• (a) 1.18

  De fide e•• Theolog. tract. 1. §. 7. p. 20.
• (a) 1.19

  Cum ex Scripturis arguuntur haeretici, in accusationem conver∣tuntur Scripturarum, quia non possit ex his inveniri veritas ab his qui nesciunt Traditionem, lib. 3. cap. 2. pag. 169.
• (b) 1.20

  Eam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio Aug. lib. 1. contra Julianum & lib. 2. de Bapt. c. 3.
• (b) 1.21

  Eam sanctorum virorum semper celebravit eruditio Aug. lib. 1. contra Julianum & lib. 2. de Bapt. c. 3.
• (c) 1.22

  Sententiam nostram non novam promimus, sed jampridem ab antecessori••us nostris statutam. Epist. 70.
• (a) 1.23

  Quare Ecclesiae Catholicae fidem ac veritatem et teaere debemus firmiter et docere, et per omnia Evangelica et Apostolica praecepta ratio∣nem divinae dispensationis atque unitatis ostendere. Epis. 73. ad Iulaia∣num. Nos veritati consuetudinem junginus ab initio hoc tenentes quod ā Christo & ab Apostolo traditum est Epist. 75. Cypr. p. 164. sedit••il. Rigalt.
• (a) 1.24

  Certissimum est legem Iudoeorum Tabulis lapideis et Deuteronomii volumine traditam esse, cui op••onitur expresse in Prophetis Deum legem Christianorum in cordibus fidelium Scripturum. De fide Trast. 1: §. 6.
• (a) 1.25

  Prediit quidam Dialogus à Docto Amico men compositus—solenniter Parisiis approbatus à Doctoribus deputatis Sorbonoe—qui expresse asserit Ecclesiam ideo recipere Scriptur as quia & in quantum sunt conformes fidei quam ab Apostolis ••er Traditiones accepil, non è converso. Et hactenus sine dubio rectissimè. System. cap. 11. in initio.
• (a) 1.26

  Ex 63. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 strom. lib. 6.
• (b) 1.27

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In moralium summa definit. 26. cap. 1.
• (c) 1.28

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. bomil. de fide
• (d) 1.29

  Evangelici libri sunt & Apostolici antiquorumque Prophetarum sanctiones, quae nos erudiunt quid de sacra lege sapiamus. Proinde hostili posita discordia ex verbis divinitus inspiratis sumamus qu••stionum explicationes. Histor tripart. lib. 2. c. 6.
• (a) 1.30

  De fide ad Gratianum lib. 1. cap. 8.
• (b) 1.31

  Niceoe congregati Episcopi collectis in unum quae ex sacris literis ad sententiam s••am tu∣endam faccrent—filium consubstantialem esse asseverant In Epi∣stolâ ad Epictetum.
• (c) 1.32

  Concilium Nicenum cum definivit filium Patri esse 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 conclusionem deduxit ex Scripturis. De Conciliis lib. 2. cap. 12.
• (d) 1.33

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 —in Psal. 95.—nusquam adhuc legi. Scriptum esse doceat Hermo∣genis osficina. Si non est scriptum, timeat voe illud adjicientibus aut detrabentibus destinatum, con. Hermogenem cap. 22.
• (a) 1.34

  Non recipio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers. de carne Christi ca. 7.
• (b) 1.35

  Aufer Hereticis, quae cum Ethnicis sapiunt, ut de solis Scrip∣turis quaestiones suas fistant, & stare non possunt. De resurrectione earnis cap. 3.
• (c) 1.36

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Dialog. 2.
• (d) 1.37

  Utrum ipsi Ecclesiam teneant non nisi Divinarum scripturarum Canonicis libris ostendant. De unitate ecclesioe cap. 16.
• (a) 1.38

  Qu. 94. in Exodum.
• (a) 1.39

  Anno Christi nongentesimo, Indictione terti••, novum inchoatur seculum, quod sui asperitate a•• boni sterilitate Ferreum, mali{que} exund an∣tis deformitate Plumbeum, atque inopi{que} Scriptorum appellari consuevit Obscurum. ad An. 900.
• (a) 1.40

  Infelix dicitur hoc seculum, exhaustum homimbus ingenio & do∣ctrinâ claris. In Chronol.
• (b) 1.41

  Pontifices ā majorum virtute desecerunt, Apotartici Apostaticive potiūs quàm Apostolici, ib.
• (c) 1.42

  Orbis terrae totus tenebris fuit offusus, Peccatorum fuit caligo, AEgypti penè tenebras superans, in An. 974.
• (a) 1.43

  Scholae publicae nullae tum fuisse produntur, De reg••o Italiae c. 7.
• (b) 1.44

  Cum hoc tempore Romae nullus pene sit (ut fama est) qui lite∣ras didicerit, Baronius An. 992.
• (a) 1.45

  Sedis Apostolicae inquinator potiùs, quàm rector ad an. 936.
• (b) 1.46

  Pontifices isti prodigiosi erant. ad An. C. 913.
• (c) 1.47

  Sergius erat vitiorum omnium servus, facinorosissimus omnium ad An. 908.
• (d) 1.48

  Quo turpio•• fuit nullus.
• (a) 1.49

  Epist. 74. ad Pompeium fra••rem.
• (b) 1.50

  Veritat•• manifestatâ c••dat consuetudo veritati, ut ••tsi in praete∣••itum quis in Eccl••sia baerelicos non baptizabat, nunc baptizare incipiat. Opera Cypriani per Pamil••um; p. 402.
• (a) 1.51

  Non est quod existimet aliquis sequendam esse quorundam consue∣tudinem, quoerendum est enim quem ipsi sunt secuti.—Nam non nisi Christus sequendus est—Non debemus attendere quid aliud ante nos faci∣endum putaverit &c. Epist. 63.
• (b) 1.52

  Ep. 74.
• (a) 1.53

  Nonne vides Reverende Pater summum Pontificem Zozimum fal∣sum decretum & non in Synodo promulgatum ad tantum Concilium pro re tam magnâ misisse!
• (b) 1.54

  Africani Patres ignorantiâ decepti erant. de Pontif. lib. 2. cap. 25. §. Respondemus.
• (c) 1.55

  Patres Africani temere fecerunt & à majorum suo∣rum obedientiâ & exemplis hac in re recesserunt. in Princip. sid. con. 3. qu. 7. in solut. arg. 2.
• (a) 1.56

  Aurelius cum Collegis, instigante diabolo superbire contra Eccle•• siam Romanam eaepit.
• (a) 1.57

  Beatam virginem à peccato originali faisse penitus liberam è Li∣bris sacris juxta germa••um literae sensum nusquam habetur — Nee vero dici potest per Traditionem Apostolorum id, in Ecclesiam descendisse. Cum hujusmodi Traditiones non per alios quam Episcotos illos antiquos & sanctos Authores Apostolis succedentes ad nos usque pervenerint. At con∣stat priscos illos Scriptores non id à majoribus accepisse. Traderent enim bonâ fide & ipsi posteris suis. loc. com. l. 7. cap. 3. conclus. 4.
• (a) 1.58

  Prisci patres Libros controversos pro Non-Canonicis habuerunt Biblioth. sanct. lib. 1. Sect. 1.
• (b) 1.59

  De verbo Dei lib. 1. c. 20.
• (c) 1.60

  Loc. Theol. lib. 2. cap. 10.