Page  90

CHAP. IX. Of the Infallibility of the Church.

IN his ninth Chapter concerning the Churches Infallibility, [Sect. 1] he distinguisheth between the rule of faith, and the guide of it, and then tells us, that to the Presbyterians, Indepen∣dents, Anabaptists, Quakers, Socinians, &c. the only rule is the holy Scripture: But both Catholicks, and English Protestants, though they acknowledge Divine Revelations Page  91to be their only rule, yet they admit certain universally re∣ceived traditions, besides express Scripture. But as for the guide, from which we are to learn the true sense of this rule, he tells us

this is the sum of his seven first Paragraphs, Through which runs such a palpable vein of dissimulation and falsehood, that the most courteous charity cannot excuse it from being as wilful, as gross. For, [Sect. 2]

1. You tell us, * That though we acknowledge Divine Reve∣lations to be our only rule, yet we admit beside express Scri∣pture, certain universal Traditions for the rule of faith; But what are these universally received traditions that we admit to be rules of faith? why did you forbear to name some of them? and yet confidently assert that we hold, what we know we do not hold? do not all English Protestants prove against you, that Scripture is the sole and adequate rule of faith? how then can they admit of any traditions as part of this rule? And though we make use of universal tradi∣tion, yet not as a rule, but as a motive or argument for our faith, as one argument that evidenceth the Scripture to be Gods word, is the attestation of the Church in all ages (which upon rational grounds we embrace as creditable) to confirm and conveigh this to us: and this use we may make Page  92of the very testimonies of the bitterest enemies to Christia∣nity, such as Celsus, Julian, Porphyrie, &c.

But we (say you) Receive the determinations of the Pri∣mitive Church or four first general Councils, [Sect. 3] whom (if we can believe you) we constitue judges of the traditions received by us.

Answ. We do I confess, appeal to the four first general Councils, not because we believe them infallible, but because we conceive them to agree with Scripture, which is infalli∣ble; so that we make them secondary, not primary guides; we resolve not our belief of their decrees into their autho∣rity, but into their agreement with Scripture; we do not say, we must believe this or that, because any one of the four first general Councils hath defined it, but because what the Council hath defined, is evident in Scripture, therefore do we believe it; And if we should find, that in any Article they dissented from Scripture, we should in that as much op∣pose them as we do you: our Appeal then to them is not as Rules, but as conformable to the Rule; and so we should to the Council of Trent it self, had it been as Orthodox as they; but I hope we should not thence make them guides, or their Decrees rules of our faith. Though (that I may not be mistaken) I allow the four first a preheminence above the ensuing Oecumenical Councils, (were there any such) because from their nearness to the Apostolical times, they had greater advantage of being acquainted with the Apostles minds and practices; but then the preheminence we grant them above others, is derived from the probability of their consonancy with that which we avow to be infallible. We appeal therefore to the four first general Councils, not be∣cause we think it absolutely necessary to conform our belief to theirs, but ex abundanti to shew you, that should we ap∣peal to the Church, as you would have us, that in the most pure and uncorrupted Ages, its belief carried an exact har∣mony with Ours; so that were the Church judge (as it is not) the primitive Church would stand for us; And this is all we mean in our appeal to the four first general Councils. How impertinent then is Mr. Cressys Dilemma, * that if Dr. Pierce submit to the four first general Councils, not because Page  93of their inherent authority, but because he judged their de∣cisions conformable to Gods express word, then

How doth he delude you? did he ever deny this? what delusion is it to tell you that I hold what I hold? But then (you say) Dr. Pierce must make Scripture his only rule; What then? nothing but this, that Dr. Pierce affirms what he affirms, and what ab∣surdity is that? a shrewd Dilemma that forceth Dr. Pierce to believe what he doth believe! In the next place, when you tell us, that beside reason, our Ecclesiastical Synods, Bi∣shops or Parliamnts are admitted as guides of our faith, you do but evidence by your imputing to us what we hold not, you cannot confute what we hold. For [Sect. 4]

We assert therefore that Reason alone is, and can be our guide which we demonstrate, because Reason alone is our judge in all cases; for I either have reason for my belief, (whatever it be) or I have not; if the latter, then my belief is.

1. Irrational; for my belief must be Irrational, when I have no reason to believe; and as Irrational, so

2. Altogether uncertain, and its object may as well be a falsehood as a truth, because if I have no reason why I be∣lieve it true, then have I no certainty, but it may be false; for the only certainty I can have that my belief is not false, is because I have rational grounds to evidence it true, which when removed, what certainty can I have that I do not err? But if the former, that is, If whatsoever I believe or assent to, I do it because my reason judgeth it a truth, then reason is my judge and guide in whatsoever I believe, which is the proposition to be proved. And this is easily con∣firmed and illustrated by a few particular considerations; as when the question is, Whether I am bound to embrace any religion at all? I bring my reason to judge, which after it hath examined the weight and evidence of the arguments suggested to it, and found them valid, determines and judges, that I ought to own some religion; after this, my next enqui∣ry is, Amongst the various kinds of Religion professed in the world, which is the true one? here again having examined all their pretences, my reason judgeth which is most con∣sonant Page  94to truth, and hereupon I close with the Christian pro∣fession, because I find their arguments most valid, and high∣ly satisfactory to an ingenuous and unprejudiced understand∣ing, and such as carry with them so full an evidence, as that it will make all unbelief infinitely irrational. And hitherto as reason is my only guide, so my only rule too; for I can have no other Canon whereby to guide it, but its own ac∣knowledged Laws and Maximes, by which I examine the verity of all other rules, and therefore can have no other rules whereby to judge, seeing they themselves are the mat∣ters judged of; and therefore when we dispute with the Romanists, whether Scripture be our sole rule whereby to determine controversies, tis not to be taken absolutely, as if there were no other rule, (for I can never confute a Jew from a text of the new Testament, nor an Atheist or an In∣fidel out of either Testaments) but limitedly, that its the sole rule whereby to determine controversies of faith, among those that profess the Christian Religion; in which sense alone it concerns their dispute, which is not with Infidels, but Christians, who have already acknowledged Scripture to be a rule of faith. But to proceed, having by embracing the Christian Religion received a new rule, the old guide may still suffice; that which could guide me into the right way, will much more guide me in it, especially when its plain and easie. But now Christianity is professed, and a new rule owned, my nex quere is, what party among the several pre∣tenders adhere to this rule, and so with what Church I must join; here again reason must sit on the bench, and pass judgement of all the Churches in the world, which of them keep to the rule of faith, and which swerve from it. Let us then first call the Socinian Churches to the bar; here the enquiry would be, whether I may embrace any thing for Truth, though sufficiently manifested to be of Divine Reve∣lation, if it seem to contradict or thwart my reason? hereto reason it self must be judge, and so the enquiry is, whether it be more rational to believe a Truth Divinely revealed that I cannot comprehend, or upon that account to reject it; My reason judgeth it most rational to captivate and submit it self to infinite Wisdome, and believe what it cannot com∣prehend; Page  95because I, and all the World beside, do acknow∣ledge such things as transcend our comprehensions; v. g. an infinite extension of space, an eternal duration, &c. and therefore I think not their principle sufficient to explode a truth for a falshood; beside, I know the Divine knowledge and wisdome is infinite, and so incomprehensible to any sinite and shallow intellect, and therefore that he may know and consequently reveal such matters which are too deep and too wide to be contained within the bounds of our narrow un∣derstandings; and therefore what more absurd then to mea∣sure the immensity of the Divine wisdome by the standard of our imperfect and short apprehensions? Wherefore we do not proscribe the Doctrine imputed to the Socinians, be∣cause it makes reason the Judge (as the Romanists would fain perswade us) but because it makes it the rule of Faith, and believes nothing for a truth, but what we can comprehend as to the manner of its existence, that it is; whereas nothing is more evident, then that we may be certain of the being of a thing when we understand not the manner of its being. Though I have been already too tedious in this instance, yet because I had rather offend by tediousness, or any thing, rather then disingenuity, I must venture a very short di∣gression, to avoid dealing disingenuously with the Socinians. When then I charge this principle upon them, I have it ra∣ther from their Adversaries then from themselves; for I must profess, I could never meet with it expresly asserted in their own writings; they will not avow, that they reject mani∣festly revealed Truths, because they seem contradict ons; but on the contrary, that they believe not contradictions, because not manifestly revealed, and so they pretend to explode the Doctrine of the Trinity, not in the first place, because it seems a contradiction, but because they conceive it not to be clear∣ly discovered in Scripture; and then after this, they urge against it its repugnancy to the principles and common noti∣ons of reason; and so their principle runs thus, That which is not clearly revealed in Scripture, and is contradictory to reason, is not to be believed; and if there were as much truth in the first part of their Maxime, as there is in the last, there would be one more Socinian in the world then now there is; Page  96I have stayed the longer upon this particular, because as its an irrefragable evidence of reasons soveraignty, so is it a full Answer to the Objections against it; for whereas they ob∣ject, that we must captivate and submit our reasons to Faith, how then can we make them Judges of our Faith? from the the preceding instance we Reply, That we even then place reason on the Bench, when we seem to dethrone it, and at the same time make it an Umpire, when we make it a Cap∣tive: But in the last place, to come nearer our present pur∣pose, and to shew that the Romanists as well as we do at last appeal to their private reasons: If my enquiry were, Whe∣ther the Roman Church, or the reformed Churches were the true Church? here neither the Romish Church, nor ours must be judge, seeing they both pretend to it, and both are the purest to themselves: How then shall I know which is really so? only by examining both their pleas, and then that which I judge to be purest, do I adhere to. When Mr. Cressy renounced the Protestant Communion to joyn with the Roman Church, he either did it upon motives of reason, or not; if not, it was a brutish, unreasonable act; but if he did, then did he enter into the Roman Communion, be∣cause his own reason judged it to be the purest Church; and when he believes his Church infallible, he either hath reason for his belief, or he hath not; if he hath not, then again is his belief irrational, uncertain, and absurd; if he hath, then he believes his Church infallible, because his reason judgeth it to be so, and so the Church is beholden to the judgement of his private reason for his belief of her infallibility. And hath not Mr. C. given us his reasons (such as they are) why he judgeth and believeth the Church infallible? to what purpose if reason be so unfit a Judge? and let him do what violence he can to his rational faculties, unless he become a meer brute, his own private reason will rule him, and in spight of Pope or Council keep the Chair. And I dare challenge all the Romanists in the World to demonstrate, that unless every mans reason be his guide, he must follow chance and uncertainty. Before I pass hence (to avoid captious mistakes) be pleased to note, that when I make every mans reason his guide, I do not exclude the guidance of the Divine Spirit, but Page  97rather imply it; because that doth not move us by irrational and violent impulses, but by discovering to our reasons a fuller evidence or farther connexion of truths, then without its illumination we could have discerned, and so forceth our assents by a stronger conviction of our reasons, which is the Criterion whereby we difference the impressions of the Divine Spirit from delusory and false inspirations; in that these black vapours darken and blast our reasons, and act us by illiterate and brutish phantasmes, whilst the Spirit of God clarifies our understandings and leads us by the rules of rea∣son and sobriety. And therefore our Enthusiastical Secta∣ries, are in part Romish Proselytes; for their folly is the same, though not in the same instance, viz. of quitting the surer conduct of their reasons, to entrust themselves to more un∣certain guides, and such as they cannot know (unless from their reasons, which they dare not trust) but may be meer delusions and impostures.

Now the only exception, [Sect. 5] which Mr. C. following his pre∣decessors, urgeth against this Supream Authority of reason, is, that its fallible, and so may deceive and misguide us. But,

1. If this impeachment be valid, then lets renounce our reasons, and with one consent turn Scepticks; how shall I be assur'd that twice two make four; that the whole is more then a part; that the same thing cannot at the same time exist and not exist? I must not trust the judgement of my reason, for that may deceive, saith Mr. Cressey; what then must I confide in? must I appeal to a General Council, whether two and two make four?

2. Can you bring me to a surer guide then reason? Yes, you will answer, to the Church; but if my reason being fal∣lible may misguide me, why may it not; when it conducts me to the Church; especially when your selves profess to believe the Churches infallibility upon prudential motives, if I may not trust my reason, why should I trust it here? Again, if my considence in the Churches infallibility be built upon my rea∣son, and I have no certainty of it but from my reason, then cannot I have more assurance in the Churches guidance, then in the conduct of my reason; for the superstructure cannot be stronger then the foundation; if then my reason be too Page  98weak to trust to, much more that which is built upon it.

3. What's your meaning, when you object, that reason is fallible? is it this, that its possible we may be deceived by it? but then, 1. Is it not possible the Church may deceive us too? 2. As long as we follow reasons true rules, its impossible to erre, because they are certain and infallibly true. But if men will abuse their reasons and bend them to their interests, they may so, and so they may the Churches Authority; and may not the Church abuse her Authority? will Christ violently force her into truth? Give us a guide that cannot be abused by wicked and unreasonable men, or else upon that account reject not this. Divine Revelations are abused by some to undermine our Faith; shall they therefore not be allowed to be foundations of it? The question is, What is the surest guide of our Faith? we say pure and unprejudiced reason, and that if we will follow its dictates, we are in the safest way to happiness; and though then we may erre about some lesser truths, because not perspicuous, yet not about any thing that's a necessary Article of Faith. But if men will not follow their own guides, but force them into by-paths, and follow the blind guides of interest, prejudice, or passion, then they may perish, not because they follow their free reasons, but because they either stifle, or violently divert them.

4. I would beseech Mr. C. and his brethren, to beware of strengthning the hands of Atheists and Scepticks, whilst they endeavour to weaken ours; for beside the damages they bring to all. Religion, its no small one they bring to their own; for hereby they shew, that upon the same grounds that a man is a Papist, he may be an Atheist too, and that they cannot build their own Religion but upon the ruins of all Religion. For let me ask, will not his exception become an Atheists mouth, and be more serviceable to his cause then to Mr. Cressey's? What if he should ask, Why do you embrace any Religion? give what account you can, he will enquire what Warrant you have, that you are not deceived? what assurance can we give him, if we dare not credit our own saculties? and how Mr. C. who will not allow us to trust our own reason, will answer him, I understand not. But I am certain, let him reply what he will, the doubt will still return Page  99upon him; for if he take refuge at the Church, the quere will be, how he is certain that the Church doth not deceive him? And imagine he could return an Answer, yet unless he at last appeal to his reason, it will serve only to give occasion to a new question. But though Mr. C. by his principles cannot an∣swer a Sceptick, yet by ours we may satisfactorily answer him; for I know, that if my faculties are right, and the common notions of humane reason are true, that I err not, and I will never desire greater assurance, that I am in the right, then that my faculties are so; and if the Sceptick will rather reject all certainty, then acknowledge his faculties to be true, his fancy is so odd, that upon the same score he may cast himself from a precipice, because its possible he might only dream that he was there.

But let us talk what we will of reason, [Sect. 6] yet we have (as Mr. C. * would perswade us) our last speaking Judge as well as they, viz. Our Ecclesiastical Synods, or Bishops, or Parlia∣ments; so that the result of all dispute must come to this, whether the last speaking Judge in England, or that in the whole Catholick Church, deserves better to be believ'd and relyed on? To this,

1. Have not you your self expresly set down the difference of Protestant obedience from that of Papists unto the judge∣ment of the Church? whose words are these, which we find in the thirteenth phragraph of this Chapter: The Ʋniversal Church representative has an influence over the souls of men, requiring much more then an external submission, which yet is all that Protestants will allow to the most authentick General Councils. Now what a vast difference is there between giving external submission as we do, and internal assent to the truth of their decrees as you do?

2. What Protestant ever asserted (what your Church chal∣lengeth) that our Convocations, Bishops, or Parliaments are Judges of our Faith? or when did they themselves re∣quire that upon pain of damnation we should take up our faith upon their Authority? nay when did they challenge any power over our minds and consciences? do not our Divines affirm, that our internal actions fall not under the verge or cognisance of any external power whatsoever, whe∣ther Page  100Ecclesiastical or Temporal? do we not teach, that the end of the Government in the Church is to preserve its peace and unity? and that whatsoever disturbs not them, falls not under the Churches cog•isance? and that therefore our Church doth not condemn or punish so all difference from her in opinion, but for divulging these differing opinions, which creates Schisms and Factions in the Church? whom did our Convocations ever damn for not internally receiving their Decrees? do they not leave every man to the liberty of his judgement? and only challenge the Authority of it (which all men resign up to the Governours of those Socie∣ries, of which they are members) they do not require that we should in all things believe as they believe, but that we should submit to their determinations, and not contradict them; their decisions are not obtruded as infallible Oracles, but only submitted to in order to peace and unity (which we esteem to be of an infinitely greater value then the propaga∣tion of any little truth) So that their work is rather to silence then determine disputes, or if they do positively de∣termine, they either do not then require that all should po∣sitively believe their determinations, but expect that all should so far acquiese therein, as not to proceed in opposing them, and so make Schisms and divisions incurable; or if they do require a positive assent, its not upon pretence of any in∣fallibility, as your Church doth, but because the thing deter∣mined is so evident in Scripture, as that all denying of it, must be willful. v. g. They do not require us to believe there is but one God upon their Authority, but because its expresly asserted in Scripture; but in matters which Scripture hath left doubtful, our Church permits her members every one to abound in his own sence, because she knows no way to de∣termine them but by Scripture, and therefore Scripture not having clearly revealed them, she dares not be so arrogant, as positively to determine them. What impudence then is it to charge us as if we had changed the Pope for my Lord of Canterbury? and a General Council for a National Convo∣cation? and the Conclave of Rome for a Parliament at Lon∣don? giving that very Authority to the Church of England, that we take from the Church of Rome, when the difference Page  101is so infinitely great, between the Authority which you give to your Church, and we give to ours?

Whereas Mr. C. [Sect. 7] tells us that we fight against Sectaries with the weapons of the Romanists, and against Romanists turn Sectaries, &c. its a most pitiful and false exception; for we accuse not Sectaries for not believing our Church, as the Romanists accuse us for not believing theirs, but for not obey∣ing her in things lawful, and separating from her unnecessa∣rily. Who ever urged them to believe as the Church believes? or who •amns them for not doing it? there are many To∣picks used to convince their private reasons (the use of which we allow them) but the Churches infallible Authority is none of them. Now is it all one to say you must believe this, because the Church which is infallible asserts it, as you to us? and, you must do this because the Church hath enjoyned it, and therefore not being unlawful, ought for peace sake to be submitted to, as we to them? keep your weapons to your selves, we can fight and conquer without them.

In the next place, [Sect. 8] when he declares that the Papists are ruled and guided by Scripture and Reason, * and the primitive Church, this is but a specious pretence to varnish over their Churches usurpations; when they have placed all these with their own Church upon the bench, they signifie no more there then do the Russian Emperours poor Senators at the solemn audience of forreign Ambassadours, that sit only to make a shew. The same mockery do the Pontificians put upon Scri∣pture and Reason, &c. when they give them the name and title of judges, and yet deny them the office of judges, and this they do when they make their own Decrees our ultimate and supream rule and guide; for if Scripturr must bend to their Decrees, and not their decrees to Scripture, and if we must have no sense of Scripture but what they think fit, then their Decrees and not Scripture must be our last rule; for that is the rule to which other things are reduced; if therefore from their Decrees we must receive the sense of Scripture, which is Scripture it self, then are they the supream standard and rule of faith, and the sole judges of it; As a judge if he have an unlimited power of interpreting the laws, would be both judge and law too. Thus when the Norman Con∣querour Page  102promised the English, that he would govern them by their own Laws, yet if he did (as some say he did) take an absolute power of interpreting them, and allow them to say only what he pleased, could he be thought to satisfie his promise? might not all exclaim that his own will and tyranny, and not the laws ruled them, because he ruled them after the same manner as he would, if there had been no such laws, and so the laws were made useless, as if they had never been laws? Thus the Romanists may tell us, that they acknowledge Scripture to be in part our rule▪ yet if their Church must have an unlimited power to interpret it, and put what sense upon it they please, and that we must upon peril of Damnation receive their sense, howsoever it seem to us absurd and contradictory to the Scripture it self, they need no more to shut out Scripture, and to make themselves both sole Lords and rules of our faith; its nothing for them to comply with Scripture, when they have forced that to comply with them. After the same manner Councils and Fathers, and all their venerable Antiquity (which they pre∣tend so much to reverence) must truckle to their present Church; for they will allow us to receive them no further then they agree with their own Decrees, seeing we must fetch the sense of their writings from their Decrees; so that Scri∣ptures, Fathers, Councils, and all must bend to their wills, and can give no other judgement then the Church of Rome will permit, if we must (as they contend that we ought) receive their judgement from the judgement of the Church of Rome. Tis a pretty device first to rule the rule, and then to be ruled by it. When therefore they talke of other guides and rules beside their own pride and tyranny, their hypocrisie is so transparent through all its disguises, that we cannot but discern it, unless we were as blind as they would have us; and lastly as for our private reasons, Mr. C. will call them guides too; strange he dare trust himself with a guide so fallacious! but to avoid the danger of that, it must with humility follow the Church; a strange guide that must be tamely guided and led in a string by ano∣ther! if the Church can command our reasons, then must they necessarily cease to be guides, and blindly follow her Page  103whithersoever she leads. I wish they would make their Church but such a guide, and then we should soon agree in this point. If then to exclude reason from guiding us be to become beasts (as Mr. C. teacheth us in the fifth Paragraph of this Chapter:) then what must all Romanists be? for no∣thing is more plain, then that what is wholly guided by ano∣ther, is not it self a guide; otherwise every thing that is guided might be called a guide; therefore if your reasons must follow the guidance of your Church, they cannot be your guides, and then in your own opinions what difference be∣tween a Catholik and his Asse?

Now at length having made my way through this black Regiment of falsehoods, [Sect. 9] I may combate his great arguments (so carefully guarded with so long a train of fictions) for his Churches infallibility and our meek submission to it; but before I cope with them singly, its not impertinent to under∣mine an Hypothesis, on which they seem partly to stand, which stratagem might do me some service, did I want it, that is, if his arguments were as strong as they are weak, and that is this; He through the whole Chapter slily supposes, and sometimes asserts, a necessity of an infallible judge, as if without such a one the way to salvation were uncertain, and controversies endless.

1. But he should first prove, that God hath appointed an infallible judge, and therefore its necessary there should be one, and not conclude that he hath appointed one, because he conceives a necessity of it. I could name an hundred priviledges, that Mr. C. could conceive to be highly benefi∣cial to the Church, which yet God never granted to it; and if we may deduce infallibility from the necessity or conve∣niency of it to secure us in our way to Heaven, and decide our controversies, then why may we not conclude, that some body else beside your Pope and Council is infallible? Is it not more conducive to these ends, that every Bishop should be infallible? more still, that every Preacher? and more yet, that every individual Christian? would not these infallibly secure them from all danger of erring? Might not God send some infallible interpreter from heaven, to ex∣pound all obscure and doubtful places of Scripture? might Page  104not the Apostles have left us such a Commentary? might not God (if he had pleased) have spoken so perspicuously in Scripture, that there should be no need of an infallible inter∣preter to make it plainer? but if from the advantage and use of these dispensations we should infer their actual exi∣stence, the conclusion would confute the Premises.

2. The plea for an infallible guide, to secure us from wandring out of the way to heaven, is invalidated by the plainness and easiness of the way, which we cannot miss unless we will; so that he who will keep his eyes open, is in no more danger of losing his way, then in the walks of his own garden; for we know the conditions which God hath made necessary to sal∣vation are clear and easie, unless God should bind us upon pain of damnation fully to know and believe Articles ob∣scure and ambiguous, and so damn men for not believing that the truth whereof they could not discover, which is highly repugnant both to his revealed goodness and justice. We therefore distinguish between points fundamental and not sundamental, those being clearly revealed, and so of a neces∣sary belief; to determine their sense, there is no more need of a judge, then for any other perspicious truth. What need of a judge to decide whether Scripture affirms that there is but one God? that this God cannot lye? that Jesus Christ was sent by his commission into the world? that he was crucified and rose again? that without faith and obedi∣ence we cannot come to heaven? these, and such like, are the truths we entitle Fundamental; and if the sense of these need an infallible judge, then lets bring Euclids Elements to the barr, and call for a judge to decide whether twice two make four. Then for points not fundamental, their belief being not absolutely necessary to salvation, we may err about them, and not err damnably, and so this plea for an infallible judge is wholly evacuated. And with no more difficulty may we baffle the other, taken from its necessity to deter∣mine controversies; for if any man oppose fundamental doctrines, or any other evident truths, our Church can cen∣sure him, without pretending to be infallible; what need of an infallible judge to convict him of heresie, that shall deny the resurrection of the dead? (which yet some of your Page  105own Popes have not believed, if some of your own Histori∣ans may be believed) Then for Doctrines not fundamental, being not clearly revealed, our Church doth not take upon her to determine these, but if any disputes arise about such points, its her work to silence and suppress them, and when she gives her judgement of that side she thinks most probable, though she doth not expect that all her children should be so wise as to be of her opinion, yet she expects they should be so modest, as not to contradict her, which is as effectually available to end controversies as is your pretended infalli∣bility.

Now my next work must be to consider his arguments for their Churches infallibility, and our submission to it, [Sect. 10] where I cannot but request the Reader seriously to consider, upon what little arguings, what pittiful sophisms, what strawy pillars stands not only the great and magnificent fa∣brick of the Papal Infallibility and Authority, but also their whole faith, religion, and eternal salvation; seeing they make them all to stand upon the same foundations, on which stands their Churches Infallibility, so that when their weakness is discovered, all must unavoidably fall. To pro∣ceed then;

His argument why we must stand to the Churches decisi∣ons, under pain of damnation, is, because in Deut. 17.8, 9, 10. God commanded the Israelites in all quarrels to Ap∣peal to the Priests and Levites and stand to their sentence, and enacted that the man who would do presumptuously, and would not hearken to the Priest, should be put to death.

To pass by many other exceptions that might be made against this Argument, only take notice,

1. That this Appeal was from the lesser Consistories to the great Sanhedrin, only in civil and private quarrels, as is evident by the eighth verse, If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement between blood and blood, between plea and plea, between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversie, within thy gates, &c. Now because these words so plainly import private injuries and Law suits, Mr. C. jumps from Page  106them and cites 2 Chron. 19.8. where this is not so plain, though plain enough too. Now what to his purpose can follow hence, unless he will make out this consequence, We must submit to the decisions of the Magistrate in all our contests and brawls, and therefore we must assent to all the determinations of the Church as true and infallible! But these proportions are at such a wide distance from each other, that I doubt he will never be able to fit himself with a medius terminus large enough to couple them toge∣ther.

2. What more can be deduced hence, then that we are bound to submit to the sentence of superiours? and this what Protestant denies? do not we plead for it as well as you? but what like an Inference can be drawn from this, for an internal submission of judgement? Nothing at all, till he can make good, that we cannot submit to the sentence of our judges, unless we believe them just and true. An assertion ridiculously false. But

3. You tell us, that in this obedience was implyed an assent or submission of judgement; but how Sir will you prove this? I dare not take your bare word for it, not∣withstanding your solemn protestation at the begining of your book. [Sect. 8] And then a little after you affirm that its possible those very judges might give a wrong sentence. If so, then was it possible for God upon pain of death to require us to believe a falsehood; for it was possible (you say) they should give wrong sentence, and yet you will have them upon pain of death to believe it right. But

4. You tell us, that this assent and submission of judge∣ment must be given; otherwise the obedience would be against conscience, in case the party continued in a contrary opinion of the sense of the Law. But we can not submit to the judges sentence without hypocrisie, unless we assent to its equity? suppose they should mistake (as you say they might) the innocent for the injurious, must the party think himself a knave because they think so, like the poor fellow that though he saw the Priest lye with his wife, yet Page  107did penance for saying so, and was forced to say, Tongue thou lyest. This is such an assertion, that I believe never yet any Casuist dreamt of. When we appeal to judges, our meaning is not we will think as they think, but we will submissively acquiesce as they shall determine. Again, tis still more strange, that when false judgement is given, the contending party must either believe a lye, or must con∣front his conscience in not believing it; for if he assents not to the equity of the decisions, he goes (say you) against his Conscience; and if he doth, he must believe against the truth, when he believes that to be the sense of the law which is not.

Arg. 1. [Sect. 11] Next follow his arguments for his Churches infallibili∣ty; The first runs thus: Our Saviour hath promised his Apostles, that he would be present with them always to the end of the world: therefore fince not any of them outlived that age, this infallible promise must be made good to their suc∣cessours.

Answ. 1. I might perhaps tell you, that the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we translate the end of the world, refers to the end of the Jewish state, and so signifies only the end of that age; as frequently in scripture this very phrase signifies only some great period of time; Now if this sense be taken, as no reason but it may, then did this promise dye with the Apo∣stles, and so could not be entaild on their successours. But because I will not be too rigid with him, it shall be The end of the world.

2. Mr. C. from this and the other ensuing arguments, endeavours to evince the Infallibility of the Roman Church, which by reason of their impertinence the Reader may have need to be minded of it, and then its pleasant to behold the wide Chasme between his premises and conclusions, and the large leaps he is forced to make from them to these. Christ hath promised to be with his Apostles to the end of the world, ergo the Roman Church is infallible. Well leapt! Is it possble you should erect your infallibility upon such a foun∣dation, were you not first resolved to be infallible, and then catch at any thing to prove it? For here is not one syllable Page  108of infallibility, and then why may not any other priviledge be promised here as well as that? I will be with you to the end of the world, that is, say you, I will secure you from all errour; and why not as well, I will exempt you from all sin, or from all persecutions? are not these as express in the promise as infallibility? and yet no body was ever yet so foolish as to argue hence that the Church is free from all sin, and not lyable to any persecutions. Again could not Christ be with them, unless he endowed them with infallibility? Is there no other way for him to be with his servants, unless by inspiring them with that? Is not his spirit with every par∣ticular believer as well as with the Church! and must all Christians be therefore infallible? If, in a word, wherever Christ is present by his spirit, there is no errour, then is every individual Christian infallible, and then what need of any other infallible guide? but if where Christ is present by his spirit, there may be errour, then how gross is the in∣ference, that because Christ hath promised to be with his Church by his spirit, that therefore he exempts it from all errour?

3. This argument fights alike for every cause, and may be listed for the service of all pretenders. What if the Church of England should arrogate infallibility? would it not serve our turns as much as yours? What if the Greek Church should urge it for themselves, how would you answer them? Is not this consequence, Christ hath promised to be with his Church to the end of the world, ergo The Greek Church is infallible, as good as yours? that because our Saviour hath made such a promise, ergo the Roman Church is infallible? What disparity can you give, unless you first suppose whats to be proved! And then what answer you would give to them, the same give to your selves.

Arg. [Sect. 12] 2. His second Argument runs thus. Christ hath promi∣sed, that when two or three of them meet together in his name, he will be in the midst of them; surely to direct them; therefore much more when the whole Church is representatively assembled about his business on∣ly.

Page  109

Ans. This Argument is far more frivolous (if that can be) then the former. Is Infallibility promised here, or is it not? if not, then this Text is nothing to the purpose; if it be, then 1. Whereever two or three Christians meet together in Christs Name they are infallible, and then what need of General Councils, seeing two or three honest men can as in∣fallibly decide all controversies? Mr. C. must own this in∣ference, if his own is good; seeing therefore this is false, his can not be true. 2. Doth not this Argument furnish every Conventicle with a pretence to infallibility as much as your Church? Doth it not as much justifie all the Doctrines vent∣ed at the Bull and Mouth, as the Canons of the Trent Coun∣cil? Suppose a Quaker there should urge this Argument for the truth of all their Doctrines, how would you Answer him? fancy what Reply you please, and thats the very same we give you. How strange is it that ever men should damn one another for not believing the validity of such ridicu∣lously absurd deductions!

Ar. 3. [Sect. 13] He hath promised that he will lead his Church into all truth, at least all that is necessary or but expedient for them to know.

Answ. Now he seems to misgive, and a little to mince the matter: that the Church shall be led into all necessary truths we assert; what need of his running to that? either he would here prove the Church infallible in all things, or not; if the latter, then he either gives up the cause, or beats beside the Question; but if the former, then let him speak out, and let us see how sound his proof is. Where then hath Christ pro∣mised to lead his Church into all truth? he knows there is no such promise in all the Bible, and therefore sets down no particular Text, as he is wont to do in his other proofs. Such a promise indeed Christ made to his Apostles, That he would send them his Spirit, that should guide them into all truth, * and shew them things to come, which we find fulfilled, Act. 2. But how can we prove that this promise appertains to any besides the Apostles? or if to any, why to the Roman Church more than to the Greeks, the Abassines, the Georgians, &c? Sure that Argument can not be faithful to you, that is as Page  110strong for your adversaries as for your selves. Ob. But you are the Successors of the Apostles and not they; A. But the mis∣chief of it is, that this is the very thing to be proved. Beside Christ here promiseth the power of Prophecying; but I hope the Church of Rome doth not undertake to foretell-things future (and though she did, the event would soon confute her infallibility) and therefore this promise belongs not to her. Its a pretty inference, that because the Apostles were infallible, that therefore the Churches in all ages must be so; But prettier still, that therefore the Roman Church particu∣larly must be so.

Ar. [Sect. 14] 4. He hath promised, that against his Church built upon St. Peter, the gates of hell (that is Heresie, say the Fathers) shall not prevail; therefore it shall be infallibly free from Heresie.

Answ. As if he were not absurd enough in his former ar∣guings, he must now be impertinent too; what is it to the purpose to prove that God will preserve his Church from being overcome with Heresies? which we grant; his task (if to the purpose) is to prove, That God will preserve his Church from all manner of erring. But what if Heresie shall not prevail against the true Church? doth it follow that it shall not prevail against any particular Church? the Greek Church was once a true Church in your esteem, but now you say tis poisoned and destroyed by Heresie. If then this pro∣mise was made to no particular Church, why must it be so applyed to your own particular Church? Before you use this Argument to any purpose, first prove yours to be the Uni∣versal Church; but of this you presume; its a sad symptome of the weakness of your cause, when you build it upon beg'd and ungranted presumptions, and still suppose your most difficult and material dispute to be granted.

Ar. 5. He hath commanded, that whoever shall not obey his Church, [Sect. 15] shall be (cut off from his body) as an Heathen and a Publican; therefore Anathemas pronounced by his Church are valid. Our Lord indeed speaks of decisions made by a par∣ticular Church in quarrels among Brethren; therefore if disobedience to such decisions be so grievously punished, Page  111what punishment may we suppose attends such as are dis∣obedient to the decisions of the Universal Church, (called by the Apostles the pillar and ground of truth) made for the composing of publick debates about the common faith?

Answ. 1. Because his very objection hath furnished us with a superfluity of Answers, it will be superfluous to Criti∣cize in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by not applying it to any establish∣ed Christian Government, when it may be, and by many Interpreters is referred to the Colledge or Assembly of the Elders among the Jews; by others, to any multitude by agreement convened, as Justin Martyr Paraphraseth it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and so may be equivalent with the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 1 Tim. 5.20. and then whats all this to the Churches Authority? but let this go.

2. Whats this to Infallibility? will he infer that particular Churches are infallible, because their Decisions must be sub∣mitted to? if he will, then he proves what himself will deny, and constitutes us infallible Judges at home, without recourse to Oecumenical Councils; but if he doth not, then how enormous is his deduction? because the Decisions of parti∣cular Churches, which are granted to be fallible, must be obeyed, therefore the Church of Rome is infallible.

3. Our Saviour enjoyned them obedience to the com∣mands of the Scribes and Pharisees, are they infallible too? children are commanded, Prov. 6. to be subject to their Parents in all things, are all Fathers too therefore infallible? we must obey the commands of Kings and Princes, cannot they err neither? and is not the inference as concluding, We are bound to obey Parents and Governours, ergo they are infallible; as because we are bound to obey the Church, therefore that is infallible?

4. The judgement of the Church that must here be sub∣mitted to, is about quarrels and injuries among Brethren; but doth it follow, that because the Church may be Judge of our quarrels, that it may be Judge of our faith too? if it do, we will have all decided by our Judges of Assize, without going to Rome: its time now you should have learn'd the difference of submitting to the determinations of Judges Page  112in matters of right between man and man, from assenting to their decrees in matters of faith between God and man.

5. The Greek Church saith, she is the true Church and you are Hereticks; but to your selves you are the true Church, and she is Heretical. How shall I know to which of your Churches this Text directs me? why is it not as co∣gent to drive me to them as to you? if they tell me (as you do) that unless I obey the Church that is their Church, I cease to be a Christian; how shall I answer them? if you can teach me, you will but teach me how to answer you.

Ar. [Sect. 16] 6. The belief of the Churches unity is an unchangeable Article of our Creed, therefore certainly the only effectual mean to preserve unity (which is an unappealable and in∣fallible Authority) shall never be wanting in the Church.

A. Not to repeat that we have as soveraign a remedy to pre∣serve unity, without an infallible Authority, as you have with it: We believe the Churches unity, yet believe too that this is only an unity of faith, and an agreement in the essentials of Religion; we are all but one in Christianity, and so one Church. But should we believe such an unity in the Church as that it should have no diversity of opinions, (as you would perswade us) we must believe against experi∣ence; for unless we will unchurch all parties but our own, (which would be a most uncharitable presumption) we must acknowledge a diversity of opinions in the true Church, and so not make unity of judgement in the Church an Article of faith. And if there were no Church without it, then your selves must be unchurched, seeing you cannot deny, but that there be variety of differing opinions among your selves, even about the very means to preserve unity. Urge us not then with this Argument any more, till you can prove, that we believe any other unity in the Church, beside an unity and agreement in the Christian faith, and that you are any more then so one among your selves. Now let all thats ra∣tional judge, whether we have reason to believe your Com∣mission Divine, when you can exhibite no better Credenti∣als for it, then these which we have so clearly evinced to be meer blancks, and so your selves, who pretend from their Page  113validity to be esteemed as infallible Commissaries autho∣rised from Heaven, to be most notorious cheats and im∣postors.

By these Answers, [Sect. 17] to which it were easie to add hundreds more, I hope tis clear, that we are able to evacuate all pre∣tences for their Churches infallibility, * without flying to that miserable shift, which you most disingenuously fasten on Mr. Chillingworth; viz. That all these promises are only conditional, and depending on the piety of Church Gover∣nours: I say disingenuously. For,

1. Why did you not refer us to the page in Mr. * Chilling∣worth? only that your abuse of that worthy person might escape unknown. For,

2. Mr. Chillingworths Answer is, that suppose, God had promised to assist the Roman Church for the delivery of true Scripture, would it follow thence, that he had obliged him∣self to teach them this true sense of Scripture, not only suffi∣ciently but irresistibly? he gave the children of Israel a fire to lead them by night, and a pillar of cloud by day, but he constrained no man to follow them; what then if your Church will not follow Gods guidance, is he not free from his promise, and yet you in an errour too? do not call this a shift, but shew that it is so.

3. That you may see Mr. Chillingworth could answer you without this shift, read, and confute if you can the next immediately ensuing words.

How durst you upbraid this worthy and victorious Champion, as if he had no other shield wherewith to defend himself, when this Ar∣gument is so full and cogent?

Well then, the sense of these promises (The gates of hell shall not prevail against you, I will be with you to the Worlds end) is only this, That God will so order it in his Providence, as that his Church shall still continue upon the face of the earth, maugre all the malicious designs of men and devils to overthrow, and quite extinguish her; And so your other quarrell with our Protestant Writers is a meer impertinence, albeit we meet with it once and again in your Treatise of Schism, where we will throw away some time in confuting of it, seeing you are not pleased to afford us any better em∣ployment.

In your next Paragraph, [Sect. 18] you thus dispute:

Answ. 1. As if there were no Church besides the Roman and the English Church in Christendome: had the Church of Sardis thus argued for these Promises, against the Church of Thyatira, or others now overrun with Mahumetisme, would not the event have shewed the fallacy?

2. The Doctor allows them to the Catholick in the sense we speak of, viz. That however she may be distressed, and Page  115brought low, and seem to be disserted, yet shall she continue and persevere to the worlds end; but doth it follow, that because he allows it to the Catholick, he must do it to the Roman (or any other particular Church) which is but at best an infected member of the whole?

3. We will be so liberal, as to grant you a right in them, but your absurd interpretations of them, and absurder deductions from them we deny; you must first prove that any of them promise infallibility, before you con∣clude a necessity from them, that some Church must be infallible.

And to what purpose do you annex a sentence of St. [Sect. 19] Gre∣gories, and another of Constantines in defence of the four first General Councils? If (say you) the Doctor applyes these promises to his own, and not to the Catholick Church, then doth he condemn St. Gregory that professed he venerated the four first General Councils (ergo the Roman Church against which the Doctor disputes) as the four Gospels; but the Doctor doth allow them to the Catholick, and so no fear of quarrelling with St. Gregory in their own account; yea he will not fear to grant with the Reverend Archbishop, that they are de post facto (that is being received by the Uni∣versal Church diffused) infallible, as to the matters of faith determined by them; and yet this sequel seems somewhat harsh, I venerate the four first General Councils as the four Gospels; ergo the promises cited by Mr. C. belong to the (Roman) Catholick Church in all ages; an inference so entirely absurd, and weak, that tis a shame to insult over it; nor will the profession of Constantine any thing avail to prove the infallibility of the Roman Church, but at the most of a General Council only; albeit I cannot see but that it may fairly admit of another sense; for speaking of the Paschal Feast, which the Council had decreed should be kept unani∣mously, he calls it a Divine command, and gives this reason, because whatever is decreed in the Councils of Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath respect to the Divine Will, they medling not with humane affairs, but Divine only; Page  116and yet we add, that if it were true, which Constantine is deemed by him to say, it would little avail him, since none of our controversies have been determined by a General Council against us; albeit for a close, we dare not Idolize the holy Emperour so much as to think his verdict in∣fallible.

But when you talk of condemning all the Councils Oecu∣menical of Gods Church, and our Acts of Parliament, viz. by denying your Church to be infallible (for that is the di∣spute) you talk at random, and your reason, (because the Fathers in these Councils pronounced Anathema's against those who would not believe their decisions) is as weak, as it is old; for we have often returned unto you, that these Anathema's are no good Arguments, that the propounders of them conceive themselves infallible, but only that they conceive the Doctrines they condemn evidently damnable, or at least contrary to Scripture and right reason, and so proscribe them with a rational and humane certainty, (the same we have in our Courts of Judicature, on which mens lives and estates wholly depend, and yet are neither the Juries verdict, nor the Judges sentence infallible) as is evi∣dent from this, that particular Councils, nay particular Fa∣thers have been very prodigal of their Anathema's, which yet were never conceived infallible, * either by others or them∣selves; and thence it is apparent, that we are not presently to yeild up our assent to proposals, because attended with these Anathema's, seeing by so doing we may assent to an untruth, and be obliged to believe the contrary to what Scripture hath revealed: nor can I imagine, to what end you should inform us of new expressions in these General Councils, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉(wherein you are mistaken) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, will this prove the Roman Church, yea will it prove a Council to be infallible? this sure is an easie way to become infallible: would you thence conclude their Authority to broach new Doctrines? then must not Christ be thought Page  117〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nor his Sacred Mother 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, before the Nicene Council thus decreed, and what else you could design, I am not able to imagine.

And have you not a good stock of confidence, [Sect. 20] who after one impertinent citation of a Pope, one bafled Sophisme, and one doubtful sentence of an Emperour, can challenge the consent of all antiquity? whereas the suffrage of antiquity is evidently on our side, who hold the Oracles of God to be the only infallible rule, and guide, whereby we are to judge of Doctrines, as you may see evinced, as elsewhere, so copiously in Mr. Baxters Safe Religion, from p. 299, to 372. but especially from p. 357, to the end.

Lastly, How vainly do you call in the suffrage of the Reve∣rend Bishop Bramhall, and Dr. Ham. to conclude this infalli∣bility, because forsooth they promise to submit to a lawful General Council; seeing they also promise, and so doth every regular son of the Church of England, to submit to the de∣terminatious of the Church of England, and acquiesce in them, without the least manner of opposition, and yet never dreamt of any infallibility residing in them! Yea,

2. The places cited, speak only of a General Council, which finds an approbation and reception among all the Bi∣shops and Doctors of the Church diffused. *

3. Can they be esteemed to have said so much of the Ro∣man Church, (whose infallibility the Doctor questioned) and yet write so resolutely and convincingly as they have done, against her tyranny and superstitions?

To the objection taken from that almost General Apostacy in the times of the Emperour Constantius, [Sect. 21] when Arrianism commenced Orthodox, and Apostolical truth became the only Heresie: He tells us, 1. * That the Catholick Bishops were indeed persecuted and many banished, but not one of them changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, unless you will accuse Pope Liberius, who for a while dissembled, and then repented.

Answ. Can this be affirmed with any truth, when as that saying was almost Proverbial, Athanasius opposed the world, Page  118and the world Athanasius: * when Liberius having the con∣temptible paucity of his adherents objected to him, Answer∣ed, There was a time when but three opposed the decree of the King, and yet those three were in the right, and the rest in the wrong. * When the Professors of error (as St. Austin confesseth) surpassed the number of the Professors of truth in proportion, as the sands of the Sea do the Stars of Heaven. When the Au∣thor of Nazianzens life testifies, That the Heresie of Arius had possessed in a manner the whole extent of the world: * Yea and Nazianzene himself cryes out, Where are they that reproach us with our poverty, who define the Church by her multitude, and despise the little flock! they have the people, but we the faith. Yea lastly, When Athanasius was so overborn with floods of Arians, as that he was forced to write a Treatise on purpose against those who judge of the truth only by plurality of ad∣herents. * Did you never read Vincentius Lirin. complaining that Arianorum venenum non jam portiunculam quandam, sed paene totum orbem contaminaverat, adeò ut prope cunctis Latini nominis Episcopis, partim vi, partim fraude dece tis, calgio quae∣dam mentibus effunderetur? * Nor that of Nazian. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 except a very few, which either because of their ver∣tue resisted, or by reason of their obscurity were contemned, all ob•yed the times, (i. e. became Arrians) differing only in this, that some did it earlier, some later, some were ring-leaders in that impiety (of Arianisme) some were in the second place, either by fear or gain, flattery or ignorance, circumvented and drawn in; which ignorance will not (saith he) excuse them, it being shameful for a Bishop to be ignorant of the principles of Faith. Nor that of Basil, We may now say, that we have neither Princeps, * Propheta, nor Praeses left us; in so much that he cryes out, Hath the Lord quite deserted his Churches? is it the last hour? doth the defection now take place, by which the son of perdition is to be revealed? but if all these must be overlooked, must you needs contradict St. Jerome whilst you had him before your eyes, telling you that, tunc ousiae nomen abolitum est, tunc Nicenae fidei damnatio conclamata est, inge∣muit tot us orbis, &c. doth St. Jerome here tell you, that no Bi∣shops Page  119changed the profession of the Nicene Faith, or did you say it in despite to Dr. Field, who informs us, that in the Council of Seleucia and Ariminum the Nicene Faith was condemned; and all the Bishops of the whole world carried away with the sway of time, fell from the soundness of the Faith, only Athanasius excepted, and some few Confessors, that sub Athanasii nomine exulabant, as Hierome noteth, writ∣ing against the Luciferians? His second Answer is, * That at first all the Articles made in the Council of Ariminum were perfectly Orthodox, and that the Catholick Bishops subscribed to nothing, but what in their sense was true, though defective in delivering all the truth; that presently after being at liberty; themselves and all the rest renounced what they had sub∣scribed to.

Answ. We grant, that when the Council was first called, the major part were Orthodox, * as their Epistle to the Em∣perour Constantius shews; but that afterwards they relented and consented to the Arians, appears from the Epistle of Pope Liberius to the Bishops of the East, who tells them, That albeit all the Bishops of the West who met at Ariminum, * and which either compelled by force, or enticed by deceits, à fide tum quidem desciverant, yet now they were returned to a sound mind, subscribed to the Nicene Faith, and renounced the forme of Faith made by the Council of Ariminum with an Anathema. So then all these Bishops of the West (as well as the whole East, Jerusalem excepted) did à fide deficere, and albeit they afterwards renounced Arianisme, yet confessedly, for some∣times they yeilded to it. And as to their subscriptions to the Arian Creed, where the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was changed into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if that were not contrary to the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, why did the Orthodox Fathers so stifly plead against it in the Council of Ariminum as such? why did they not assent to the Arian Bishops, or the Emperour, Page  120who required no more? * yea, why did the Orthodox Fa∣thers condemn and censure them as Arrians, who subscribed to the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia? but the contra∣ry is evident; for seeing nullum simile est idem, he that saith that our Saviour is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cannot say that he is also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Next for the Doctrine of the Millenaries he saith, [Sect. 22]

Answ. Were there but two that asserted it? might you not have found in the renounced Dally, Papias, Justine, Ire∣naeus; * Tertullian, Ambrose, Lactantius, Victorinus, Amphi∣lochius? to whom Mr. Mede will add St. Cyprian, yea, and to boot will shew, that it was favoured even by the General Council of Nice; and at last St. Jerome, albeit a profest enemy of the opinion, will add that multi Ec∣clefiasticorum virorum & martyrum ista dixerunt? and then might you not have multiplied your two into two hundred?

2. He Answers, That albeit Justin Martyr saith,

I pray you Sir, what Topicks do you use to draw this sequel out of Justins words? especially when they run thus, and anon bids Trypho not look upon such as Christians, and then adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. but I and all throughly Orthodox Christians, (not only in name) we believe the resurrection and the Millenium, so that he excludes out of the roll of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 those that Page  121believed not the Millenium: * Tertullian likewise brings it in with a Confitemur, we Christians confess, &c. As for the double Millenary that our Author speaks of, 'tis very unserviceable to him, seeing not one of these Fathers (except Lactantius, whom yet Mr. Mede ex∣cuseth) are suspected of it. His last refuge therefore is, that it was never condemned by the Church.

Answ. This is not to the purpose; for seeing it is manifest, that it was received by the Church of God for above two hundred years without any manner of contradiction, either you must grant the Church fal∣lible, as the Doctor thence argues, or else speak out and say, That 'tis still to be embraced and be∣lieved as the Primitive Church esteemed, and then your Church must have erred in not believing but con∣tradicting it as we see now they do.

Lastly, Touching the communicating of Infants, [Sect. 23] a custome, saith Maldonate, received as necessary by the Church till six hundred years; he tells us, that St. Au∣gustine, &c. held a necessity that Infants should com∣municate of the flesh and blood of our Lord, but this not Sacramentally, but spiritually, by such a participa∣tion as may be had in Baptisme: which Answer may be confuted out of twenty passages of Saint Augu∣stine. For,

1. He speaks expresly of the Sacrament, in his Tract against Pelagius and Bonifacius, where com∣paring the Pelagians to the Manichees; Both of them, saith he, are unwilling to have Infants freed by the flesh and blood of Christ; the first by denying that Christ took flesh; the second, by saying there is no evil in them, from which by the Sacrament of Christs body and blood, they should be freed.

And again having urged the necessity of Baptisme to Salvation, he adds, When Christ saith, If you eat not my flesh, you shall not have life in you; should I say Page  122that an Infant should have life, * who ends his life with∣out that Sacrament? Yea,

2. He speaks of their receiving the Sacrament after Baptisme, and therefore cannot be thought to speak of such a Spiritual participation of it, as might there be had. Thus in his Book against Julian; Where will you put Infants? for they shall want eternal life (although baptized) because they have not partaken of the bread, &c. and so in his Hypognosticks (where in the Margent you find Eucharistia infantibus, sub utraque specie, fit to admonish our Authour, of what we meet with in his Parenthesis) but most irrefragably in his book de Peccati meritis, * and that in a place, which our Au∣thor refers me to for the contrary. Let us hear our Lord, saith he, speaking of the Sacrament of the holy Table, whether none rightly comes, but he that is ba∣ptized; * and then citing the place, Ʋnless you eat my flesh, &c he adds, Dare any say, that the sentence be∣longs not to children, but that they may without the participation of the body and blood of Christ, have life in themselves? and tells us, we may as well conclude, that it belongs not to the adult: which testimony doth conclude most evidently the business; for these words, quò nemo accedit nisi Baptizatus, cannot possibly be understood of any Spiritual participation of the Sacrament at all, * much less of such an one as may be had in the use of Baptism. Yea,

3. He speaks of Baptisme and the Eucharist, as equally necessary, presseth them both with like Scri∣ptures; and then what ground can there be to under∣stand the one Spiritually, the other Sacramentally? Thus when he writes in his Book against two Epistles of Pelagius, You give to them that are not baptized a place in Heaven, nor do you attend what is written; He that is not baptized shall be damned; nor do you un∣derstand, that those cannot have life, who are expertes corporis & sanguinis Christi, ipso dicente, Nisi man∣ducaveritis, Page  123&c. and in his 107. Epistle, he saith,

I say when these things are so conjoyned in the Series of his discourse, without the least intimation of a di∣verse sense, what reason can we have so to interpret them? nor do the places he refers to, conclude that St. Augustine meant the contrary, to what these testi∣monies seem to speak; nor doth he there say, as our Author cites him, Baptisme alone may suffice to the salvation of Infants: indeed one of the places tels us, that there is full remission of sins in Baptisme, and consequently, if the person Baptized should instantly depart this life (si continuo consequatur ab hac vita mi∣gratio) he will not be obnoxious to any thing; agree∣able to which, is the place cited from venerable Bede; but hence we can only infer, that St. Austin thought in such a case of absolute necessity they might be dispensed with, through the mercy of God; but yet 'tis evident, he held they had a right to the Sacra∣ment, and that ordinarily it was necessary to their obtaining life eternal. Which also most evidently ap∣pears from the Book cited by our Author cap. 24. (he cites cap. 22.) From an Antient, and (as I suppose) Apostolical Tradition, the Churches of Christ have this deeply setled in them, that without Baptisme, and the participation of the Lords Supper, no man can attain to the Kingdom of God, nor yet to life eternal, (which af∣ter he had endeavoured to prove from 1 Peter 3. and John 6. he proceeds thus) If therefore so many testimo∣nies Divine convince us, that everlasting life is not to be expected without Baptisme, and the body and blood of Christ, 'tis in vain to promise it to children without them: Now if this opinion, which St. Austine saith, Page  124was so deeply setled in the, * Church of God, and which was held by Innocent the first, by St. Cyprian, and others, (as Dally may inform you) be not a flat con∣tradiction to the Trent Councils, Anathema upon those, who hold Parvulis necessariam esse Eucharistiae commu∣nionem, let any reasonable man judge.