n 
 
 r 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Theological Seminary, 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 Case, r^.S-rCw-r'.... .P.iviL n_. 
 
 SKelf, ^5^9< / Secti®n. 
 
 Bo6k, .^•>: _ 
 
TREATISE 
 
 O F 
 
 INFALLIBILITY. 
 
A 
 
 TREATISE 
 
 a F 
 
 INFALLIBILITY, 
 
 SHEWING 
 
 That the Church of Koines Claim to that 
 high Privilege is without Foundation in 
 Scripture, Antiquity, or Rea- 
 son. 
 
 Inanswerto 
 
 A Paper on that Subje^ fent by a Popijli MI/Tio^ 
 nary. ' 
 
 With fome Animadverfions on a Book, entltuled, The 
 Jhorteft Way to tnd Difputes about Religion, and up- 
 on .that Author's Way of reafoning. 
 
 By a Presbyter of tlie Suffering Church of Scotland. 
 
 BehoUthe^-efore theGoodnefs, and Seventy of God : On th 
 ^htchfell Seventy, but towanls thee, Goodnefs, if thou , 
 time VI hu Goodnefs-, otherivife thou alfo jhah be cut off, 
 
 St. P^///s Epiftie to the Chrifliansat Rome, Chap. xi. v 2^ 
 
 ')em 
 con- 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 Printed for W. Gordon, l>y T. and W. Ruddimans. 
 
 M. DCG. Lir. 
 
lMKM 
 
 ./inline:'- 
 
 P R E F A C^-E; 
 
 IT will be expe£led that I fhouldgivefbme Account 
 of the Reafons which determined me to write, and 
 publi(h the following Eflay ; and perhaps I ought 
 to make Tome Apology for writing at all, as well as 
 for the Choice of this Subje<fV, rather than any o- 
 
 ther. I take for granted, that every Man who is born 
 
 into the World, comes under an Obligation to do all the 
 Good he can while he lives in it. 
 
 While I was at Liberty to labour in my proper Office 
 I endeavoured to anfwer the Ends of that Office, with all 
 the Induftry and Skill I was capable of, by promoting 
 Truth and Virtue, i. e. the true Interefts of Religion 
 and Society, amongfl thole to whom I had a pafloral 
 Relation ; and when any of them were attacked by Sedu- 
 cers of whatever Kind, I had Opportunities better than I 
 now enjoy, to obferve the Danger, and repel the AfTault : 
 Not that I dare fay, I have difcharged my Duty, in a 
 Way fuited to the Importance of that facred Truft, or 
 the Obligations I was under : But while I am (enfible of 
 my own many Failures, and beg Forgfvenefs of God 
 and of that dear Flock of his, * which he has purchafed 
 * with his own Blood a,' I may be indulged the Satisfadli- 
 on of thinking, I had ufed my utmofl Care and Dilio-ence 
 to do what I could, though not what I ought. 
 
 For fome Years pall, this Liberty has been denied 
 and the Exercile of this Office made penal, not to me on- 
 ly, (for that had been of fmall Confequence) but to many 
 others, (Labourers in the fame Field) more worthy, and 
 niore uleful than I was. 
 
 This fevere Stroke to us, and our People, as we all 
 feel, fo (I hope) we all confider it as we oughr^ that is, 
 a 2 as 
 
 * Afts, XX. 28, 
 
IV 
 
 The PREFACE. 
 
 as an additional Punifhment for our Sins, and Unfruit* 
 fulnefs under the many BlelTings and Advantages our 
 Church once enjoyed ; and far from entertaining Refent- 
 ment againfl the Authors, or Inflruments of this Hard- 
 iliip, which (after the Example of the firil Martyr) * wc 
 
 * pray, may not be laid to their Charge ^ : ' We hum- 
 ble our felves under the mighty Hand of God, faying 
 
 * Righteous art thou, O Lord, and juft are thy Judg- 
 *■ ments ! this is what our Sins have deferved, this is 
 
 * what our Abufe of former Mercies has provoked thee to.* 
 
 Reduced to a State of Inactivity, I began to think how 
 I might be ufeful in fome other Way, not yet forbidden 
 us, and I v/as forced upon this one. The Peacefulnefs 
 of my Temper did not point to Controverfy : For I am 
 convinced our Time and Zeal are belt employed in be- 
 coming good and holy our felves, and making others 
 fuch ; and this (by the Aid of divine Grace) may be at- 
 tained, without our being very learned or dexterous in the 
 Management of a Debate: But feveral Circumftances 
 concurred to determine me to a Subjefl, to which my 
 Inclination would not have led me. 
 
 Soon after the great Revolution which happened in 
 Britain, towards the End of the laft Century, one fifth 
 Part of the Bifhops of Englandy with fome hundreds of 
 their Clergy, and all the Bifliops of Scotland^ with molt 
 of theirs, were deprived, on Account of their Non-com- 
 pliance wiih the prevailing Meafures of that Time ; and 
 even Eptfiopacy itielf was abolifhed here. 
 
 Thefe deprived Churchmen (who are allowed to have 
 had no. fmall Share of Learning and Probity) had enter- 
 tained fome Opinions (and no doubt thought them harm- 
 
 Jefs ones^i that Dominion is not founded in Grace.- . 
 
 That MiiUkes in Religion do not forfeit one's natural 
 Right. ■■■ That as ChriAianity recommends Suffering 
 rather than Refinance, the fame SubmilTion and Fidelity 
 wis due by them to a popiili Prince, which the firA and 
 
 beA 
 
 «> Afts, vii. 60. 
 
The P RE F AC E. ,v 
 
 beft Chriftians had paid to Heathen Perfecutors And 
 
 corifequently, That the Allegiance which they owed, and 
 had fworn to King James and his Heirs, could not be 
 transferred to any other. 
 
 Such were the Sentiments of the pious Dr. Thomas 
 Kenn, the deprived Biftiopof i?^/;^ and IVelhy as he tells 
 us in a Dedication to his exiled Mafter, of a little Book 
 (The Royal Sufferer) printed after his Deprivation. 
 
 * Your royal Father (fays he) was a Proteftant, and lived 
 
 * and died in, and for that ProfefTion, and I could hearti- 
 
 * ly wiih that your Majefty was fo too ; for then wc 
 
 * might quickly hope to fee an End of our prefent Mi- 
 
 * feries in a fhort Time. But though fb great a Bleffing 
 
 * be denied us, yet fhall my Loyalty and Duty approve 
 
 * itfelf the farrie, as if you were fb ; for I cannot con- 
 
 * eeive (whatever fome may think) that your Majefty's 
 
 * being of another Perfuafion than my felf, can difcharge 
 ' me of my Allegiance to you : And I hope your Ma- 
 
 * jefty will not the lefs regard what I have here written', 
 
 * becaufe I profefs my felf, as I always did, to be a Mem- 
 
 * ber, and an unworthy Son of the Church o^ Euglaitd* 
 Though thefe profcribed Prelates and their Clergy had 
 made a vigorous (and mod: elFeclual) Oppofition to Po- 
 pery, in a Time of great Jealoufy and Trial, yet theie 
 memorable Services were then forgotten. 
 
 The Apoftle fays, * That whofoever keeps the whole 
 
 * Law, and offends in one Point, is guilty of all c.» Such, 
 was the Cafe here, that whofoever could not go all Lengths 
 in Revolution Principles and Meafures, was doomed a 
 Malignant and a Papift ; and accordingly an Opinion 
 was induflrioufly propagated (chiefly among thofe who 
 knew no better) that the obflinate Adherence of thefe 
 fuffering Churchmen to the Rights of a banifhed Prince, 
 proceeded from fome fecret Bias to his Religion. 
 
 There could fcarce have been devifed any Sufpiclon 
 more groundlefs, or Surmife more injurious to them tharj 
 
 th>s 
 
 « St, James, ii, it. 
 
VI The P R E F AC E. 
 
 this was ; as appears from a Paragraph in the Paper 
 
 juft now mentioned. * If your Majefty (fays Bifhop 
 
 *■ Ke?in) would vouchfafe to bear with me a little, I could 
 
 * eafily demonftrate this Q. e, the Communion of the 
 
 * Church of England) to be the moft fafe Way. For if 
 'lam regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and made a Ghrifti- 
 
 * an by true Baptifm, believing the Scriptures, can it 
 
 * with any Colour of Reafon be fuppofed, that I fhall 
 
 * fuffer Damnation/for not equally believing Traditions ? 
 
 * And if I make Confcience to ferve and worfhip God, 
 
 * can it be thought I fhall perifh for not worfhipping I- 
 
 * mages? If I pray to God, as our Blefled Saviour hath 
 
 * taught me, faying, Our Father, <bc, who can think I 
 *■ fhould incur the Sentence of Damnation, for not invo- 
 
 * eating Saints and Angels ? And if I receive the holy 
 
 * Communion of the Body and Blood of Chrift, in both 
 *- Kinds, according to Chrift's Inftitution, as even the 
 
 '* Roman Church confefTeth, who can believe I fhall be 
 
 * damned becaufe the Cup is taken away by a Council ? 
 
 * Thefe Things I urge with all Humility, only to let your 
 
 * Majefty fee, what Reafon I have to believe the Prote* 
 
 * flant Religion to be the mofl fafe Way.* 
 
 But this was not all, the fame Malice which mifrepre- 
 Icnted thefe harmlefs Men, as leaning towards Popery, 
 contrived and brought forth Com. plaints againft them, as 
 Firebrands, and Enemies to their Country. Several fly- 
 ing Papers and Pamphlets were publifhed, particularly a 
 very fiirewd one, intituled ' A modefl Inquiry into the 
 
 * Caufes of the prefent DifaAers ;' wherein they were 
 called (in way of Irony and Reproach) the holy, Jacobite^ 
 Lambeth Club, and publickly charged with having con- 
 trived and carried on (efpecially in their Meetings at Lam* 
 
 heth) a Plot for the Ruin o^ England ; with having 
 
 prefented, or cauled to be prefented for that Purpofe, a 
 certain Memorial to the French King; and with keep- 
 ing a conllant Correfpondence with his MinillerS; in or- 
 der to a French Inva/ion, <bc, 
 
 Thefe 
 
The PREFACE, \% 
 
 Thefe Inveftives were like to ftrike fo deep in theif 
 Confequenceg, that the dijfsntlent Prelates found it necef- 
 fary to vindicate themfclves from thofe Calumnies, oa 
 Purpofe to refcue their injured Characters, and (if pofli- 
 ble) to preferve their Perfons from the Fury of the Mob^ 
 which (they had Reafon to fear) thefe Hackney Writers, 
 and falle Accufers intended to fplrit up againfl them. 
 
 Accordingly a folemn Proteftation of their Innocence 
 was drawn up, and printed, intituled, * A Vindication 
 
 * of the Archbifhop, and feveral other Biftiops, from the 
 
 * Imputations and Calumnies caft upon them by the Au*. 
 
 * thor of the ModeA Enquiry, drc. <l.' 
 
 This Paper was figned by the Archbifhop of Canter^ 
 bury, the Bifhops of Norimch, Ely, Bath and Wells, and 
 Peterborovj, (and in a Poftfcript, taking burden for their 
 Brother o^Ghucefter, as being of the fame Sentiments 
 with them, though not then prefent to fign) wherein 
 they (in moft folemn and awful Manner) as in the Pre^ 
 Tence of God, proteft and declare (Jnter alia) * That 
 
 * neither they, nor any of them, ever held zivj Corre^ 
 ' fpondence directly or indireftly, with Monfieiir de CroiJJy^ 
 
 * or with any Minifler or Agent of France. That if 
 
 * any fuch Memorial as the Libel mentions, was ever 
 
 * really prefented to the French King, they never knew 
 
 * any Thing of it, or any Thing relating to it. That 
 
 * they did utterly renounce both that, and all other In- 
 
 * vitations fuggeAed to be made by them, in order to 
 ' any Invafion of this Kingdom by the French, That 
 
 * they utterly denied and difavowed all Plots charged up- 
 
 * on them, as contrived or carried on in their Meetings 
 
 * at Lambeth, the Intent thereof being to advife, how 
 
 < in their prefent Difficulties they might beft keep Con- 
 
 * fcicnces void of Offence toiuards God and toivards Man, 
 
 * That they were fo far from being the Authors or Abet- 
 
 < tors of England's Miferics, (whatever the Spirit of Lying 
 
 b * and 
 
 ^ LifcofMr. Kettlewell by R.Ndfon, p. to<5. &c, pnnted for I^, 
 Brown, A, Ciiurchili and J. Knapton&c. London, 171^. 
 
tiii the P RE F AC E. 
 
 * and Calumny might vent againfl them) that they ever 
 ' did, and (to their dying Hour) ever would heartily and 
 
 * incefTantly pray for the Peace, Profperity and Glory 
 
 * o^ England, and would always by God's Grace, make 
 
 * it their daily Praftice, to fludy to be quiet, to bear their 
 ' Crofs patiently, and to feek the Good of their native 
 
 * Country. And that whoever was the Author of the 
 
 ' Libel, (which was to them unknown) they defired (ac- 
 
 * cording to the Command and Example of our blefTed 
 
 * Lord) to return him Good for Evil ; and though he 
 
 * barbaroufly endeavoured to raile in the whole Englijh 
 
 * Kation fuch a Fury, as might end in De imtting them, 
 ' (a bloody 'Word, but too well underflood) they recom- 
 
 * mended him to the divine Mercy, humbly befeeching 
 
 * God to forgive him, dr. 6^/ 
 
 This Vindication had that good EfFeiH:, as to calm in 
 fbme Meafure that dreadful Storm which had (with a 
 great deal of Artifice) been raifed againfl the deprived 
 Bifhops ; nay, there were fome zealous enough for the 
 Revokuion, but who had in them a greater Share of good 
 Nature and CompafTion than many others had, who were 
 difpofed to allow, that thefe worthy Prelates, who were 
 difobedient to the ne-w Statute, but had upon a former 
 Occafion made fb glorious a Stand for the Religion and 
 Laws of their Country, fhould either be continued in 
 their Places, under fome certain Limitations, or fhould 
 at leaft have fome particular Mark of Favour and Diflin- 
 ^ion conferred upon them, whereby they might fit eafy 
 and undifburbed. For they were of Opinion, that no 
 Danger could enfue to the Government, from tolerating 
 thofe pious Men, whofe chief Aims were in the other 
 AVorld ; becaufethey who chole fufferingforConlcience, 
 would not (probably) think of refloring their Fortunes 
 by Violence ; and that as the Narrownefs of their Minds 
 kindred their Compliance, the fame felf denying Princi- 
 ples would prevent their giving any publick Difturbance. 
 But there were others, (and thefe the more numerous 
 and powerful Party) fo violently dilgufled at Non-com- 
 pliance, 
 
The PREFACE. ik 
 
 pliance, that they would hear of no Mitigation, or Re^ 
 laxation whatfoever, in Favour of the deprived Prelates 
 and Clergy. 
 
 However, this leafbnable Vindication diverted a- 
 ny Attack from the Mob at that Time, and refcued 
 them from the Sufpicion of plotting againft the Quiet 
 and Liberty of their Country; which was (b far happy 
 for them : But they were not fo fortunate as to the o- 
 ther Article they were charged with. 
 
 After all that they had done, and faid, and preach- 
 ed, and written, in Oppofition to the Errors of 
 the Roman Church ; after all the Declarations, and 
 flrongefl Evidence they could give, of their fmcere, 
 fteady Attachment to the Do£lrine, Worfhip and Po- 
 lity of the reformed Church of England, the Sufpi- 
 cion of being popljhly affe6led (firfl invented by Malice 
 or Policy) was fupported by Art and Induflry, and flill 
 runs, (amongfl the Unthinking) not only againfl thefe 
 great and pious Men, but againfl all others of their 
 Sentiments and Communion. 
 
 Next to a good and quiet Confcience, a clear and un- 
 blemifhed Reputation is amongft the greateft Bleinngs 
 Men can enjoy upon Earth : To preferve this is a Du- 
 ty, and ought to be a Part of our Care ; fmce w^ 
 are enjoined to * provide things honeft, not only 
 
 * in the Sight of God, but of Men too e ;* ' to cut 
 
 * off Occafion from them that leek Occafion againfl 
 ' us f;* and * not to let our Good be evil fpoken 
 
 * of g.' 
 
 I thought therefore, that to dete£l and confute 
 fome of the chief Errors, or rather, I may fay, the 
 fundamental Error of Popery, (being that which props 
 and fkreens all the reft) had a direft Tendency to 
 wipe off this vile Alperfion, equally falfe and hurtful. 
 
 b % And 
 
 • Rom. xli. 17. 
 / 2 Cor. xi. 12. 
 % i^gm. 3tiv. i5. 
 
,[ The P RE F ACE. 
 
 And this may fuffice for the general Reafon which dc* 
 termined me Xo this Subjeci:. 
 
 Being thus engaged to write on fome Article of the 
 Controverfy between the Church o^ Rome and lis, there 
 was no Room |eft to hefitate what that Article fhould 
 be. 
 
 Their Doflrine of Infallihiltty is the Trojan Horfe 
 of the Roman Church ; it brings Conqueft, Ruin, and 
 Deftru6lion, wherever it finds Admittance. It is the 
 jugulum caufce between them and us : If they prove it 
 true, all that they have built upon it muft be true like^ 
 wife : But if it is found falfe and groundlefs, all that 
 they have railed upon that Foundation, muft tumble 
 down of Courfe. So that to attack this their ftrong Hold, 
 is like ftorming a Citadel, or laying the Axe to the 
 Koot of the Tree. "Whether I have done this with a- 
 jiy Skill and Succefs, I muft leave the intelligent, im- 
 partial Reader to judge, and the Event to determine. 
 
 About ieventy Years ago the Roman Mifuonaries came 
 furnifhed with all the Arguments they could bring on 
 the feveral Branches of the Controverfy betwixt them 
 and us, which are not a few. The Divines of the Church 
 o^ England that then were, being equal in Learning to 
 any others in the World, and having the Advantage 
 of Truth on their Side, baffled all the Attempts of their 
 Adverfaries, turned their own Artillery againft them, 
 drove then^ out of the Field, and made them aftiamed 
 of their Caufe. 
 
 From that Time they have contented themfelves 
 with SkirmiQiings and Surprizes, and avoided coming 
 to clofe Action : But, that they might make the beft 
 Retreat they could, they form themfelves every now 
 and then into a Sort of hollow Square, from whence 
 they throw Squibs and Hand-granads, maintain- 
 ing a Kind of running Fight, in which they feldom 
 ufe any other Weapon now, than i\\q Infallibility of 
 their Church, and (which is fomewhat like the Smoke 
 after a Difcharge) the Supremacy of their Biihop, an4 
 
 that 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 that by divine Appointment too. Thefe two Articles 
 of their Religion are as fanciful and groundlefs as any, 
 but being more wrapt up than others are in the Clouds 
 of Fallacy and Obfcurities of Tradition, are not lb ob- 
 vious to every ordinary Obferver. 
 
 This brought to my Remembrance the very wife In- 
 flruclion given by the King of Syria to the Officers of 
 his Army * to fight neither with fmall nor great, but 
 
 * with the King of Ifrael only h/ that their fierceft 
 
 Attack, or ftrongefl Defence might be oppofed to the 
 greateft Danger. 
 
 Upon this Plan of Operation, it was fit to begin at 
 the Bottom, and attack them in their main Strength ; 
 and if I have fucceeded in the Attempt, it will prove 
 like Aaron's Rod in Egypf^ eating up * all the Ser- 
 
 * pents of the Magicians i.' 1 do not mean as to the 
 
 Miracle, but as to the Effeft. 
 
 And as in this Article they lay great Strefs upon 
 Antiquity, Tradition, and Prefcription, t have been 
 careful to wipe off this falfe Colouring, their artificial 
 Paint, and to fhew that all their thin Pretences are no 
 better than the dry mouldy * Bread of the Gibeomtes ^, 
 
 * pretended indeed to have come from far, and to have 
 
 * been long kept, but (upon Trial) found to have been 
 ^ baked of late, and in the Neighbourhood.* 
 
 This was enough to have challenged a Preference to 
 this Point of Difpute, had I been left to my Choice, 
 but that was not the Gale, for NeceiTity was laid upon 
 me to begin here. 
 
 Some Time ago, a Paper was put into my Hand, 
 written ex profe^o on this Subject of Infallibility, by a 
 RotnlJJ} MifTionary : The Paper itfelf, which contains all 
 the beA Arguments they are able to bring forth, and 
 jhe* Dignity of the Perfon intended to be feduced into 
 
 their 
 
 * I Kings, xxii. 3t; 
 » Exod. vii. 
 
xK Tif PREFACE. 
 
 their Communion, by this Means, {hew plainly, the 
 Milfionary employed in that Service to have been one 
 of the mofl capable and fit they had to employ in the 
 Bufinefs of making Pro(elytes. 
 
 Thus a Tafk, which might have come into better 
 Hands, was laid upon me, and I was earneftly called up- 
 on to give a diftinft Anfwer to this Paper, (Paragraph 
 by Paragraph) by diicovering the Weaknefs and Fallacy 
 of the leveral Arguments it contains for propping this 
 Dagon of Rome, 
 
 Being thus fairly engaged, I thought it would not be 
 from thePurpofe to take fome notice (as I went along) of 
 a Book printed more than thirty Years ago, chiefly on the 
 fame Queftion, and entituled, The Jhortefl Way to end 
 Dlfputes about Religion, The Author (whoever he was) 
 has been a Man of great Addrefs, but deftitute of due 
 Regard to Truth, Decency, and common Honefty. And 
 his "Work is fuch a Mixture of Wit and Falfhood, of 
 Ridicule and Sophiftry, as could not fail to puzzle 
 and endanger (even while it entertains) the unlearned 
 and unwary Reader. I have therefore taken the Liber- 
 ty to animadvert a little upon it, as it came in my 
 Way, which has fwelled my Eflay beyond the Size I 
 intended. 
 
 Though I have fometimes been provoked to treat 
 the Author of this lafl named Book with lefs Decorum 
 than ought to be amongft Churchmen, or Scholars, 
 (for which I beg the Reader's Pardon) I here declare 
 that I have no Rancour, Spite, or Party Rage againft 
 Chriflians of any Profeflion or Denomination. 
 
 My great Aim in this Treatile has been to difcover and 
 point out the Side of the Queflion on which Truth lies, to 
 eftablifh the firm Belief and Profeflion of it, and (though 
 I may not be fo happy as to Hop the Mouths of Gain- 
 fayers) to fortify all Proteftants againfl the Attacks of 
 them who ly in wait to deceive. 
 
 But there are two Sorts of Perfous I have chiefly in 
 
 Vie\y 
 
The PREFACE. 
 
 xiu 
 
 View to ferve by the Publicatfon of this Eflay, and 
 who I fincerely wifli may be profited by it. 
 
 I fhould be glad if it were of any Ufe to the Chari- 
 ty Schools in the Highlands, and other remote Parts of 
 Scotland. Perhaps the frequent Mention of Bifliops 
 and the other Orders of Ecclefiaflicks, may give them 
 Offence, which I would be forry for, though I could 
 not avoid it, as I muft: fpeak the Language of thofe an- 
 cient Authors I was obliged to confult. 
 
 I am not vain enough to imagine, that the Gentle- 
 men under whofe Direftion thefe Schools are, /. e. the 
 Miniftcrs of the prefent Eftabliihment, ftand in need of 
 fuch poor Affiflance as I can bring : I am acquainted 
 with fome of them, whom I efleem as Men of Learn- 
 ing and good Addrefs ; and yet I cannot help thinking 
 that they deal at fbme Diitadvantage in this Argument, 
 and have not an equal Chance with us in any Encoun- 
 ter with Papifts. For the chief Artillery of the Church 
 of Rojne, being (in Pretence indeed, but not in Truth 
 and Reality) brought from the Fathers of the Church 
 in her early Ages, thefe Gentlemen, by renouncing the 
 ancie}it Government of the Chriftian Church, have in 
 Effeft declared War again ft a Number of excellent 
 Men, Martyrs and ConfefTors, who fubmitted to, and 
 preferved this Government, as ufefui and neceflary, 
 and have thereby loft good Allies, a great auxiliary 
 Strength in all Confli6ls with Rome ; and having thus 
 deprived themfelves of one Half of their Defence, they 
 are not fo fit, as otherwife they would have been, to 
 turn the Cannon upon the common Enemy, and fight 
 them with their own Weapons. Their throwing up 
 EpfcQpacyy is to them in the Day of A6lion, like lay- 
 ing afide their Helmet, or any fuch important Part of 
 Armour. So that however brave they may be in the 
 Field, they have lefs Chance to be fafe and fuccefsful 
 than the;^' might have had if compleatly armed. 
 
 But the Perfons I have chiefly in my View to ferve 
 by this EfTay, (as they (land moft in need of n-.y 
 
 Af- 
 
XIV rhe PREFACE. 
 
 AffiHance) are fuch of our Countrymen whofe Bufi- 
 nefs or Fate oblige them to live abroad in Popifh Coun- 
 tries, expofed to the frequent AfTaults of Profelyte- 
 makers, remote from Advice, deftitute of the Books 
 which might be fit for their Defence, and their Danger 
 perhaps increafed by their Neceflities, and the Straits 
 fbme of them may be reduced to. 
 
 If this little Treatife, on the cardinal Point of the 
 Controverfy, (being that upon which all the refl de- 
 pend) written in the moft artlefs, plain, fimple Man- 
 ner, fuited even to them of leaft Education, and 
 lowefl Capacity, and which may come into their Hands 
 at a fmall Expence, if it can be of Ufe to help out 
 their Defence, and ftablifh them in the Truth, I fhall 
 think my Labour well beflowed, and blefs God whofe 
 Grace has enabled me to do ^o much Good. 
 
 * May Almighty God, the God of Mercy, of Truth, 
 
 * and Order, ftrengthen fuch as do fVand, comfort and 
 
 * help the weak-hearted, raife up them that fall, and 
 
 * bring back into the Way of Truth all fuch as have 
 
 * erred and are deceived. May he put an End to all 
 
 * thofe Divifions and Animofities which rend afunder 
 
 * the feamlefs Coat of his dear Son, and reftore thofe 
 
 * peaceful Times to his Church, when there Ihall be 
 
 * no other Contention among Chriftians but who Ihall 
 
 * love him moft, and ferve him beft ; when fervent, 
 
 * univerfal Charity Ihall be the common Soul to animate 
 
 * the whole Body of Believers, and when they fhall 
 
 * all with one Mouth and one Mind, glorify God the 
 
 * Father of our Lord Jefus Chrift, our blefTed Redeem- 
 
 * er and only Mediator. Amen.'* 
 
 THE 
 

 THE 
 
 C N T E N TS^ 
 
 CHAP. I. 
 
 Page 
 
 Contains feme general Obfervations on InfaUibiUtyy 
 and a few of the many Difficulties with which 
 that peculiar Doftrine of the Romijh Church is at- 
 tended. X 
 
 $ I. That Roman Catholicks are not agreed among 
 themfelves, where the Infallihility is lodged. 3 
 
 § 2. Nor what Sort oflnfallibility it is they contend for. 14 
 
 J 3. Suppofing them agreed in both thefe, it would 
 not anfwer all the Purpofes for which they claim it. 1 7 
 
 O^ private Judgment and Authority, Dr. Leflie 
 
 cleared of the Imputation of contradidling himfelf, 
 on this Subje£l, and his Accufer (the Author of the 
 Shorteft IVay, 6c.) convicted of Infinccrity. 2 2 
 
 § 4. That Jefus Chrifl: and his Apoftles, who were 
 really infallible, made a more difcreet Ufe of that 
 Privilege, than the Roman Church does of the 
 bare Pretence to it. 30 
 
 CHAP, n. 
 
 The Nature and true Notion of the Church (/. e. the 
 catholick or univerfal Church) laid open and efta- 
 blifhed, with fbme Remarks made on Popifh Wri- 
 ters, and their Way of Reafoning. 34 
 5 I. This (hewed from the holy Scriptures. 37 
 § 2. And from the Fathers, be. 40 
 j. 3. That the Roman Church is not the oldeft Church, 
 nor the Mother and Miflrefs of all Churches, nor 
 the Center of ecclefiaflical Unity, nor the great 
 Church. 46 
 That by the Roman Church (in this Difpute) is always 
 meant, not the Dioceile, Province, or Patriarchate 
 
xvi fhe CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 of Ro?ne only, but all the Churches which acknow- 
 ledge the Bifliop of RoniCy as Ghrifl's Vicar Gene- 
 ral, and Head of his whole Church on Earth. 49 
 Nor any farther the catholick Church, than a Part is 
 the whole, or the German Ocean the vjhole Sea, 50 
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 In which the Texts from Scripture, brought in Proof 
 of the Roman Infallibility, are confidcred, and the 
 true Senle of them unfolded and explained. ^^ 
 
 St. Maith. xvi. 18. Thou art Peter, drc. confidered 
 
 and explained. ibid. 
 
 § I . The Popifh Comment on this Text rejected. 59 
 § 2. Another preferred. 66 
 
 What is meant by the Rock. ibid. 
 
 What by the Church built upon it. 70 
 
 What by the Gates of Hell not prevailing. 74 
 
 This Text contains no Promile that the Church of 
 Chrift fhall always continue in outward Peace and 
 Splendor, 81 
 
 Nor yet that fhe cannot err in any Thing. 82. 
 
 h full Anfwer to that trifling Qijeftion, Where was 
 
 the Proteftant Church before Luther > B7 
 
 Whether the Promife to St. Peter is unconditional ? 90 
 § 3. St. Matth.'uxmu.. 19, 20. Behold I amijjith you 
 
 always, <bc. explained. 9Z 
 
 § 4. St. John^ xiv. 16, 17. and xvi. 33. explained, 
 
 The Spirit fljall lead you into all Truth, circ. loi 
 
 § 5. St. Matth. xviii. 17. Hear the Churchy confi- 
 dered. IIZ 
 § 6. I Tim. iii. 15. Pillar and Ground of Truth, ex- 
 plained. ' 118 
 § 7. EphefiY. II, 12. He gave fome Jpoftles, 6r. 
 
 explained. 124 
 
 5 8. Ifaiah,X\x. 20, 21. The Redeemer flmll come to 
 Zion, be, explained. 129 
 
 § 9. St. 
 
The C O NT E NT S. xvu 
 
 Page 
 § 9. St. Matth.viu 13. Beware of falfe Prophets, ex- 
 plained. 134 
 And St, Mark, xvi. 16. He -who believes not Jhall be 
 
 damned, t-^^ 
 
 This illuftrated in Way of Dialogue betwen a Roman 
 Mijponary, and a Chriftian of the Greek Church, 140 
 
 £ H A P, IV. 
 
 In which our Author's Citations from the Fathers 
 are examined, and thefe great and holy Men are 
 refcued from the Imputation he would fix up- 
 on them, of maintaining the Infallibility of the 
 Church of Rome, 152 
 
 § I. St. IrencBus vindicated, by a Review of his 
 
 Writings, and of his Hiftory. 164 
 
 ^ 2. And Tertullian in the fame Way. 172 
 
 Baro7iius and Bellarmine'% AVay of vindicating 
 
 Pope Vilior, confidered. 169, 177 
 
 § 3. St. Cyprian vindicated, <bc. 180 
 
 § 4. La6lantht5 vindicated. ipi 
 
 And S.t. Athanajiiis, fpj 
 
 Bellarmine^ Way of clearing Pope Llberlus, 101 
 
 St. Paclanus vindicated. 203 
 
 § 5. St. Augufllne vindicated, <bc, 2o6 
 
 That famous Citation from him, concerning the 
 
 Authority of the Church, cleared up. 212 
 
 § 6. Vincentlus Llrhienjis vindicated. 223 
 
 And St. Cyril oi Alexandria. 226 
 
 The Author of the Shorteft IVay, <bc, commend- 
 ed for one Inftance of Ingenuity. 227 
 A fhort View of the Oppofition made to the 
 Errors and Encroachments of the Roman Pon- 
 tiffs, from the 6th to the 1 6th Century. 230 
 C H A P. \, 
 In whicfi our Author's Argument from Councils^ and 
 the conftant PraClke of the Church, in condemn- 
 
 c z ing 
 
xvlii The C O NT* E NT S. 
 
 Page 
 ing Herefies, is examined, and his Parallel between 
 Proteflants and ancient Heretlcks, is fhewed to be 
 equally falfe, illogical, and malicious. 23^ 
 
 J I. Councils y their Authority acknowledged, but 
 
 not their Infallihility, 239 
 
 Po not exclude the due Exercife of private Judg- 
 ment. 243 
 Infallibility not to be inferred from Anathemas. 247 
 § 2. Council of Trent, neither general nor free. 249 
 Compared with ancient Councils. ibid. 
 Ancient Councils called by the Emperors. 250 
 That of Trent called by one Patriarch, exclu- 
 ding the other four. 255 
 The Pope was a Party, and therefore could nei- 
 ther convocate, nor prefide in the Council. 257 
 Ancient Councils proceeded by the Rule of holy 
 Scripture, the Trent Fathers take in Tradition 
 as of equal Authority. 262 
 Trentine Council not like the ancient in Point of 
 
 Reprejentation. 266 
 
 Undue Artifice, Influence, and Management, uled 
 
 at Trent. 272 
 
 Short Chara£ler of this famous Synod. 280 
 
 Roman Catholicks reje£V fome Councils, why may 
 
 not Proteflants rejeft that of Trent ? 282 
 
 § 3. Our Author's reproachful Language forgiven. 287 
 His Argument from the Condemnation of anci- 
 ent Hereticks, put into due Form. 290 
 The Conclufion from our Author's whole Argu- 
 ment in the i8th Paragraph of the Manufcript, 
 anfwered. 294 
 As to the Supremacy of the Roman Pontif, Dr. 
 Barrow's decifive Treatife on that Subject is re- 
 ferred to for Satisfaction. 297 
 Summary and Conclufion of the whole. 298 
 
TREATISE 
 
 O F 
 
 INFALLIBILITY,^^. 
 
 C H A p. I. 
 
 Containing fome . General Obfervations oft> 
 Infallibility, and a fevj of the inany Dif-' 
 ficulties ixJitb which that favourite^ and 
 ( 1 may fay ) -peculiar DoBrlne of the Ro- 
 mifh Church Is attended. 
 
 IMMUNITY from Error, Is amongfl the 
 big heft Privileges which God can be- 
 ftow on any Man, or Society of Men ; 
 and therefore, whoever lays Claim to that 
 Privilege, fliould have his Pretenfions very 
 well vouched. 
 
 As it is necefTary in Archite^ure, to pro- 
 portion the Depth and Breadth of the Foun- 
 dation, to the Height and Weight of the 
 Edifice to be raifcd upon it; fo, it had beeii 
 
 A iit 
 
fit for the Writers and Miflionarics of the 
 Rornipo Church, to have gone to the Bot- 
 tom, by clearing the Ground of all the 
 Rubbifh, and Impediments, which ftand in 
 the Way of that lofty Stru61ure they want 
 to raife ; that is, to have begun their Work, 
 with obviating the Objections, and folving 
 the Difficulties, which greatly incumber 
 their Progrefs, and which, till they are mo- 
 ved out of the Way, mufi: forever mar their 
 Pretenfions, and forbid our Affent to their 
 high Claim. 
 
 The Writers for that Church have failed 
 in this very material Article ; and particu- 
 larly, of the two I am^ now concerned with, 
 one has entirely overlooked thefe Difficul- 
 laes he ought to have removed, e're he had 
 gone further, and the other has touched 
 them but very {lightly; with what Succefs, 
 and how much to the Satisfaction of his 
 Readers, we fhall fee afterwards ^ 
 
 For this Reafon, I thought it would not 
 be foreign to thePurpofe, if. before I pro- 
 ceed to a particular Examination of the Au- 
 thorities upon which thefe Writers labour 
 to eftablifh the Infallibility of their Church, 
 I lay before the candid Reader, fome of 
 
 thofe 
 
 a Shorteft Way to eitd Difputes abotit Religion, Part 2i, 
 Page 295, dc. 
 
C .3 ) 
 thofe DIjfKcukies which they have thought 
 
 fit to flur over, with fome general Remarks 
 on their Way of Reafoning, and of the ex- 
 traordinary Caution and Warinefs with 
 which their Argument is brought forth. 
 
 § I. Let us at prefentfuppofe, (what will 
 by and by appear not true in Fa6l) that the 
 Church of Ro?ne has the InfaUibility fhe 
 now contends for ; yet it 'would be of no 
 Ufe, and can be of no Service, unlefs they 
 were agreed among themfelves where it is 
 lodged, whether in the Pope, or in the 
 Council, or in both together, or in neither, 
 but in the whole Body of the Church, col- 
 lective, or diftributive. This Point they 
 have not yet fettled ; fo that, in Cafes of 
 Difficulty, they have been as much at a Lofs 
 to find out this living infallible Judge of 
 Controverfies, as we, who do not lay Claim 
 to him. 
 
 The ingenious Author of the Manu- 
 fcript now before mc, well forefaw he mult 
 be encountered with this Difficulty, and 
 therefore he takes no Side of the Queftion, 
 but intrencheth himfelf in fair Generals, 
 lodging it in the Church at large ; which 
 JDcinga Word of lax Signification, (as will 
 appear afterwards) gives every Church on 
 J£arth, at leaft every Apoflolical Church, 
 A ^ ' ar> 
 
C 4 \ 
 an equal Pretenfion to it, with that of Roine^ 
 
 if they did but claim it with equal Confi- 
 dence, and had the Fortune to be believed. 
 
 'Tis true, this Gentleman feems to give 
 it ia Favours of the reprefentative, or go- 
 verning Part of the Church, the Paftors ; 
 but whether in all the Paftors, or only in 
 tthe chief Paftors, the SuccefTors of St. Te- 
 ter, he is fo loth to determine, that, to a? 
 void the Hazard he lay open to, he takes 
 the Liberty to contradict himfelf ; for in 
 pnc Place ^ he afcribes it to the Apoftles, 
 and their Succeflbrs, but in other Parts of 
 his Paper ^ he labours hard to confine it to 
 the Succeflbr of only one of thefc Apoftles, 
 the Bifhop of Rome, and thofe in Commu- 
 nion with him. 
 
 Had he, with Bellarmine, Cajetan^ ■ and 
 ^\\i\\c Jefuiis, <^>c . placed this Infallibility 
 Jn the Pope, either in his Chair, or in the 
 Conclave, or in the Pope any where, he 
 needed only to have been fent to thofe of 
 his own Church, for proper CorreClion, to 
 feveral confiderable Men of that Commu- 
 nion, and parti.cularly to the very learned 
 Dr. Du Vin^ who has written accurately 
 and unanfwerably againft the Pope's Infalli- 
 bility 
 
 b Parag. jd. 
 para^. \^ihy wfierche treats pi tlje Suprcmac}?;? 
 
bility ^ ; or to the Councils of Tlfa^ Con^ 
 fiance, and Bafil^ which depofed Popes, 
 declared their Fallibility, and fubjeded 
 them to the Authority of a General Coun- 
 cil ; which, if the Pope was Chrift's Vicar- 
 general upon Earth, univerfal Bifhop, and 
 fupreme, infallible Judge of Controverfies, 
 was downright Rebellion, in fetting the 
 Members above the Head. 
 , Had he placed the Infallibility in a Coun- 
 cil» he might have been dire^ed to Coun- 
 cils of very different Complexions, fome 
 decreeing one 1 hing, and others the dired 
 contrary, yet both calling themfelves oecu- 
 menical, anathematizing all that differed 
 from them, and gravely affuring the World, 
 that all this J e erne d good to the Holy Ghojl^ 
 and to them, Tho', after all, it will be hard 
 to conceive an Infallibihty, which could 
 determine both Sides of a Contradiction to 
 be true. 
 
 Had he lodged it, in the Pope and Coun- 
 cil agreeing together, it might be asked, 
 where it is lodged when they difagree? 
 which has often been the Cafe ^ ; Whether 
 Pope Liberius, and the Council of Sirmich^ 
 were infallible, pr io much as found in the 
 
 Faith, 
 
 ^ J)e antique eccJeJite dtfctpUnay DJJJert. ^.p. 359. ad'^'j'j, 
 Tom. 12. Concil. coL 682. 
 
 e P^ Pin, Ibid, p, 347. — 6* Ecchf. hip. 
 
( 6 ) 
 
 Faith, even when they did agree ? I hope 
 he would not fay, that their Agreement in 
 an Error, could convert it into Truth ; or 
 that, when Liberius figned their Confefli- 
 ons^, Ariamjm^ or Deml-Ananijm^ became 
 the Catholick Do<5lrine. 
 
 Had he put it in the Church diffufive^ in 
 the Body of the Paftors throughout the 
 World, or in all who profefs Chrift, this 
 would have fpoiled his whole Plot ; for at this 
 rate, the Greek, and other Oriental Church- 
 es, and the Reformed might claim Part of 
 the Privilege ; nay every fingle Prieft, and e- 
 very fingle Perfon, would put in for his 
 Share ; and thus his darling Infallibility 
 would be refolved into Individuals. 
 
 We fee nqw, what Reafon this Gentle- 
 man had to be fo cautious and referved in 
 this Matter : An Infallibility he would fain 
 have, but he muft not tell where. Indeed 
 an Infallibility which cannot be found out, 
 is (one would think) equal to none at all § ; 
 and that wc may be as happy, and as cer- 
 tain, with a confeiTedly injallible Rule, the 
 Word of God, which we have always at 
 Hand, afld may confult when we pleafe, 
 as they with a fuppofed infallible Guide, 
 while they do not know how to come at 
 
 him, 
 
 B D^ non e/itihs, Z7 non opparentihiiSy ead(m efl ni(i(i, 
 
^ 7 ^ 
 
 him, nor are agreed among themfclvcs where 
 he is to be found. 
 
 The judicious Mr. Lejlicy in his Cafe 
 Jiated, had obferved this Variety and Re- 
 pugnancy of Opinions among Roman Ca- 
 tholick Divines, about the Seat of their In- 
 fallibility, and had urged the Argument ari- 
 fmg from thence, againfl: their vain Pretence, 
 with his ufual Difl:in6lnefs, and Strength of 
 Reafon. 
 
 The chief Champion of the Romijh 
 Church that has appeared in this Century, 
 I mean, the Author of The fiorteft IVay to 
 end T)ifputes about Religion, (a Book faid 
 to be printed at Brujfels in 171 6) is very 
 angry with Mr Lejlic for this, treats him 
 roughly, and by a Mixture of Wit, Ridi- 
 cule, and Sophiftry, labours hard to darken 
 and perplex an Argument he faw he could 
 not anfwer. 
 
 As he has fpent about twenty-four Pages 
 on this Article ^\ and all in this Way, and 
 as I write for Truth, not for Triumph, and 
 refolve to keep within Bounds as narrow as 
 poffible, it is not to be expelled I fhould 
 purfue him thro' all the Windings of his 
 Labyrinth : A few Examples will dcte(5]: the 
 Gentleman's Way of Reafoning, and con- 
 vince 
 
 ^ Part 2d. From P, 295, to 319, 
 
 / 
 
. C 8 ) 
 vince e\'ery unbiafTed Reader, that he had 
 more Smartnefs than Honefty. 
 
 He fets out with a four Reproof to Mr. 
 Lejlie^ for objecting to Roman Catholicks 
 Variety of Opinions, when there is as great, 
 or greater Variety of Opinions among Pro- 
 teftants on very important Points. On this 
 he fpends full five Pages '\ and gives it fo 
 high a Seafoning of Railery, as might mif- 
 lead an unwary Reader : But when the 
 Force of his Argument is calmly confider- 
 ed, the Sum total of it is juft this, " That 
 *' Proteftants are in the fame ill Condition, 
 «' without a living infallible Guide, that 
 " Roman Catholicks are with him, there be^ 
 "' ing Diverfity of Opinion among both, 
 " on very material Points." This is all the 
 Fruit of his Labour, the only Confequcnce 
 deducible from his Argument: And if from 
 this it can be concluded that the Romijh 
 Church is infallible, let the Reader judge. 
 • Next, he makes a faint Acknowledgment, 
 that fome among them have placed the In- 
 fallibility in the Pope. I muft tranfcribe his 
 own Words, they are fo curious, and well 
 chofen for his Purpofe. " ^Tisvery true, 
 *' (fays he) ^ that fome-Divines hold, that 
 " the Pope, confidered precifely as Chrift's 
 
 ♦* Vicajf 
 
 ' From P. 296. 
 ^ P. 301. 
 
( 9 ) . , . 
 
 " Vicar upon Earth, and without behi^ at 
 
 " the Head of a general Council, is infal- 
 
 " lible; but that afly Catholick Divine pla- 
 
 " ces the Infallibility in the Tope alone, 
 
 " that is^ exclufively of a general Council^ and 
 
 " the diff'ufive Body of the Church, 1 utterly 
 
 '^ deny, and challenge the Gentleman to 
 produce any one Divine of that Opini- 
 
 '' on. 
 
 This IS diverting enough : The Pope is 
 infallible without a Council, but not exclu- 
 fively of a Council. Really, whoever is 
 
 difpofed to fwallow Contradictions, and be 
 fed with fuch whip'd Cream, may believe 
 that Infalhbility when hepleafes: Butfince 
 he challenges that Gentleman (who cannot 
 now anfwer for himfelf) to produce any 
 one Divine of that Opinion, 1 beg leave to 
 do it for him. 1 hope he will not deny that 
 Bellar?nine was one of his Catholick Di- 
 vines. Now he, ^ from the Words of Chrift 
 to St. Teter, Feed my Sheep, makes this 
 ftrong Inference, " That the Pope is Teach- 
 " er and Paftor of the whole Church, there- 
 " fore the whole Church is bound to hear 
 " and follow him ; and therefore, if he 
 " (hould err, the whole Church would err 
 B " too 
 
 V 
 
 * Pofitifex efl do^or 6" paflor tottus ecclefuty ergo tola ecdcfia 
 Hum aud'ire <b fequi tenetur ; *rgo, fi tile erretj tota eccUjia """^^^^C;^ 
 
\ 
 
 ( lO ) 
 
 «* too." Is not this to place Infallibility In 
 the Pope alone, and to ftrip both Councils 
 and the Body difFufive of all Pretenfion to 
 any Share of the Privilege ? 
 
 Since one Inftance was all he demanded, 
 this one fhall fuiEce, tho' it were eafy to 
 bring Numbers, but that it is not neceflary ; 
 for if the Advocates for the Pope's InfiUi- 
 biliry meant no more than this metaphyfical 
 Author will allow they do, what Occafion 
 Jbad the Gall/can Church to condemn this 
 Jpoftrine ? Why would Dr. Du Tin take 
 fo much Pains to confute Bellarmine, Caje- 
 ian^ Duvallius, (^>c, by proving from Scri- 
 pture, from Antiquity, from the Decrees of 
 Councils, from the Sentiment of the Schools, 
 and of Divines, from the Acknowledgment 
 of fome mote modeft Popes, from Inftan- 
 ces of others which did actually err, and 
 from the contradictory Definitions of the-Zio- 
 man Pontiffs ; from all thefe, 1 fay, todemon- 
 ftrate, that the Pope is not infallible'"? Sure 
 if fuch an Opinion had never been broach- 
 ed and maintained by any Divine of Figure 
 and Following in that Church, a Man fo 
 learned as Mr. Du Tin would not have 
 thought it worth while to have fought fQ 
 long with the Air, 
 
 Nor 
 
 *" Dtrantlq. ccdef, difci^Una, p, 339, isc^ 
 
( II ) 
 
 Nor is our Author more lucky with re- 
 fpe6l to Councils ; for " he gives the Lie to 
 the Author of The Cafe Jiated, for affirm- 
 hig, " That fome of their Divines lodge the 
 " Infallibility in a general Council, as fu- 
 ** perior to the Pope, with Power to re- 
 
 " form, and even to dcpofe him." After 
 
 he has (with his ufual Finenefs and Ingenui- 
 ty) wrought up this into a Shape, which he 
 fancied might bear fome Contradiction, he 
 modeftly concludes his Paragraph, " This 
 " was never maintained by any Catholick 
 *' Divine." 
 
 I hope this Gentleman will allow Dn 
 Du Tin to have been a Catholick Divine ; 
 and if he does, it would feem he had never 
 read hi§ learned Work already referred to% 
 where he fpends fifty-fix Pages in ^(arto^ 
 in proving to Conviction, that a general 
 Council has Authority over the Romaft Pon- 
 tiff, that it can enaCl Laws, or Canons, 
 which fliall be obligatory upon him, even 
 tho' he refufe to come to the Council, and 
 that they can depofe him for Error, or 
 Crime. 
 
 It were eafy to direft him to whole Af- 
 femblies of his Catholick Divines, affirm 
 ing the fame Do6lrine, giving it the Sam^i 
 B 2 pq 
 
 n p. 305. 
 
 9 Ds antiq, ecclef, difci^lhu piflert. ^. 
 
 / 
 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 pn of a Canpn, and de faHo exerdfing this 
 Auzhprity over Popes. The Proceedings 
 in the Councils of y//^, Conjlance^ <6^c. 
 were fo glaring Infl:ance3 of this, that the 
 Gentleman found he cpuld not handle them, 
 withput burping his Fingers, and therefore 
 only tells us demurely, that " this was anex- 
 " ]traordinary Cafe P." But what then ? Was 
 it therefore not a true Cafe ? Had he faid 
 plainly, \f^hether it was right or wrong, that 
 had been to the Purpofe, and we fhould 
 Jiave known what to anfwer ; but he chofe 
 rather to fculk under Ambiguities, and quib- 
 bjlng Evafions, 
 
 As I would not, like this Author, fpeak 
 "Vvickedly for God, nor talk deceitfully even 
 for Religion "^^ fo I find it but a difagree^ble 
 Employment to detect the Frauds of o- 
 thers, anci particularly the Sophifms and Fal- 
 lacies by which this Author has endeavour- 
 ed to perple^ the Argument, to darken the 
 Truth, (v/hichfee)cs no Corners) and there- 
 by to miflead the unwary and lefs learned 
 Reader.— — -If I have ufed him with more 
 Sharpnefs than is common among Gentle- 
 rnen, and Scholars, it is \yhat I could not 
 avoid ; I had fo often read over his Book, 
 that I fell infenfibly into his Stile ; befides 
 
 ' that, 
 
 ^p p. 304. 
 
 i Job xiii. J. 
 
( 13 ) 
 that, I was provoked by the Scurrility with 
 which he treats that great Man, Mr. Leflie^ 
 whofe Memory will always be regarded, 
 while Learning and Virtue can conciliate 
 Efleem. 
 
 Enough Is faid to prove that the Jefuits 
 place the Infallibility in the Pope; — That 
 other Roman Catholicks as flatly deny it re- 
 fides there; — That they who lodge it in 
 the Pope, and general Council agreeing, 
 ought to tell where it is when they difa- 
 gree ; — And that they who place it in the 
 Church diffufive, (as this Author feems to 
 do) ' or '' in all the BijQiops and Paftors 
 " throughout the whole World, profefUng 
 <' the fame Do^lrine, and united in Faith 
 ^* and Communion with their fupreme Pa- 
 *' ftor, theBifhopof ifo?;^6'," ought to have 
 told us, where it is to be found when this fu- 
 preme Paftor proves heretical, oris depofed, 
 which has happened oftner than once. 
 
 After all this, gravely to tell the World, 
 that there is " no Confufion or Difcrepan- 
 *' cy among Roman Catholicks on this 
 f* Subject ; but that there is a perfcd Har- 
 " mony and Agreement amongft them, in 
 f every effential Point relating to this Que- 
 5.' flion ' ;■' was fuch a Contradiction, fuch 
 
 an 
 
 r p. 309. 
 
 5 p. 309,-31;, 
 
 / 
 
 ^ 
 
( H ) . 
 an Affront to Truth, to HI (lory, and to 
 
 common Senfe, that I wonder how this 
 
 Gentleman ventured his Reputation upon 
 
 it. I fliall therefore take Leave of him for 
 
 this Time, making my humble Requeft to 
 
 the God of Truth, " that he would deliver 
 
 *' my Soul from lying Lips, and from a de- 
 
 *' ceitful Tongue ^'' 
 
 § IL As little are they agreed what Sort 
 of Infallibility it is they contend for : 'Tis 
 entertaining enough to read the odd Ac- 
 counts they give of it ; that it is fupernatu- 
 ral, but not divine ; that it is precife Infal- 
 libility, but not abfolute ; that it is not by 
 immediate Revelation, but by immediate Af- 
 fiftance of the Holy Ghoft, (^c, — Some- 
 thing they would have, but they can- 
 not tell what ; an Infallibility in the Con- 
 clufion, without any in the Ufe of Means; 
 an Infallibility by immediate Afliftance of 
 the Holy Ghofl, and yet but in fome Sort 
 divine; an Infallibility, as fupernatural, and 
 as certain, as the facred Scriptures, yet not 
 coming by immediate Infpiration, as thefe 
 Scriptures did. 
 
 Reafon and Experience tell us, that all 
 Men are naturally frail and fallible ; for the 
 human Underftanding is finite, and circum- 
 
 fcribed j 
 
 5 Pfal. cxx. ^. 
 
C 15 ) 
 
 fcribed ; and where there is a Defe<5l In the 
 Apprehenfion, there is a Poffibillty of mif- 
 taking ; and this Defefl is not to be fuppli- 
 ed but by the Gift of Heaven, communi- 
 cating a Ray of the Divinity to the Perfon 
 orPerfonsthus highly favoured. This, like 
 other Gifts of the Spirit ", was neceflary in 
 the Infancy of Chriftianity, when the 
 Church was to be founded, and a perpetual 
 Rule of our Faith and Practice to be efta- 
 blifhed ; but when that was done, it ceafed, 
 as being no longer necelTary ; as the Scaf- 
 folding is taken away, when the Houfe is 
 built* 
 
 St. Teter, fpeaking of the Infpired Au- 
 thors of holy Scripture, tells plainly how 
 they came by their InfaUibility, " Holy 
 " Men of God (fays he) fpake as they 
 " were moved by the Holy Ghoft "".'' And 
 in fo far as they were thus moved, in fo far 
 they were infallible, and no farther ; yet 
 thefe Gentlemen, whofe Arguments I am 
 to examine, claim an equal Regard and 
 SubmifTion to the Infallibility of their 
 Church, (in Fa6l greater than the Apoftlcs 
 ever claimed to themfelves) tho' they have 
 not adventured (and I hope will not adven- 
 ture) to fay, flic has any fuch immediate 
 
 Mo-« 
 
 u I Cor. xli. 8, 
 » 2 Pet. i. 21. 
 
( I6 ) 
 
 Motion of the Holy Ghoft, as tliat hf 
 which their Infallibility came, or is infpi- 
 red, as they were. 
 
 Indeed they might, with equal Modefty^ 
 compliment her with the one, as with the 
 other ; and if they did, it would not mend 
 the Matter much ; for an Enthufiall will 
 pretend to be thus moved, when he really is 
 not : But we, who are commanded '* to try 
 *' the Spirits," and forbidden " to believe 
 *' every Spirit y, " muft not lay undue Strefs 
 on the bare Word of every confident AfTert- 
 or, in a Cafe of fo great Importance ; un- 
 lefs we fee the fupernatural Power of God 
 in his Hands, we are not bound to believe 
 he has the infallible Truth of God in his 
 Mouth. 
 
 When Infallibility w^as upon Earth, it 
 was accompanied with Miracles, as its pro- 
 per Vouchers; and there is Reafon to think, 
 that thefe two fhould come and go together. 
 Our blefTcd Saviour appealed " to the Works 
 *« which he did, for the Truth of what he 
 " taught ^ ;" and his ApofHes " confirmed 
 " the Word with Signs following ^" 
 
 Let the Church of Roine^ therefore, prove 
 her Infallibility by the fame Means by which 
 
 Jefus 
 
 y I John iv. I. 
 
 2 St. John X. 37. 
 
 3 Su Mark xvi. 20. A<5ts xiv. 3. Heb. ii. 4. 
 
( .17 ) 
 Jefus Chrifl: and his Apoflles proved their 
 
 PolTbffion of that extraordinary Privilege ; 
 and then it will be Time to require our Af- 
 fent and Submiflion to it. I fancy thefc 
 zealous Gentlemen will not venture their 
 Caufe upon this Iflue. It would feem the 
 fufpicious and legendary Miracles of their 
 Church (which have made fo much Noife 
 in the World) will not ftand the Teft of 
 Day-light ; for even the Author of the Ma- 
 nufcript has not followed Bellarmine fo far 
 as to number Miracles among the many 
 Marks of his Church ^ ; which Marks (af- 
 ter all his Labour) will not come up to what 
 he aims at ; for tho 'they may prove a Church 
 to be true, they will not prove her to be in- 
 faUible. 
 
 § III. When fo much Dilft is faifed a- 
 bout this Infallibility they contend for, it 
 may not be amifs to enquire, what Purpofcs 
 would be ferved by it, if they had it, or 
 for what Reafons Almighty God (who 
 does nothing in vain) fhould continue fo 
 extraordinary a Privilege to any Man, or 
 Number of Men, in the World : And if 
 it Ihould appear, that they neither know 
 what Kind of Infallibility they claim, nor 
 
 C where 
 
 ?» Parag. 29, 
 
( i8 ) 
 
 where it is lodged, nor what good Purpofe 
 it w ould ferve, even if it was found, it muft 
 be allowed, that they have given the World 
 more than enough of needlefs Trouble on 
 this Subje6t. 
 
 Some of the Advocates for that Church 
 have told us, " That it is agreeable to the 
 *' Goodnefs of God to give Men an infal- 
 " lible Guide to fecure them againft Er- 
 *' ror ^" But are not Errors in Praifliceas 
 •damnable as Errors in Judgment? And is it 
 not as agreeable to the Goodnefs of God 
 to give an abfolute Security againft Sin, as 
 well as againft Herefy, when they are equal- 
 ly dangerous ? So that this trite Reafon for 
 Infallibility will prove too much, or prove 
 nothing ; for it will either bear out a Pre- 
 tence of Impeccability in that Church, or 
 not that of Infallibility. — Let them choofc 
 which they pleafe. The firft (I fuppofe) 
 they will not pretend to, and therefore the 
 other we cannot allow them, 
 
 An infallible living Judge, to fecure Men 
 againft Error, would look fomewhat like 
 conftant irrejijlible Grace^ to reftrain them 
 from Sin. God may give both upon fome 
 extraordinary Occafions, if he pleafes ; but 
 to continue them for ordinary Ufe, would be 
 
 too 
 
 f Shorted Wav, .^<w, ft. ^^^ 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 too ftrong a Remedy, as it would thwart 
 
 his own Oeconomy, and deftroy his own 
 Scheme, by determining the Freedom of 
 our Wills and Anions ; which would leave 
 little or no Virtue in our Faith or Obedi- 
 ence, and bring their beloved Doctrine of 
 Merit down to the Ground. 
 
 'Tis true, we have an infallible Rule of ^ 
 our Faith and Actions, the Word of God^ ^ 
 as it has been underftood, interpreted, and / 
 
 applied, by the catholick, confentient Te- 
 ftimony of the whole Church, efpecially 
 in her earheft and pureft Ages ; and the Spi- 
 rit of God offers to all the Faithful, fufficient 
 Light and Afliftance to apply this Rule, 
 and conform themfelves to it: But this ftill 
 leaves Room for their own Ingenuity and 
 Concurrence, which the other would ex- 
 clude and fuperfede. If they ufe this Af- 
 fiftance well, and follow this Dire^ion care- 
 fully, they need no more to make them 
 '' wife unto Salvation,'* that is, to be good 
 and happy ; if not, God /' will not al- 
 ** ways drive with Men," nor force that 
 which he once made free : The Grace he 
 offers is fufficient, but not irrefiftible ; fuch 
 Grace, as that we may believe and obey in 
 Virtue of it, not fuch as that we muff. 
 
 So that, having this infallible Rule of our 
 
 Faith and Praftice, and the Grace of the Go- 
 
 C z fpcl 
 
( 2° ) 
 
 fpel ofFering fufficient Affiftance to follow it, 
 if we pleafe, we neither need nor fliould de- 
 fire any other ; for if thefe have not their 
 Influence upon the Minds and Lives of 
 Men, 'tis plain this additional Help, which 
 the Church of Rome has devifed, would not 
 mend the Matter. As Abraham (in the Pa- 
 rable'^) faid to the rich Man, " If they 
 *' hear not Mofes and the Prophets, neither 
 *' will they be perfuaded, tho' one rofe from 
 *^ the dead :"— -So it is in this Cafe ; if an 
 infallible Rule v^ill not fuffice to make us 
 good and happy, no more would an infal- 
 lible Guide, if we had him. 
 
 The two Gentlemen with whom I now 
 deal, (whatever they might mean) have not 
 fpokethe plain Language which other Wri- 
 ters for their Church have done ; — '' That 
 *' the facred Scripture is an incpmpleat Rule, 
 V and therefore muft have its Defeats fup- 
 ?^ phed by the Directions of a living infal- 
 *• lible Judge."— —But this Is a flat Contra- 
 di6lion to an Apoftle, who fays they are 
 perfect ; ^ ^^ All Scripture is given by In- 
 '^' fpiration of God, and is profitable for 
 f^ Dodlrine, for Reproof, for Correction, 
 f ' for InftruClion in Righteoufnefs, that the 
 f' Man of God may be perfect, 6"^." And 
 ' -■••*■ jp, 
 
 ^ St. Liike, xvi. 
 
 e 2 Tim. iii. i6, {7, 
 
( ^o 
 
 indeed if they were not fo, we might juft^ 
 ly wonder how our blcffed Lord fliould 
 command " to fearch the Scriptures V' even 
 upon themoft important Account, without 
 faying one Word of any other infallible 
 Direction or Guide, as a neceffary Supple- 
 ^nent to them. 
 
 If they fay, the Scriptures are dark and 
 obfcurc, they muft at leaft allow, (unlefs 
 they'll give the Lie to St. Taul) there is as 
 much plain in them as is able to make the Man 
 of God perfect ; which is all that is wanted ; 
 for tho' it is true, " there are dark Places in 
 f' them, and hard to be underftood, which 
 " the unlearned and unftable do wrefl to 
 ^' their own Deflru^lion,'' yet that does not 
 hinder the main Defign, any more than the 
 viacuU in the Sun hinder him to give Light 
 to the World : There is as much plain and 
 obvious in them, as can anfwer the Purpofes 
 of a Rule, and lead on the fober, fincere, 
 and attentive Reader of them, in his Way 
 to Heaven, and that is enough. 
 
 As I have already hinted, that fome of 
 the Writers on that Side have attacked the 
 holy Scriptures with great Audacioufnefs 
 and Indifcretion, I muft now obferve, that x 
 even their Church has fhewed no fmall Tea- f 
 
 loufy i 
 
 f St. John, V. 39, • . 
 
V 
 
 ^ft0^'S\ 
 
 C 22 ) 
 loufy of the Word of God, by rendering it 
 
 as ufelefs to the Laity in Popilh Countries 
 as flie could, keeping it carefully out of 
 their Hands, or (which is almoft as bad) al- 
 lowing them the Ufe of it, only in fuch a 
 Language as the Generality of them do not 
 underftand. But we need not wonder to 
 find them fo much againft Scripture, when 
 thefe holy Scriptures are fb much againd 
 them. 
 
 We fhall no doubt be told, (what has 
 often been repeated in their controverfial 
 Writings) that the Scriptures being obfcure 
 and ambiguous, wemaymiftake the Mean- 
 ing of them, without the Aid of an unfail- 
 ing Direflor, becaufc, when we lay Strcfs 
 on our private Judgment, it is apt to mif- 
 lead us. This is carefully inculcated in e- 
 very Attempt they make to bring Proteftants 
 into their Communion ; and their Mifliona- 
 ries fcldom fail to fhew their Diflikc q[ pn- 
 njate Jiiclgrncnt, and their Spite at them who 
 plead for the Ufe of it ; whereof I (hall 
 give a remarkable Inftance in the next Page. 
 
 But as it is unconceivable, why a wife 
 and good God fliould endue Men with a 
 Faculty of judging, if he intended to deny 
 them the Privilege of ufing that Faculty; 
 h I hope we may be allowed to ask this 
 plain Qiicftion, /. e. '' How fhall we undcr- 
 
( 23 ) 
 " ftand the Decifions of a living Infallible 
 " Jtidge, if we had him, arid had Accefs to 
 " him.^" Certainly it muft be by the Exer- 
 cife of this very condemn'd Faculty, thfs 
 private Judgment, unlefs we arc to under- 
 ftand his Definitions without Judgment, and 
 fubfcribe without reading them, which is the 
 Thing thcfe Gentlemen would bring us to, 
 tho' they do not yet fpeak it out plain. \ 
 
 Now, if we may and muft ufe our Reafon ^ 
 and Judgment in one Cafe, why not in ano- 
 ther ? Is there not a Poffibility that it may mif- 
 leadus, in underftanding the Definitions of 
 this unerring Guide, as well as in underftand- 
 ing the holy Scriptures ? the Traditions of 
 Men, as well as the Commandments of 
 God ? And if we may thus miftake his 
 Meaning, there can be no Way to render 
 this boafted Privilege of that Church ufe- 
 ful, but one of thefe two, /. e, either that 
 we be infallible ourfelves, and then we fliould 
 not need their infallible Guide; or elfethat 
 we had another infallible Judge to interpret 
 his Meaning ; and this would multiply In- 
 fallibilities to Infinity : So that this Matter 
 muft at laft be refolved either into private x 
 Judgment, or elfe every private Chriftian / 
 of that Communion muft be infallible, i 
 which is more than is contended for. / 
 
 And here again I muft meet with my Ac- ( 
 
 quaintancG ^^ 
 
V 
 
 ^ 
 
 ( ^4 ) , 
 
 <^uaintance, the Author of The fhortejlWayi 
 
 &c. who (upon this Article) has made a 
 fierce Attack on the Chara<5ler of my wor- 
 thy Friend, the Author of The Cafe Jlated^ 
 becaufe that in fome of his Writings (thofe 
 efpecially againft the Socinians and Deifts) 
 he had recommended a Reverence for, and 
 proper SubmifHon to Authority ; but in 
 his Cafe ftatedy he bids us truft our private 
 Judgment. 
 
 Here the Gentleman fancies he has him 
 faft, within the Horns of a Dilemma^ and 
 is not a little fond of it : " " This (fays 
 " he) looks indeed fomething like a Con- 
 
 " tradition. Let us hear his frightful 
 
 *' Charadterof privatejudgment, in hisC/;n- 
 ^^ ftlanity demonft rated, p. i8i, 182. — But 
 " we muft confider, that m. his Chrijiianity 
 " demonjl rated, he wrote againlt the Deifts, 
 *^ and in his Cafe flat ed^ againft the Papifts ; 
 *' and is It reafonable to oblige a Man to 
 *' fight with the fame Arms againft all Sorts 
 ** of Enemies ? By no Means. As he has 
 *' writ a great deal, he might eafily forget, 
 " in writing his Cafe ftatedy what he wrote 
 *' in his Chriftianity demonftrated) for a Man 
 ** is not bound to remember everyThing that 
 *' he does 8/' With Abundance more of 
 Sneer, to the fame good Purpofe, 
 
 Here 
 
 g Shortefl Way, ^r. P. 264, 266. 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 Here is the Charge brought forth againft 
 the Author of The Caje (lated^ in this 
 Gentleman's own Wotds, and with his 
 wonted PoHtenefs, and Regard to Truth. 
 
 But let us now confider the Cafe as it really 
 was, flript of all Flourifh and falfe Colouring, 
 and fee what Reafon there was for all this 
 Triumph and Infult. The Matter of Fad 
 is plainly this : - — Mr. Lejlie, (not in his 
 Cbr'ifiianlty demonjirated^ as the Gentleman 
 feems to have been told, but in hisTreatifc 
 of private Judgment and Authority in Mat- 
 ters of Faith) Mr. Lejle, (I fay) like a fair 
 Reafoner, and an honeft Man, had enume- 
 rated the Inconveniencies attending each 
 Side of the Queftion. 
 
 Thofe arifing from a bad Ufe of private 
 Judgment, he plainly and honeftly lays be- 
 fore his Reader, in the Words (truly e- 
 nough) recited by the Gentleman,—- '' That 
 <* the EfFe^ls of it are, Multiplicity of Secfls 
 <« and Opinions, perpetual Wranglings, 
 " without any Umpire, or Judge of Con- 
 ** troverfy ; whence come inveterate Preju- 
 *' dices againfl: each other, Animofities> 
 '< Strifes, Envyings, and all the Wars of 
 ** Religion, which, the moft of any, em-- 
 " broil the Peace of the World, <^'c!' 
 
 But what then I Does he therefore dif- 
 claim, and renounce and give up private 
 
 D Judg- 
 
 ; 
 
 ■Z 
 
V 
 
 3 
 
 ( 26 ) _ 
 Judgment ? Let us hear him out, and we 
 ihall find where he points: — For after nar- 
 rating the Mifchiefs which have happened, 
 or can happen, from a wrong Exercife of 
 private Judgment, he immediately proceeds 
 to fheW, (even to Demonftration) that the 
 Mifchiefs arifing from an implicite Acqui- 
 efccnce in Church Authority, in Matters of 
 Faith, have been greater than ever refulted 
 or enfued from private Judgment ; — That it 
 was upon this Principle of Adhefion to Au- 
 thority, that the Jews rejected and cruci- 
 fied the Meffiah ; — That the fovereign Pon- 
 tiff among them, and his Conclave, darken- 
 ed and over-ruled all the Evidence of our 
 Lord's Miflion and Chara(51:er, arifing from 
 the ancient Types and Prophecies, or from 
 his Miracles, his Do(51:rines, and holy Life, 
 by this fingle Argument, that they were the 
 fupreme infallible Judges in thefe Matters, 
 and fince they had not determined in his 
 Favour, the People had no Right to en- 
 quire. — ^ " Have any of theRulers, or of the 
 *' Pharlfees believed on him? But this Peo- 
 *' pie who knoweth not the Law are cur- 
 *' fed :" — That tJie Promifcs of Perpetui- 
 ty and Lifallibility made to the Jexvifh 
 Church ', were as peremptory, and feeming- 
 
 ^ St. John, vil. 48, 49. 
 » Mai. ii. 7. Ifa. lix. 21. 
 
C =7 ) 
 ly unconditional, as thefe upon which the 
 Roniip Church founds her high Claim, with 
 this Odds, that the Jewijb Church is named, 
 or defcribed, in the one, but the Romifh 
 Church is not in the other ; and yet it was 
 a Mifunderftanding of thefe Promifes, which 
 led the governing Part of the Jews^ and the 
 Grofs of their Nation, to crucify our Savi- 
 our, and reje^ his Religion ; fo that not 
 one of them acknowledged the one, or em- 
 braced the other, but they who followed 
 their private Judgment, in Oppofition to 
 Authority ; — That it is the fame unhappy 
 Conceit which detains the Jews ftill in Un- 
 belief, and the Romanifts in their Errors, to 
 this Day, <^c, <^'c. 
 
 And after a moft difl:in6l and decifive Ac- 
 count of this Matter, after he has (hewed 
 the Cafes wherein SubmifHon is due to Au- 
 thority, and thofe wherein it is not due, 
 that in Matters of Worfhip, Difciplinc and 
 Ceremony, Church Authority is fupreme 
 and abfolutc, but in Matters of Faith it is 
 only minifterial, 6"^. — He has this remark- 
 able Paragraph, ^ ^' If upon Enquiry (fays 
 " he) it fhould be found, that ^rd'^/^riVf//- 
 " chiefs have attended private Judgment J 
 ♦' than Authority^ yet would that be no 
 
 D z greater j 
 
 ^ p. io6.- 
 
 ^ 
 
 f* 
 
. C 28 ) 
 
 ^* greater Argument againft private Jtidg^ 
 ^^ ment than againft Free-will^ or any other 
 ^' Compofition of our Nature, if the Mifc 
 " chiefs it occafions were more than the 
 " Good. We cannot alter our Nature ; it 
 '' muft be as it is. Perhaps Men make Ufe 
 ^' of their Hands to more Deftru6lion in 
 " Wars, Murders, Robberies, T hefts, 6^^ . 
 *^ than any Good they do with them ; yet 
 " this would be an ill Argument for cutting 
 ^' off the Hands of our Children, as foon 
 ^' as they were born ; and it would be worfe 
 *' ftill to divert Men of their Underftanding, 
 *' becanfe their private Judgment might mifr 
 ^* lead them.'' - = 
 
 A candid Adverfary would have laid all 
 this before his Reader, told him the whole 
 Truth, and nothing but Truth, and then 
 left him tp judge, whether Mr. Lejlie had 
 once been an Enemy to private Judgment, 
 and had now involved himfelf in a Contra- 
 diction. — But this \yas not for -the Gentle- 
 man's Purpofe. 
 
 I beg my Reader's Pardon for this Di- 
 greflion, if it is one, and fhall travel no 
 farther at prefent in fuchdifagreeable Com- 
 pany ; only I muft obferve, that this Gentlcr 
 man's great Strength fcems to ly in his long 
 V Hair; his chief Talent confifts in burlefquing 
 Ji Q^n Author he cannot confute, and mifre- 
 
 V 
 
( '9 ,) 
 
 prefenting an Argument he cannot aniwer 5 
 he brings together broken Sentences, di- 
 ftant Paragraphs, and forced Meanings, and 
 fets them to combat one another, (a Method 
 by which any Book in the World, even the 
 Bible itfelf, may be brought into Contempt) 
 that having thus drefl: his Antagonift in a 
 Fool's Coat, he may be hifs'd off the Stage. 
 This is his fhorteft Way to end Difputes a- 
 bout Religion, but one would think it is 
 not like to be the fafeft. 
 
 In fhort, the Demand the Romip Church 
 makes on her Votaries, to give up their pri- 
 vate Judgment, left it may lead them into 
 Error, is equally fufpicious and extravagant 
 as it would be to cut off a Man's Head, to 
 prevent a Pimple in his Face. — Every At- 
 tempt her Miffionaries make upon Prote- 
 ftants, to unhinge their Profeffion, and bring 
 them into her Communion, is an Appeal 
 to their private Judgment, unlefs they ex- 
 pert we are to take Tales upon Truft, be 
 perfuaded without confidering, and make a 
 final Refignation of our Reafon, without 
 confulting it, in which, I hope, they'll find 
 themfelves miftaken ; for if (even by their 
 own Confeffion) w^e muft ufe that Faculty 
 of judging which God has given us, and 
 jruft it too, e're we can be brought to 
 ^ their infallible Guide, why may it not as 
 
 well 
 
V 
 
 J) 
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 well ferve to lead and keep us in the right 
 Way ? 
 
 § IV. It is fit to obferve, that our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift himfelf, and his Apoftles (who 
 were really infallible) made a more difcreet 
 XJfe of that Privilege than the Romip Church 
 does of the bare Pretence to it ; I mean, 
 that they did not demand Belief on that 
 fingle Account, that they were infallible, 
 but dealt with Men as with rational Agents, 
 appealed to their Reafon and common Senfe, 
 and laid before them proper Motives of Con- 
 vi<5lion, without exacting an impliciie AflTcnt 
 on the Head of Authority, or unerring Di- 
 rection. 
 
 Thus we are commanded, ^ " to fearch the 
 " Scriptures,'' and the Bereans are com- 
 mended for doing fo. We are enjoined to 
 ^' take heed what we hear," and " how we 
 " hear ;" — to " beware of falfe Prophets;" 
 to " prove all Things ;" — to "- prove our- 
 *^ fclves, and examine whether we be in the 
 ^' Faith ; — to " try the Spirits ;" — and 
 ** not to receive any Do6lrine contrary to, 
 " or differing from that which the Apoftles 
 *^ taught, however it came recommended, 
 
 " even 
 
 ^St. John,v. 19. Ai'^sxvii. 2. St. Mark, iv. 24. St. Luke, 
 vjii. 18. St. Matth. vii. 15. i TheflT. v. 21. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 
 I John, iv. I. Gal. i. 8. 
 
<^ 3t ) 
 ** even if it were brought by an Angel from 
 *' Heaven." 
 
 What can be the Meaning of all thefe 
 Injundions, if our own Reafon and Indu- 
 ftry are quite excluded ; fo that we muft by 
 no Means labour to fatisfy ourfclves what 
 Ground our Faith ftands upon, nor judge 
 for ourfclves as well as we are able, but re- 
 fign ourfclves to another to judge for us, be- 
 caufe forfooth he has the Confidence to call 
 himfelf infallible. 
 
 When we compare the Infallibility which 
 tbt Apoftles were poflefTed of, with that 
 which the Rornijh Church pretends to, and 
 the Ufes made of it by both, the one dif- 
 claiming all *' Dominion over the Faith of 
 *' Chriftians ^ and the other ufurping a Do- 
 minion over not only their Faith, but their 
 Reafon and common Senfe ; one can fcarcc 
 forbear thinking of the Odds between a Phy- 
 fician and a Mountebank ; the one is very mo- 
 deft and unaffuming, while the other brags 
 of infallible Remedies. 
 
 Let us fuppofe a Man travelling thro' an 
 unknown Country, where having loit his 
 Way, and coming to a Place where there 
 are feveral Roads pointing differently, he is 
 uncertain which to choofe ; — That in this 
 Perplexity he calls for a Guide, upon which 
 
 two 
 
 \ 2 Cor. i. 24. 
 
( 32 ) . 
 two of them come to offer their Affiftance i 
 one of them lays before him an approved 
 authentick Chart or Map of the Country, 
 and offers to vouch thereby every Period of 
 his Dire<5lion.'^ — The other does not deny 
 this to be a. true Map, yet pulls it out of the 
 Traveller's Hand, brags of his own great 
 Skill and Abilities, and refufes to take 
 Charge of the Man till he would agree to 
 pull out his own Eyes, and abfolutely refign 
 all to the Conducft and Management of his 
 Conductor. It is not difficult to judge 
 which of the two contending Guides the 
 bewildered Traveller ought to prefer. 
 
 It is jufl: fo in the prefent Cafe : The fpi- 
 ritual Pride and Arrogance of the Romijh 
 Church, in claiming this divine Attribute 
 as her peculiar Property, gives Ground to 
 fufpeft her of Trick and ill Defign ; and 
 the Hiftories of Chriftendom confirm this 
 Sufpicion, by informing us, that ever fincc 
 flie ufurped this Privilege, it has produced 
 moft difmal Effects, wherever fhe had Power 
 enough to fupport thefe bold Pretenfions 
 "which fhe never could fupport by other 
 Means ; fo that if I was to look for In* 
 fallibility in any particular Church upon 
 V Earth, that of Rome would be the laft I 
 fnould expert to find it in. 
 
 In fliort, if the Belief of that Churches 
 
 In- 
 
/ . . C 33 ) 
 Itifalliblllty be lb fundamental aii Article of 
 Faith as they would make it, it is furprifing^ 
 that neither Jefus Chrift, nor his Apoftles^ 
 fliould ever fay one Word of it. How comes 
 it to pafs, that when there were fo many 
 Schifms and Herefies in the primitive Times, 
 (particularly in the Churches of Corinth 
 and Galatia^ <^c.) St. Taul fhould never 
 once mention this effedluai Remedy of ail 
 thofe Evils, by fending them to St. Teter\ 
 the only infalhble Judge of Controverfies ? 
 This would have been an excellent Dircifl:!- 
 on to the Church in after Ages, what to 
 have done in like Cafes, had our Saviour, or 
 any of his Apoftles, given an Intimation, that 
 the Heir of Infallibility was fixed at Rome, 
 and that thither we were to have Recourfe for 
 deciding all Controverfies in Religion, 
 
 Thefe are fome of the many Difficulties 
 and Contradictions with which this Do6trinc 
 of Infallibility in the Romijh Church is at- 
 tended ; fo many, and fo glaring, that no- 
 thing can be more abfurd, unlefs it is fome 
 of tnofe fanciful Notions they have raifed 
 upon that crazy Foundation. If the Au- 
 thor of the Manufcript now under my Eye, 
 had dealt fairly with them he meant to pro- 
 felite to his Communion, he ought to have 
 (hewed them the Queftion on all Sides, and 
 obviated the Difficulties which flood in the 
 E Way 
 
(.34 ) 
 Way of their Convi(flion, before he had gi- 
 ven them the Trouble of a long, laboured 
 Proof of fomething he would fain have ; 
 tho', after all, it is hard to know what, or 
 where it is to be found. But fince he did 
 not think that fit, I judged it would not be 
 improper for me to do it for him, by laying 
 fome of them open to View, before I pro- 
 ceeded to examine his Proof, which will ba 
 done in its proper Place "". 
 
 CHAP. 11. 
 
 7he Nature^ and true Notion of the Church, 
 ( i. e. the Catholick or Univerfal Church ) 
 laid open^ and eftablijhed^ with fome Re- 
 marks 7nade on Topijh Writers^ and their 
 Waj of reafoning. 
 
 WHAT the learned Mr. Du Tin has 
 (with fo much Wifdom and Strength) 
 faid againll: the Infallibility of the Biihop 
 of Rome^ I may fay concerning that of the 
 Church of Rorne : '^ " When (fays he) the 
 '' common Nature and Condition of all 
 " Men is fuch, that they are obnoxious to 
 *' many and various Errors, God can beftow 
 " no greater Privilege upon any Mortal, 
 than^an abfolute Immunity from Error, 
 
 " efpe- 
 
 "» Chap. 3d and 4th. 
 
 C( 
 
C 35 ) 
 
 ^' efpccially in thofe Things, the Knowledge 
 " whereof, altho' necefTary, is yet above 
 " the Comprehenfion of our Reafon ; but 
 *' the greater and more excellent this Gift 
 ** is, the more careful we ought to be, not 
 *^ to afcribe it to any, rafhly, and without 
 *' Foundation ; for, befides that it is a pro- 
 *' fane and unworthy Thing to afcribe an 
 ^' Authority to any that is not competent, 
 ^' nothing can be more hazardous than to 
 *' believe him infallible who may err ; for 
 ^* if it happens, that he actually does err, 
 ** they are neceflarily led into Error who 
 *' believed him infallible, becaufe they muft 
 ^' adhere to that Authority which they think 
 *' fuch. Therefore, (continues he) none 
 *' is obliged to believe this Infallibility, un- 
 *^ lefs it is demonflrated with fo much 
 *' Strength and Clearnefs, that there re- 
 ^' main no Room for doubting ; for if it is 
 " only probable, there is a Poffibility left 
 ^' that it may be falfe." 
 
 Here is a very wife, judicious Caution, 
 given by a moft eminent Do6lor of that 
 Church : How well the Author of the Ma- 
 nufcript has obferved it, we fhall fee when his 
 Proof is examined, which (with God's Af- 
 fiftance) I intend to do, in the very Order 
 he has laid it, after I have notified to the 
 Reader, that his Way of writing, tho' it 
 E 2 cap 
 
 J, 
 
C 36 ). 
 carries an Air of great Plainnefs and Sinar 
 
 plicity, is yet very artful and enfnaring. 
 
 1 fhall have Occafion to obferve this in 
 feveral Inftances, when his Arguments are 
 brought forth into broad Day. — Atpfefent 
 I fhall only gjye one Sample qf it, fit to be 
 given before I go further, and that is, his 
 jdarkening and perplexing the Notion of the 
 Church, ' blending and confoundhig the 
 Church pf Chrift, or the Catholick Church, 
 ^ith the Church of lio?ne; as if thefe two 
 Names were of the fame Signification and 
 Import, andrneant thefarne Thing. 
 
 Thus (Paragraph 2d) *' he begins very 
 *' fmoothly and plaufibly, with the Infalli- 
 «' bility of Chrift's Church, or that great 
 <* Authority which Chrifl has given her ; 
 *' but fome Time after, (in his i8th and 
 «' 19th Paragraphs) he confines this great 
 f' Privilege and Authority to the Church 
 ?' in Communion ^ith the Bifhop oiRomCy 
 f^ which he (very modeflly) fay^, is thi$ 
 f' Catholick Church, pr Chrift's Church/' 
 
 Sure if the Gentleman had written as ma- 
 ny Pages, to convince "his intended Con- 
 yerts, that a Part is equal to the whole ; 
 that univerfal and particular imply the fame 
 Thing; that a gangrened Member is a whole 
 found Body ; that the City of Rome is all 
 Jtalj, or all the World ; or that the Mem- 
 ber 
 
( 37 1 
 berof Parliament for the Shire in which I 
 live, is the Reprefentative of all Scotland ; 
 he could not have been thought to have ad- 
 vanced ftronger Contradictions, nor to have 
 addrelled the good Judgment of his Difci- 
 pies in a lefs courteous Manner. 
 
 It is fo much the Intereft of the Romijh 
 Miflionaries to have this Matter perplexed, 
 that they fpare no Pains to do it: On the o- 
 ther Side, to have it rightly ftated, and well 
 underftood, is of great Confequence to us, 
 in all our Differences with them. What has 
 been written on this Subjedl by reformed 
 Catholicks, has cleared it up, to the Satif- 
 fac^ion of the unprejudiced, and fhewed e- 
 vidently, that the Church of Ro?ne (not- 
 withftanding all her big Words, and vain 
 Boafts of Infallibility, Univerfality, a^c,^ 
 is fo far from being the whole Catholick 
 Church, that flie is but a very corrupted, 
 difeafedPart of her. 
 
 I fball only obferve here, (to fave my 
 J^eader the Labour of confulting great Vo- 
 lumes) that the Nature, Conftitution, and 
 Extent of the Catholick Church, may be 
 collected from the very Commiflion, in vir- 
 jtue whereof it was formed. 
 
 § I. The Commiflion In Virtue whereof 
 jhe Church of Chrift was formed into a 
 
 So- 
 
 J, 
 
( 38 ) . 
 Society, or Body corporate, is (as we find 
 it in the Gofpels) directed to all the Apoftles 
 in common, who were to a6l in Concert, 
 and in a perfeft Equality, Jefus Chrift re- 
 ferving to himfelf the Privilege of being the 
 Center of this Unity, the Head of this Bo- 
 dy, and fupreme Governor of his own fpi- 
 ritual Kingdom, th^e Church ; and it runs 
 in thefe Terms, " That they fhould go, and 
 ^' teach (or make Difciplesof) all Nati- 
 •^ ons, i^'c, — that they fhould preach Re- 
 « pentance, and Remiflion of Sins, in his 
 «' Name, among all Nations, beginning at Je- 
 •* rujalem','" and that they fhould abide at Jf- 
 *' rufalem till they were endued vi^ith Power 
 " from on high •." This Power was aftually 
 communicated to them by the miraculousDe- 
 fcent of the Holy Ghofi: on the Day of Ten^ 
 tecofl^ the Symbol by which it was convey- 
 ed, being given to all alike ; for the fiery 
 cloven Tongues lighted and fat, not on St, 
 ^eter only, but upon each of them, and 
 all the Apoftles were filled with the Holy 
 Ghoft, and begun to fpeak with other 
 Tongues, as well as he. 
 
 Thus, furniflied with their Commiflion, 
 and with extraordinary Abilities to execute 
 it, they went forth, and preached the Go- 
 
 fpel 
 
 ^.^ o St. Matth. xxviii. 19. St. Luke, xxiv. 47, 49. A6\s ii, 
 
 ^^ I, 2, 3- 4- 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 fpel in Jerufalemy in Judca^ and SaiMria^ 
 
 and to the utmoft Parts of the Earth. By 
 their Labours, their Travels, and their Suf- 
 ferings, they propagated the glad Tidings 
 of Salvation throughout the World. Tho' 
 they were united in the main Defign, and 
 tho' their Office and Powers were the fame, 
 yet their Provinces were diftini^ ; by which 
 Means " their Sound went out into all the 
 <' Earth, and thcirWords unto the Ends of the 
 *' World:" And in whatever Place or Coun- 
 try of the World the Chriftian Religion was 
 promulged and eftablifhed by their Miniftry, 
 or that of their Succeflbrs in Office, ( fent 
 by them, as they were by Chrift) wherefo- 
 ever the Faith once delivered to the Saints, 
 the Do^lrine, Worfliip and Polity, left by 
 Chrid: to his Church, has been, is, or fhall 
 be received, retained, and profeflTed, there 
 is a true and proper Part of the One Catho-- 
 lick Churchy as true and proper as at Anti- 
 ochy or Ro??ie, where St. Teter laboured in 
 Perfon ; — and all thefe Parts together make 
 up the one holy Catholick and Jlpojlolick^ or 
 Univerjal Church. 
 
 This is evidently what St. Taul means 
 by the ^' many Members, and yet but one 
 •' Body, whereof Chrift is the Head ;" and 
 
 by 
 
 Ails i. 8. Rom. X. i8. X Cor. xii. 20. Rom. svi. ^. 
 X Cor, vii. 1 7. 
 
 J 
 
by Ms mentioning in fome Places, " all the 
 " Churches," and in other Places, fpeaking 
 only of one Church, or the whole Chrifti* 
 an Church, (the Body aggregate, confift- 
 ing of all thefe Parts) which he fays, " was 
 " built upon the Foundation of the A- 
 " poftles and Prophets, Jefus Chrift him* 
 " felf being the chief Corner Stone/' 
 
 § II. This plain Account of the Catho- 
 lick Church, as it is agreeable to the holy 
 Scriptures, and to the Nature and Reafon 
 of the Thing, fo is it to the Sentiments of 
 the ancient Fathers^ thofe great Lights of 
 theprimitive Church. Thus 
 
 St. Cyprian fays, p " The Church is one, 
 " diftinguilh'd into manyMembers, through- 
 " out the whole World, and that there is 
 " one Epifcopate^ difTufed thro' the whole 
 " agreeing Numbers of many Bifhops. 
 
 St. C/r// of Jerufalem (explaining that 
 Article of the Creed, one holy CatboUck 
 Church) fays, ^ " fhe is called Catholick, 
 *^ bccaufe fhe is diffufed thro' the whole 
 *' Earth, from one End to the other ; be- 
 *' caufe fhe teaches catholickly or univerfal- 
 " ly, and without any Defcd:, all the Do- 
 
 " ftrincs 
 
 2 Cor. xi. 28. Ephef. ii. 20. 
 
 P D. Qprian. epijl. S2. ad AntQJi. 6 I/r. ds unit, cccjffi^ 
 
 q D, Cjr'iL Catechef j8. 
 
C 41 ) 
 ^ ftrlnes which ought to be known and be- 
 
 " lieved ; and becaiife flie fubdues and com- 
 
 " prehends all Sorts of Men, Princes and 
 
 " private Perfons, learned and unlearned." 
 
 Thefe Fathers, (with others which might 
 be quoted to the fame Purpofe) by the Ca- 
 tholick Church, underftood the Church 
 fpread over the Face of the whole Earth, 
 but never mention the Church of lio7?ie as 
 the Catholick Church ; and when fome- 
 times any of them do fpeak of her, it is not 
 always fo much to her Honour, or the Ac- 
 knowledgment of her fupreme Authority, 
 as her modern Advocates would have it. 
 
 Thus St, ylugtijiine, '^ writing againfi: (Jr- 
 hicus^ who affirmed the Neceffity of the 
 Sabbatical Faft^ becaufe it was obferved in 
 the Church of i?^;;^^', prefers the Pradlice of 
 the whole Catholick Church to hers ; an 
 evident Sign he thought them diftincl, and 
 the one Authority inferior to the other.-— 
 St. Jerorn ' fays, " If Authority is fought 
 " for, that of the World is greater than 
 " that of a City."-And St. Avibrofe, fpeak- 
 Ing of a Cuftom, (/. e. wafhing of the 
 Feet ) concerning which he taught dif- 
 ferently from his Neighbours ztKovie^ fays, 
 
 F ^ " I 
 
 ' Epifl. 86. ad Cafulanum. 
 
 * ^pp. ad EvagriwTiy qu^e Indp'tty Leglmiis in Efaifff 
 
( 4^ ) 
 
 « ?« I would be glad to follow the Roman 
 
 f' Church in all Thifigs, but even we have 
 ^' Underflanding, or common Senfe, too ; 
 *^ therefore, what is more rightly obfervec) 
 f' eUcwhere, we rightly hold, We follow 
 " the Apoftle Teter himfelf : We imitate 
 f^ his Pevotion. —r What will the Roman 
 <« Church anfvver to this ? '' 
 
 This (I humbly think) has a flirewd 
 Look, a ftrong Tendency to prove againft 
 rhe Author of the Manufcript, that his No- 
 tion of the Catholicifm and Infallibility of 
 his Church, was not known in thofe early 
 Ages. 'Tis true they fpoke very refpe^lful- 
 Jy of the Roman Church, and paid her 
 great Regards, efpecially while Rorne was 
 (the chief City, or Seat of the Empire ; and 
 indeed Ihe well deferved ail the Refpeds paid 
 her in thofe Days ; but ^^hile they faid dif- 
 creet Things to her, or of her, they never 
 dream'd pf her Infallibility, or of her be- 
 ing the Catholick Church, never pinn'd 
 |:heir Faith %o her Sleeve, nor received her 
 Decifions or Definitions implicitely, and on 
 her fingle Authority. 
 
 The Cafe ftanding thus, both in theTefti- 
 inonies of the infpired Writings, and of 
 priii^itiye Antiquity, I muft conclude, that 
 
 the 
 
 5 De facram^t. Lib, 3. c. ?. 
 
( 43 ) 
 the Author of the Manufcript did liof ufe 
 his Difciple well, in blending and confound- 
 ing the Names and Notions of Things, as 
 he has artfully done in this Matter ; for 
 which let Optatus Milevitanus ( writing a- 
 gainfl: ^armenian the 'DonatijT) reprove him. 
 The Donatifis were a Seel which vapoured 
 hot a little then, (as the Rojnijb Church does 
 how) with a vain Conceit of their Purity 
 and Privileges, and the great fwelling Titles 
 they had taken to themfelves. Let us fee 
 with what Edge and Point Optatus baffles 
 thefe bold Pretenfions : "^ " You fay, Bro- 
 *' xhcxVarmenian, (fays he) that the Church 
 <^ is with you alone : Why ? but becaufe 
 *^ your Pride has made you claim fuch a 
 " fpecial San6lity, that the Church muft be 
 *' where you would have her, and not be 
 *^ where you would not have her ; there- 
 *« fore, that yoii may confine the Church 
 <' within your harrow Dimenfions, in the 
 ** other Parts of the World, where you are 
 «« not, fhe muft not be/' ( Here he goes 
 on to mention a great many particular Coun- 
 tries and Churches, and then continues he) 
 " Where is then the Propriety of the Ca- 
 *< tholick Name, when fhe is therefore ftiled 
 " Catholickj becaufe fhe is reafonable, and 
 
 F 2 '* every 
 
 * Opt at. Lib, 3. cont, Parmemammi. 
 
-V 
 
 ( 44 ) 
 " every 'vvhere fpread ? For if by your 
 
 " Whim you ftraitcn the Church, and cut 
 '^ off all other Countries from her, where 
 " is that which the Son of God purchafed? 
 " Where is all that which the Father wil* 
 *' lingly gave him in the 2d Pfalm, faying, 
 *' / %vill give the Nations for thine Inherit 
 *' tance, and the utmofl Bounds of the Earth 
 " fr thy Toffejfion ? In vain therefore do 
 *' ye appropriate this Name to yourfelves, 
 *' which rather belongs to us : Perhaps you 
 " will claim a Property in our Teter^ as if 
 *' you had him fhut up in your Pockets ; 
 •* fend him if you can ; feeif he will exclude 
 " the fcven Angels of our Brethren in A- 
 *' fta, to whofe Churches the Apoftle John 
 
 *' wrote If we have difpleafed you^ 
 
 " what has Antioch or Arabia done ? " 
 
 Much more to thisPurpofe isfaid by Op- 
 tatusy who wrote in the 4th Age ; — but this 
 is fufRcient to fliew what the Sentiments of 
 the Ancients were on this Subje^l. But af- 
 ter all, I think it is not juft, that the Author 
 of the Manufcript fhould alone bear all the 
 Reproof of this grave Father, when he is not 
 fingle in the Fault. Other Writers of his 
 Church have trod the fame Path before him ; 
 they were aware, that the Promifes in the 
 Gofpcl (whatever they contain) belonged 
 to the whole Church of Chrift ; fo that there 
 
 was 
 
( 45 ) . 
 
 was no Way left to appropriate thefc Pro- 
 mifes to the Church of Rome^ but to make 
 her pafs for this whole or Catholick Church. 
 
 And here I muft commend Toftatus Abu- 
 lenfts, (one of their own Biftiops) for dif- 
 covering more Judgment, or more Candour, 
 in this Matter, than the Authors I am now 
 examining have done. " The Catholick 
 *' Church (fays Tojtatus^ y never errs, be- 
 " caufe it never errs altogether ; but the La- 
 «< tin (or Roman) Church is not the Catho- 
 « lick Church, but only a certain Part of 
 " it ; therefore, tho' all of her fhould err, 
 " yet the Catholick Church would not err, 
 " becaufe the Catholick Church would re- 
 " main in thofe Parts which do not err, 
 " whether they are greater or lefs, more in 
 " Number, or fewer, than thofe which 
 « do/; 
 
 This was fair and ingenuous in the Biihop 
 of Aviia, (who vv^rote in the 15th Centu- 
 ry) and what might be expe(5led from one 
 truly influenced by Regards to Truth, and 
 his own Chara6ler ; for there can be no 
 groffer Contradiction to either, than to put 
 the Church of Ro?7ie in Poflefllon of all the 
 Promifes made, and all the Privileges grant- 
 ed to the Catholick Church. For, 
 
 §111. 
 
 y To/Iat. pr^tfat, in Matth. xiii. ^ 4. -— 6 Prolog. 2. 
 in Matth, 
 
w y 
 
 ( 46 ) , . 
 
 § TIL The Roman Church Is hot the 
 t)ideft Church ; and therefore the Author 
 of the Manufcript very warily calls her the 
 old Church ^ ; for St. Teter was at Jerufa- 
 leniy and Anttoch^ and was the Apoftle of 
 the Circumcifion '^^ before he was at Rome. 
 The original CommiiTion by which the A- 
 poftles a6ted, pointed to Jerufalem, for the 
 Beginning of their Miniftry : At Antioch 
 the Chriftian Name commenced^; and if 
 we may believe Cardinal Baronius^ and a 
 learned Popifti Bilhop of our own Coun- 
 try % Jofeph of Arimathea came into Bri^ 
 tain^ and taught us Chriftianity full as ear- 
 ly as they had it at Rome, 
 
 Neither Is fhe the Mother of all other 
 Churches, tho' Pope Tins has made it art 
 Article of his Creed, (without the Belief 
 whereof he would have none faved) " that 
 <' fhe is the Mother and Miftrefs of all 
 *' Churches."— But by his good Leave, the 
 Church of Jerufalem muft be allowed the 
 Mother-Church, elfe the ancient Predidii- 
 ons were not fulfilled, nor the Command 
 of Jefus Chrifl obeyed ; for the Prophet 
 
 had 
 
 ^ par. 19. 
 c Gal. ii. 7, 9. 
 ^ A(5ls xi. 26. 
 
 e Baron, in ann. D ^^.'"Lejlaus Ep» Rojpgn, In far A'* 
 fiefi fdit, am hijl, de rtb, gefl, Scot or urn 9 
 
( 47 ) 
 Jiad foretold, that ^ " the Law fhould go forth 
 *' of Zion^ and the Word of the Lord from 
 " JertiJ'alem ; — And our blelTed Saviour ex- 
 prefly enjoined his Apoftlcs, to s *' preach 
 " the Golpel to all Nations, beginning at 
 " yerujalem!^ 
 
 Neither did the Ancipnts reckon her a 
 Center of Lenity to all other Churches, a- 
 ny more than all the other Apoftolical 
 Churches were to her, elfe why fhould the 
 mofl: approved Fathers and Hiftorians of the 
 early Ages be fo careful to preferve and 
 bring down to Pofterity, the Succeflion of 
 the Bifliops of the other great Sees, when 
 that of Ro7ne alone might have fcrved the 
 Turn I 
 
 Neither is (he (what the Author of the 
 Manufcript modefHy calls her^) the Great 
 Church, either in Point of Extent, or in 
 Point of Jurifdi6tion and Authority ; not 
 in Point of Numbers or Extent, (tho' it 
 would not mend the Matter if fhe were) 
 for if one looks into the pajfl or prefent State 
 of Chriftendom, he will fee what little Pro- 
 portion fhe bears to all thefe other Church- 
 es, which, on Account of her Pride and Im- 
 purities, have been at different Times for- 
 ced 
 
 f Ifa. II. 3. 
 
 g St. Luke, xxlv. 47 1 
 
 ^ Par. 10. / 
 
 ■ * ' • m 
 
( 48 ) . 
 ccd to give up communicating with her ; 
 and as for that Jurifdi6lion and Authority 
 which fhe claims over other Churches, it is 
 ^11 ufurped, acquired by very bad Means, 
 and was unknown to the firft and bed 
 Chriftians. 
 
 It was not St. ^eter, but St. James^ who 
 prefided in the Council at Jerujalejn ' ; the 
 Bilhop o^ Rome did not prefidc in the Coun- 
 cil of Nice ; and it was long e're he claim- 
 .ed a Right, either to his Legates to prefide 
 in Councils, or to himfclf to ratify their 
 Decrees. Pope Gregorj the Great, even in 
 the 7th Century, difclaimed the Title of 
 Univerfal Bifhop, and declared it Antichri- 
 ftian to pretend to it ; and that the Church- 
 es of Scotland^ and of the ancient Britons^ 
 maintained their Independency of the, See 
 of Rome^ even after Augufttne was fent in- 
 to our Ifland, to convert the Saxons^ we 
 need no other Voucher than their own Hi:- 
 ftorian Bede^^ from whom we may learn, 
 that it was not till the 8th Century that our 
 Anceftors bowed their Heads to receive the 
 Papal Yoke. 
 
 I have faid juft now, that the Bifhop of 
 Rome did not prefide in the Council of 
 
 Nice, 
 
 J Acfls XV. 
 
 k Hij}, ecclef. Lib. 3. f. 4. 
 ^ X Vide Forhefii inJlruCl, h'lji, theoL Uh. 3. c, 3Q, p, 17O4 
 
( 49 ) 
 Nicei Here I have taken the Liberty to 
 
 cdntradi(5l the Author of The Jhortejt Way^ 
 who (Page 99.) tells us, with his ufual Con- 
 fidence, that " in the Council of Nice a- 
 " gainll: the Arians, u4nno 325, the Legates 
 <« of Vo^tSylveJler^xdiAcA. together with O- 
 ^\fiitsJ' Which of us was in the right, whe- 
 ther he or I have told the Truth, might be 
 fhewed by Variety of Evidence ; but to fliort- 
 en the Matter, I refer it to the Dccifion of 
 one of his own Communion, (an Author 
 indeed of more Learning and Modefty than 
 he) I mean Dr. Dii Tin, who^ having told 
 us, that this Council was called by the Em- 
 peror Conjlantine ; that it was compofed of 
 3i8Bifhops, 6^r. adds, that " the Legate 
 " of Pope Syhefler afliiled at it ; but we 
 « do not certainly know (fays he) who was 
 « Prefident of that Aflembly : — 'Tis likely 
 " it v/as Ofius Bifliop of Corduhay 
 
 There is another Thing, of which (to 
 prevent future Quibble) it may be proper 
 to advertife my Reader, before I conclude 
 this Chapter, viz. That when I fay the 
 Roman Church is not, nor can be the Ca- 
 tholick Church, any more than a Part can 
 be the Whole ; by the Roman Church, I do 
 not mean the particular Diocefc or Province 
 G of 
 
 ' Ecclef. hifl, W, 2. p. I2i '-' is Ah-ld^.Vol. 2. p. 124. 
 
( 50 ) 
 of Rome only, but 1 mean all the Churcli- 
 es which live in Communion with, and Sub- 
 jeflion to the Bilhop of Rome^ as Head of 
 the Church, and look on it as necelTary to 
 Salvation fo to do. This is what I afTert to 
 be but a Part of the Catholick Church, and 
 a corrupt one too." 
 
 The ancient Creeds mention one Catho- 
 lick and Apoftolick Churchy but the modern 
 Creed of Pope ^lus has added Rotfian to Ca^ 
 tholkk, which is equally audacious, inept 
 and abfurd ; for Catholick or Univerfal, figni- 
 fies and comprehends all the Parts ; but it 
 does not fo when Roman is joined to Catho- 
 lick ; for then it excludes all thofe from be- 
 ing Parts of the Catholick Church which do 
 not join in theRoman Communion: And this, 
 I fay, is unreafonable, in fo far as it limits 
 and deftroys the Meaning of the Word CV 
 tholick, and is as remote from Truth, as it 
 would be to affirm that the Genjian Ocean 
 is the whole Sea. 
 
 One of their controverfial Writers about 
 feventy Years ago, thinks to folve this Dif- 
 ficulty by the Help of his Metaphyficks. 
 *" " Ocean (fays he) is the whole Sea : Is 
 " it not ? And is it the Icfs the Ocean, be- 
 *' caufe German is added to it? '' — No, fay 
 
 I, the 
 
 ^ Defence of fome Royal Papers, P. 52. 
 
( 51 ) ' , 
 I, the Ocean is juft as large as ever it was ; 
 but the adcling German to it reftrains the 
 Senfe and Meaning of Ocean, to a Part of 
 it, within certain Bounds, and excludes the^ 
 Mediterranean^ the u^driatick, and Cafpian* 
 Seas, and many other Parts of the great O- 
 cean, which are without thofe Limits. 
 
 Juft fo it is, in adding Roman to Catho- 
 lick, Catbolick alone comprehends all Parts 
 of the Church ; hut Roinan added to it con- 
 fines the Senfe of it to thofe who embrace 
 the Faith received in the Roman Communi- 
 on, and this excludes all other Parts of the 
 Gatholick Church, and fo makes a Part to 
 be the Whole. 
 
 Now, as this Limitation (of Roman) was 
 'not put into the ancient Creeds, nor indeed 
 was ever put into any Creed before that of 
 Pope Tins IV. in the i6th Century ; and 
 as Perfons in all Parts of the World, and 
 in all Ages of the Church, and even in the 
 Roman Church at this Day, have been, and 
 are baptized into the Faith of the ancient 
 Creed only, I think I may infer, that e- 
 ven the Roman Church herfelf did not, nor 
 does, believe, (whatever her prefent Miflion- 
 aries may fay) that fhe is the one Catholick 
 Church which we profefs to believe in the 
 Creed. 
 
 fox if the Ro?7zan Church believed itfclf 
 
 G z to 
 
.( 52 ) 
 to be the Gatholick Church, it muft make 
 
 void the Baptifm of thofe who are not of 
 iier Communion, which Ihe neither does at 
 • prefent, nor ever has done : On the contra- 
 ry, fhc fuftains and allows the Baptifm ad- 
 iminiftred in the Greeks Oriental, and Re- 
 formed Churches, fo as never to repeat it. 
 
 At the fame Time, the Roman Catechifm 
 ^ tells us, that '^ Baptifm is the Gate by 
 f' which we enter into the Church." And 
 the Council of Trent ° afferts *' the Vaiidi- 
 '* ty and Efficacy of the Sacraments in ge- 
 *' ncral, and of Baptifm in particular ;" and 
 denounces an Anathema againfl: them who 
 fay, " that Children baptized are not to be 
 '*' reckoned inter fideles^ i. c, to be Mem- 
 " bers of the Catholick Church." 
 
 Now, if being baptifed into the Chrifti- 
 an Faith, contained in the ancient Creeds, 
 where there is no Mention of Romany can 
 rcake us Members of the Catholick Church, 
 nay, if the Bapfifm adminiflred in thofe 
 Churches, which are not in the Roman Com- 
 inuhion, has the fame Efficacy, (which ihe 
 allows it has) then I humbly think it fol- 
 lows, by unavoidable Confequence, that 
 the Catholick Churchy and the Roman Catho- 
 iick^ are not the fame, fince thofe may be 
 
 Mern- 
 
 n Catech. Rom. Part. i. C. lo. N. 20. 
 • Con, Triikn, S^Jf, 7.* Can. y, 8, 9, 13, 
 
Members bf the Catholick Church, which 
 are not of the Roman Catholick. 
 
 A very judicious Writer in the lafl: Cen- 
 tury P has faid fomething very clear and ftrong 
 on this Subje(5l, with which I fhall fum up 
 what has been faid in this Chapter, and the 
 preceeding : " Whatever depends folely up- 
 '' on the Will and Appointment of God, 
 " that which God might do, or might not 
 ^' do, as he pleafed, in fuch Cafes, (fays he) 
 ^' our only Enquiry is, What God has a- 
 *' 6lually done ? And this can be known 
 " only by Revelation, becaufe it depends 
 " not upon any neceffary Reafon, but on 
 *« the free and arbitrary Appointment of 
 " God ; as St. Taul tells us, that "^ as no Man 
 " knows the Things of a Man, but the Spirit 
 ^' of a Man that is in him )fo no Man knovjeth 
 <' the Things of God, hut the Spirit of God. 
 ic __ That is, as no Man can tell the fecret 
 " Thoughts and Purpofes of another Man, 
 " nor how he will determine himfelf in 
 " Matters of his own free Choice and E- 
 <^ Icffion ; fo whiit depends purely upon the 
 " Will of God, is known only to the Spi- 
 " ritof God, and therefore can be made 
 ^' known to us only by Revelation. 
 
 " Many fuch 1 hings there are in Difpute 
 
 " be- 
 
 p Dr. iS^^r/o^^V Prefervative agiVmft Popery, P. 38, 59, 
 •^ X Cor. ii. Xj, 
 
C 54 ) 
 
 *^ between us and the Church of Rome^ 
 
 <« which depend fo entirely upon the Will 
 ^' of God, that they may be, or may not 
 <« be, as God plcafes. As for Inftance, 
 
 " No Man, nor Company of Men, can 
 «' be infallible, unlef? God beftow Infalli- 
 «' bility on them ; for InfalUbility is not a 
 «' natural Endowment, but a fupernatural 
 " Gift; and therefore no Reafon can prove 
 « the Bifliop of Rome, or a general Coun- 
 " cil, to be infallible. God may make 
 ^« them infallible, if he pleafes, and if he 
 «' pleafes, he may not do it ; and therefore, 
 " our only Enquiry here is, what God has 
 " done ? and this can be known only by 
 <« Revelation. 
 
 " Thus, that the Church of Roi?2e on- 
 c« ly, and thofe Churches that are in Com- 
 ^^ munion with her, fhould be the Catho- 
 « lick Church, and the Bifhop of Rome 
 <' the oecumenical Paftor, and the Center of 
 " Catholick Unity, muft depend wholly 
 " upon Inftitution ; for nothing but the 
 << Will and Appointment of God can give 
 <* this Pre-eminence and Prerogative to the 
 <« Church and Bifhop of Rome, above all 
 " other Churches and Bifhops. No Rea- 
 <« fon then can prove this, without plain 
 <« and exprefs Scripture to prove fuch an In- 
 «« ftitution, 6t." 
 
 Let 
 
\( S5 ) 
 Let us hold by this, and we fhall foon 
 
 fee how their Proof will come out. 
 
 I thought it was fit to clear up this Mat- 
 ter, before I proceeded to their Proofs ; and 
 it will be fit for my Reader, to carry on in 
 his Mind this diftin^t Notion of the Catho- 
 lick Church, and of the Difference be- 
 tween the i^lo?;^^;^ and the Catholick Church, 
 becaufe it will frequently occur in confider- 
 ing the Authorities from Scripture and Fa- 
 thers. To the firft whereof I now pro- 
 ceed. 
 
 CHAR III. 
 
 /// which the Texts from Scripture^ brought 
 in Troof of the Romifli Infallibility, are 
 conjidered^ and the true Senfe of thofe 
 Texts unfolded and explained, 
 
 THE firft Proof of Romifj Infallibility 
 brought by the Author of the Manu- 
 fcript, Is fetched from Chrift's Promife; St. 
 Matth. xvi. i8. which he reads thus, p 
 " Thou art Teter, (that is a Rock) and 
 " upon this Rock I will build my Church, 
 *' and the Gates of Hell fhall not prevail a- 
 
 gainll: 
 
 <( 
 
 e Parag, ;, 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 " gainfl: it. — Nothing can be flronger, and 
 " more exprefs, than thefe Words, (fays he) 
 " to fliew the unfliaken Stability of the 
 *^ Church, being built by the wifeft of 
 " all Builders upon a Rock, Proof againft 
 " all Floods ajid Stbrms, and we being af-^ 
 " fured by Chrift himfelf, that the Gates, 
 " or all the Powers of Hell, can never pre- 
 " vail againft her, which certainly they 
 " would, if fhe could fall into Herefies, or 
 " pernicious Corruptions and Errors, con* 
 *' trary to the Faith Chrift taught her." 
 
 The Author of The Jhorteji Way, "^ be- 
 gins with the fame Text, only he introdu- 
 ces it with more Solemnity, and much 
 Flourifh, he aftur'es us, the Words are plain 
 and obvious, and can bear no other Senfe 
 than that in which the Roman Catholick 
 Church has always underftood them. " I 
 *' appeal (fays he) to the Word of God, 
 ^' for the Truth and Juftice of the Caufc 
 *' I have undertaken : The Word of God 
 " Ihall be the Judge betv/een the Church of 
 " Rome^ and the reformed Churches. 'Tis 
 " by this Rule I dcfire this important Caufe 
 " may be decided, ^r." 
 
 This is well faid, and fairly promifed ; 
 and fince he has chofen his Weapon, with 
 
 ail 
 
 n Part i. P. 17. to 25. 
 
( 57 ) 
 all my Heart I accept of it ; I can defire no 
 
 other, tho' I am afraid he will foon grow 
 
 weary of it, when he finds It like SaufsAx^ 
 
 mour on David, that he can neither walk 
 
 nor fight with it. 
 
 Of this we have a Specimen in the very 
 next Page : " Let us confide'r (fays he) our 
 " Saviour's Words to St. Teter, recorded 
 " in the i6th Chapter of St. Matthew, I 
 " give them the firfl: Place, as being the 
 " cleared and ftrongefl Proof of an infal- 
 *' lible Church : for they contain an abfo- 
 " lute and unconditional Promife, there be- 
 ^' ing no Condition either exprefled or hint- 
 ^' ed at in the whole Text." 
 
 Very well begun with the Word of God* 
 ——Sir, one would have expelled, if not 
 more Skill, at leafl lefs Confidence, in han- 
 dling a Weapon you are fo little accuftom- 
 ed to ufe ; but let not him that puts on his 
 Armour, boafl: as he that puts it off. Whe- 
 ther this Text contains a Promife of Infal* 
 libility to the Church of Rome, and whe- 
 ther this Promife is abfolute and unconditi- 
 onal, is the Dcfign of thisChapter to difcover. 
 
 Before I go farther, it will be fit to ob- 
 ferve of this Argument, as it is brought 
 forth by thefe Gentlemen, jft, That they 
 fuppofe St. Titer to have been the Rock on 
 which the Church is built: which is what 
 
 H Lo' 
 
( 58 ) . .. 
 
 Logicians call petttio principii, or begging 
 the QuelHon, by fuppofing that for true, or 
 granted, which is a Subject of Difpute. 
 2.{ilj, Tho' one of thefe Authors thinks he 
 fples out Infallibility in this Promife, yet the 
 other, who wrote later, is more cautious 
 and rcferved, and infers from it only the 
 unfhaken Stability of his Church ;and we 
 fhall fee by and by, that there is a Difference 
 between Infallibility and Indefe6libility, be- 
 tween continuing to the End of the World, 
 and being abfolutely fecured againft the Pof- 
 fibility of ever falling into any Error. 3^/>', 
 This Promife, which (whatever it contains) 
 is made to the whole Church, is by them 
 reflrained and applied to a particular one, 
 which is but a Part of this Whole, and is 
 neither the beft nor greatefl: Part. 
 
 So that when this Argument is put into 
 Form, it comes out in this Shape: " Chriil 
 " has promifed fo great Stabihty or Durati- 
 *' on to his vjhole Churchy that the Gates of 
 ^' Hell fliall not prevail againft this luboU 
 *' Church ; — therefore the Church oi Rome 
 " is infallible." 
 
 I believe it will be difficult to find any 
 Connexion here between the Antecedent 
 and Confequcnt, or the Premiffes and Con- 
 clufion. 
 
 This were enough to expofe the Weak- 
 
 nefs 
 
( 59 ) 
 ncfs and Fallacy of this boafted Argument ; 
 
 but as this Text is the Sheet Anchor of the 
 Romip Church, and as one of thefe Gentle- 
 men has acknowledged, that " it is the clear- 
 " eft and ftrongeft Proof of his infallible 
 " Church," if upon Enquiry it fhould be 
 found it can bear another, more natural, and 
 Icfs forced Meaning, than that they would 
 ftrain it to, the Superftru6lure they would 
 raife upon it will be in tottering Circumftan- 
 ces ; and however their Church may be 
 built upon a Rock, their Infallibility will 
 be found eftablifhed upon the Sand only. 
 
 I will therefore (with God's Afliftance) 
 confider this Text carefully, and at proper 
 Length : And tho' it will take more Time 
 here, yet it will fave as much afterwards, 
 and leflen the Readers Trouble, when I 
 come to examine the other Texts brought 
 to the fame Purpofe. 
 
 To proceed the more diftin^ly in this 
 Matter, I will give the Reafons, i/?. Why 
 we reje^l the Popifh Comment on this Text, 
 And 2.dly^ Why we prefer another, 
 
 § I. ly?, If this Promifeis underftood in 
 the Komijlo Senfe, either it will prove too 
 much, or prove nothing ; becaufe, if it en- 
 tails Infallibility on their Church, fo muft 
 ^t likewife Impeccability ; for the Promife 
 
 H 2 is, 
 
 9 
 
C 60 ) 
 
 IS, to fccure the Church againft the Preva- 
 lency of the Gates of Hell, but thefe Gates 
 may prevail as certainly, and do prevail as 
 frequently, by Errors in Pra<5tice, as in 
 Faith ; and therefore this Promife muft fe- 
 cure the Church of Rome againft damnable 
 Sins, or it doth not fecure her againft damna- 
 ble Errors: The former of thefe ilie has not 
 as yet contended for, and therefore the latter 
 we cannot yield her. 
 
 idly, Whatever Infallibility is here pro- 
 mifed to St. Teter^ is, in other Places of 
 the Gofpel promifed equally to all the A- 
 poftles. If the Gates of Hell were not to 
 prevail againft St. Teter^ the Comforter was 
 promifed to " guide the reft of the Apoftles 
 " into all Truth, and to be with them unto 
 " ike End of the l^Vorld^ — The fame Power 
 pf the Keys which was promifed to St. Te- 
 ter, is a^ually given to all the Apoftles ; — 
 and if St. Terer is here called a Rock, fo 
 are the reft of the Apoftles called Founda- 
 tions and Pillars, (all which may be feen in 
 the Scriptures referred to at the Foot of this 
 Page) and where is the great Odds ? 
 
 Certainly the Promifes will conclude as 
 ftrong for the Infallibihty of all the Apoftles, 
 and their SuccelTors, as for that of St. Teter 
 
 and 
 
 St. John, xvi. 13. St. Matth. xxvili. 19. & xviii. 18. 
 t\j Joljn^ .^x, 22; 23. Ephef. ii. ^0. Gal. ii. 9, 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 and his ; and confequently every Church, 
 planted by the Apoftles, or their Succef- 
 fors, has as good Pretenfions to Infallibility 
 as the Church of Rome ; which is a Favour 
 fhe will by no Means allow them. 
 
 If it be faid, that the other Apoftles were 
 indeed infallible themfelves, but their In- 
 fallibility was not to defcend to their Suc- 
 ceflbrs. It is anfwered, No more was St. 
 Teters entailed upon his ; or if it were. 
 Why fhould it go to his Succeflbr at Roine^ 
 and not remain with his Succeflbr at Anti^ 
 och ? who was confefTedly (in this Cafe) the 
 Son of the firft Marriage ; the Right of the 
 Firft-born was his. 
 
 But the Truth of the Matter is, that this 
 Text now under Confideration, fpeaks not 
 one Syllable more of tranfmitting St. Teters, 
 Infallibility to his Succeilors, than the other 
 Texts, above referred to, do of tranfmit- 
 ting the Infallibility of the other Apoftle* 
 to theirs ; and fo it follov^s, (by unavoidable 
 Confequence) either that St. Teters Suc- 
 ceflbr is faUible, or that the Succeflt)rs of 
 all the Apoftles are as infallible as he ; and if 
 they be, then with what Confidence can 
 the Church of Rome pretend to condemn 
 and anathematize any Church that differs 
 from her, fince they are all upon a Level, 
 for Infallibility and Authority too I 
 
 To 
 
( 62 ) _ 
 To avoid the Force of this, the two Au- 
 thors I have now under my Eye would fain 
 pcrfuade us, that the Roman Church is the 
 whole Catholick Church, fo as there is no 
 other Church now upon Earth can pretend 
 to be Apoftolical, none which can prove 
 her Succeffion, or derive her Original from 
 any of the Apoftles, as the Church of Rome 
 does hers from St. Teter, 
 
 But how ftiould this happen I It muft be 
 allowed, that the other Apoftles planted 
 Churches ; St. John in ^fta^ St. Teter a- 
 mong the Jews^ and St. Taul (every where) 
 among the Gentiles, 6'^. — Now, all thefe 
 Churches had an equal Claim to the Pro- 
 mifes with that of Rome, whatever thefe 
 Promifes contain ; and if they do contain 
 an AlTurance of Infallibility, or Perpetui- 
 ty, how could they fail altogether, or ceafe 
 to be Apoftolical ? But fince we find many 
 of them have aflually erred and failed, it 
 appears that no particular Church muft ap- 
 propriate the Promife, or can have a fingu- 
 lar Title to it, exclufive of all the reft ; con- 
 fequently, that it is at leaft pofTible that the 
 Church of Rome may err and fail, as feve- 
 ral other Apoftolical Churches have done ; 
 and if this Poftibility remain, ihe is not in- 
 
 Tallible. For, 
 
 S^/y, Let it be fuppofed, that Infallibility 
 
 V is 
 
( 63 ) 
 
 is promifed in this Text, yet the Promife is 
 made to the ivhole Clnircb^ i, e. to all that 
 was to be built upon the Rock, which 
 Chrift calls his Church. Now, the Promife 
 being thus made to the nvbole Church, it 
 muft belong to all the Parts alike, of which 
 this TVhole is made up ; by which Means 
 all the Bifhops and Churches in the World 
 muft come in for a Share of this Infallibili- 
 ty with the Church and Bifliop of Ro77ie ; 
 and if this is the Cafe, the Church oi Rome 
 appears to be a very bad Neighbour ; for by 
 what Warrant has flie made a Monopoly of 
 it, and determined that to be her Property 
 which was intended to have been common ? 
 Had the Roman Church let Things ftand 
 upon their proper Bottom, had ftie paid due 
 Regard to the Sentiments of the univerfal 
 Church of Chrift, had fhe taken for her 
 Rule the Word of God, as underftood, in- 
 terpreted, and apphed, by the conftant and 
 agreeing Teftimony and Practice of the 
 Church, in all Places, and all Ages, efpe- 
 cially the early ones, which were neareft to 
 the Fountain-head, and were inftruded by 
 the Apoftles, and their immediate Succef- 
 fors, — we fhould have had no Difference 
 with her ; for we adhere to the known and 
 approved Rule of Vincentius Lyrinenfts^ 
 " That which has obtained in all Places, a- 
 
 *^ mong 
 
( ^4 ) 
 " mong all Churches, and at all Thnes, Is 
 
 *^ truly Catholick." To this Rule we fub- 
 
 mlt, and by it we are content to have the 
 
 Caufe tried and decided in all Matters of 
 
 Difpute betwixt them and us : But the 
 
 Church of Rome would not venture this ; 
 
 fhe faw plainly her new Doctrines would 
 
 not ftand this Tcft, nor fquare with this 
 
 Rule, and therefore devifed this Pretence of 
 
 Infallibility, and paramount Authority, as 
 
 a more proper Defence for them. 
 
 4//;/>', What if for this once I fhould al- 
 low, (what fome Popifli Writers have af- 
 firmed, and others, particularly thefe two 
 Gentlemen, have ftrongly infinuated) that 
 the Rock mentioned in this Text was not 
 Chrift himfelf, nor St. Teters Confcffion, 
 but his Perfon ; yet even this would not 
 avail, to carry their Caufe. 
 
 For, according to this Hypothefis, the 
 Churches of Jerujalem^ Antioch, Crete^ and 
 Corinth, the feven Churches of Afia, and 
 (to ufe St. TauFs Exprcflion) all the Church- 
 es, mufl: have been built upon St. Teters 
 Perfon, as well as that of Ro?ne ; and fince 
 this Infallibility was equally promifed to all 
 Parts of the Church built upon this Rock, 
 it muft follow of Courfe, either that each 
 of thcfc Churches was infallible, or that 
 
 the 
 
( «5 ) , 
 the Church of Rome is as fallible as the^ 
 were. 
 
 It cannot be denied, that the Gofpel wa^ 
 preached, and a Church fbrmed and efla- 
 blifhed at Jerujaletn, at Antioch^ and other 
 Places, before there was any at Rome, Now, 
 cither thefe Churches were buih upon this 
 Rock, or they were not : If not, then all 
 the Apoftles of thefe Churches', not ex- 
 cepting St. ^eter himfelf, who was Bifhop 
 of Antioch^ were much to blame, for impo- 
 fing a groundlefs InfHtution upon their Con- 
 verts, I mean forming them into Churches, 
 not founded upon the Rock : But if they 
 were, what imaginable Reafon can be af- 
 figned, why the Gates of Hell fhould have 
 prevailed againft thofe ancient Churches, (e- 
 fpecially that of Jerujalem, the Mother- 
 Church of Chriftians) and yet can never 
 prevail againft the Church oi" Rome; fince 
 they were all built upon the fame Rock^ 
 and the Promifes (whatever they were) were 
 equally made to all ? 
 
 It will be difficult to find a ffOod Reafort 
 for this Preference, this diftinguifhing Pre- 
 eminence claimed by Rome ; the natural In- 
 ference, the necelTary Conclufion, rather is, 
 that fince thefe Churches have erred and 
 failed, it is (at leaft) pofllble, that the Church 
 of Rome may err and fail, as they have 
 
 I done, 
 
^ i 66 ) 
 done, fince flie Is built upon no other Rock, 
 nor can pretend to any ftronger Promife, or 
 higher Privilege, than they might. 
 
 Having thus laid before the Reader fomc 
 cftheDIfficultiesand Abfurditieslnfeparable 
 from the Popifh Comment on this Text, 
 which muft occur to any one that confiders 
 it with Attention and Candour, and with- 
 out the Bias which Education or Intereft, 
 Pride, or other Paffion, lay upon the Mind, 
 I proceed to offer another and better Way 
 of underftanding it, more reconclleable to 
 Truth and common Senfe, and fuchasmay 
 not fet our blelfed Lord's Promife in any 
 Contradi<5lion to his Providence. 
 
 § II. In order to form a right Judgment 
 of the Nature and Extent of this Promife, 
 It will be neceffary to explain the Terms In 
 w^hich It Is wrapt up, viz. AVhat Is meant by 
 this Rock : What by the Cbiwch built upon 
 that Rock : And what by the Gates of 
 HelFs not prevailing again ft that Church. 
 
 17?, As to the Rock^ a Number of Wri- 
 ters on the Popifh Side have affirmed it to 
 be meant of St. TeterKimkXi -, and of this 
 Mind the Author of the Manufcrlpt feems 
 to be; for he reads the Text thus, " Thou 
 *' art Teter, (that is a Rock^ and upon this 
 *' Rock, (6'^." Bellarmine lias told us, that 
 
 this 
 
( (>7 .). 
 this was the current Ophiloii amongft the 
 
 Fathers ; the contrary whereof might be 
 
 made appear from a great Number of Te- 
 
 ftimonies ; but to fave Labour and Time, I 
 
 fhall mention but a few, but fuch as, being 
 
 decifive in the Cafe, will be fufficient to 
 
 confute the Cardinal. 
 
 St. Auguftine fays exprefly, that " Teter 
 " himfelf was built upon that Rock, and 
 " how then could he be that Rock?" His 
 Reafoning is fo ftrong, that I fhall tranfcribe 
 his Paragraph, after defiring the Reader 
 would fatisfy himfelf as to the Juftnefs of 
 my Tranflation, by looking to the Place 
 referred to at the Foot of this Page ^ 
 
 " The Church (fays he) in this Age is 
 " fhaken with many Temptations, (as with 
 " Rains, Floods, and Tempefts) but does 
 " not fall, becaufe fhe is founded upon a 
 " Rock ;• from whence alfo Teter received 
 *' his Name ; for the Rock is not named 
 " from Teter, but "Tetcr from the Rock, 
 " even as Chrift does not derive his Name 
 '' from Chriftians, but ChriiHans from 
 •' Chrift ; therefore faith the Lord, Upon 
 " this Rock I will build my Church, be- 
 « caufe Teter had faid. Thou art Chrift, 
 ♦' the Son of the living God. — Upon this 
 I 2 "Rock 
 
 » T>. AuguP'in. traH. ult, i. e, 12 j. in evang. Joan. torn. 9. 
 col 572. Edit. BafiL 
 
( 68 ) ^ 
 c^« Rock therefore, (fays Chrift) which thou 
 ^^ haft confefled, will I build my Church ; 
 " for the Rock was Chrift, upon which Te- 
 '^ ter himfelf was built ; for another Foiin- 
 ^^ dation can no Man laj, than that which is 
 *f laid, which is Cbriji JefusT 
 
 And in another Place of his Works ^j 
 the fame St. Augujline has faid fomething 
 full home to the fame Purpofe, which I Ihall 
 alfo tranfcribe, with the lame ftri6t Regard 
 to his Meaning, tho' I cannot pretend to re- 
 tain his Elegancies. — " Therefore (faith 
 .^' Chrift) thou art Teter\ and upon this 
 5^ Rock which thou haft confefled, this 
 '^ Rock which thou haft known, faying, 
 .^* thou art Chrift, ^ the Son of the living God, 
 ^' will I build my Church. Upon 7ne will 
 ^' I build thee, and not me upon thee ; for 
 ■' Men inclining to be built upon Men, faid, 
 '' I am of yipo//o, I of Taul, and I of 
 f' Cephas, the fame isTeter; but others, 
 f^ who would not be built upon Teter, but 
 ^' upon the Rock, faid, I am of Chrift, 
 *^ I Cor. Sii. 12. But the Apoftle Taul, 
 *' when he underftood that he was prefer- 
 *' red, and Chrift defpifed, faith, Is Chrifl 
 ^* divided: Was^2xA crucified jor you ^ Or 
 f « were ye baptized in the Name of Paul I 
 
 "As 
 
 T 
 
 ** i?. Augu^in, d^ verbis Domini, Serm. 13. torn. 10. foL 
 
( ^9 ), 
 ^* As therefore not in Tauls, fo neither in 
 
 <* Teters, but in the Name of Chrift ; — 
 
 h that Tefer might be built upon the Rock, 
 
 " and not the Rock upon Teter, 
 
 Pope Gregory I. fays, *^ " That when in 
 *^ facred Stile the Rock is fpoken of in the 
 '^ fingular Number, who other than Chrift 
 " is to be underftood I " TheophylaH fays 
 indeed, ^' Chrift greatly rewarded St. Td'/dr, 
 '^ by building his Church upon him ;" but 
 immediately after explains himfelf, " that 
 " he meant his ConfefHon, not his Per- 
 <' fon ^y And Pope Adrian fays, '' that 
 " Chrift built his Church upon the Rock 
 " which Teter had confeffed ^" 
 
 It might be made evident, by many more 
 Citations from the Fathers, that they were 
 far from being on the Popifh Side in this 
 Queftion ; tho' if it fhould be fuppofed 
 they had been, I would believe St. ^aiil a- 
 gainft them all, who fays exprefly ^ (and is a- 
 bove cited for that Purpofe by St. Aiigu^ 
 (line) that " another Foundation can no 
 " Man lay, than that which is laid, which 
 5' is Chrift Jefus.'' But the few Teftimo- 
 pies above referred to will refcue them from 
 
 tliac 
 
 c Greg, moral. In Job, Lib. 31. c. 24. <^ lib, 28. C. 9. 
 
 ^ TheophyL in Matth, cap. 16. 
 
 ^ EpiJ}. ad epifcop:s Callicia (b Hifpanix, 
 
 i I Cor. iii. 11. 
 
. C 70 ) 
 that Imputation, and warrand me to con- 
 clude, that the Rock fpoken of in this Text, 
 is Chrift himfclf, as confeffed by St. Teter^ 
 in that noble Declaration of his Faith, 
 (which Flefh and Blood had not revealed to 
 him) that he " was Chrift, the Son of the 
 " living God." 
 
 Nor is it unreafonable to fuppofe, that 
 Chrift meant himfelf, when he faid this 
 Rock ; for why might he not point to him- 
 felf in pronouncing thefe Words, as he feems 
 to have done upon another like Occafion, 
 faying to xhcjeivs^ '' Deftroy this Temple, 
 ^' and in three Days I will raife it up g." 
 The Jews took this in a Popifh Senfe, for 
 the Temple of Jerujalem^ which he had 
 juft before been fpeaking of, but the Evan- 
 gelift fays, " he meant the Temple of his 
 *' Body." 
 
 -2dly, The next Thing to be enquired in- 
 to is, What we are to underftand by the 
 Church promifed to be built upon this Rock, 
 For this I hope I may refer back to the 
 preceeding Chapter, where I obferved, that 
 the Term Church being of various and 
 doubtful Signification, it is of great Confe- 
 quence to fix a right Notion of it, that wc 
 may have no Handle to fufpedl the Truth of 
 
 our 
 
 g St. John, ii. 19, 21. 
 
( 71 ). 
 our blefled Lord, nor to bring the pun6lual 
 Performance of his Promife into queftion, 
 by a wrong Application of it. 
 
 The original Word which we render 
 Church, properly fignifies, " a Multitude 
 " called out, or called together." 
 
 Sometimes this Word is put to fignify 
 them only who are fevered or called out 
 from the reft of the World by the Work of 
 Grace, by being made Partakers of the hea- 
 venly Calhng, whereby they are made Heirs 
 of Salvation, which is called the inviftble 
 Church, becaufe we cannot diftindtly difcern 
 and diftinguilh them from others who are 
 not of this happy Number. Againll: thefe 
 the Gates of Hell do not prevail indeed ; 
 but the Promife does not feem peculiar to 
 them only. 
 
 Sometimes again the Church fignifies that 
 Company of Men who live in the outward 
 Profefllon of the Truth, and acknowledge 
 the Name and Gofpel of Chrift, in any Part 
 of the World. In the firft Senfeit implies 
 " only the I/rael of God^;'' but in the fe- 
 cond, it comprehends <' all them that are of 
 " Ifraeiy Now, their Dodrine and Wor- 
 ship being open and vifible, fuch as they 
 may be taken Notice of, and diftinguiihed 
 
 by, 
 
 '" Rom. hi,, 6. 
 
( T- ) 
 by, they are on that Account called the vh 
 
 fible Churchy which, becaufe it is not, like 
 the Jewijh Church, confined to any one 
 Country, or any determined Place, is alfo 
 called the CathoUck or Univerjal Churchy 
 which is a homogeneal Body, made up of 
 fimilar Parts, an Aggregate of all the parti- 
 cular Churches, with their particular Bi* 
 fhops and Pallors, in the whole World. 
 
 Sometimes indeed the particular Churches^ 
 the feveral Parts of which this great Body 
 is compofed, are called by this Name too^ 
 fuch as, the Church of Jerufalem, of Rome^ 
 Corinth, Ephejus, <^c. Thus St. Taul men- 
 tions the " Care of all the Churches," and 
 fays, " he had ordained fo in all Church* 
 " es'." 
 
 Now, in this laft Senfe the Promife is not, 
 nor can be meant, becaufe thofe Churches 
 mentioned in Scripture, having fome of them 
 revolted from the Dodtrine and Worihip of 
 Chrift, and being over-run with Errors and 
 Herefies, deftru6live of the firfl: and funda- 
 mental Articles of the Chriftian Faith, it is 
 evident that the Gates of Hell have acHiually 
 prevailed againft thefe; and what has been 
 their dreadful Fate, may likewife happen to 
 any other particular Church, which has no 
 
 more 
 
 ' I Cor. vii. I7« 
 
i 73 ) - , 
 
 more AfTurance of Infallibility, or Inde* 
 fe<5libility than thefe had. 
 
 So that the Univerfal Church appears 
 plainly to be the Society concerned in this 
 Promife ; and fo long as the Chriftian Re- 
 ligion does not abfolutely difappear, fo long 
 as there are any where Men who continue 
 to hold all the neceflary and effential Points 
 implied in that ConfefHon of St. Tetcrs 
 Faith, which Flefh and Blood had not re- 
 vealed to him ; fo long as there remains up- 
 on the Face of the Earth, a Society of Chri- 
 ftians, acknowledging and maintaining, (a- 
 gainfl: Heathens, Jews^ Mahometans^ Ari^ 
 ansy Socinians^ Deifts, Free-thinkers, Qua- 
 kers, all the Adverfaries of this holy Faith) 
 " that Jcfus Chrift is come in the Flelh^ 
 " and that he is the Son of the living God ;" 
 fo long the Promife is fUU made good , the 
 Candle is not put out, tho' the Candleftick 
 may be removed from fome particular and 
 vifible Churches, and tranflated from one 
 Country or Province into another; 
 
 Having thus feen to whom this Promife 
 belongs, it remains to eftablifh a right No- 
 tion of the Promife itfelf. There is no 
 Room to doubt but our bleffed Saviouf will 
 perform whatever he has promifed ; but if 
 we miftake his Words or Meaning, and i- 
 magine he has promifed more than he really 
 K has 
 
has done, we injure him, and impole upon 
 ourfclves, by expelling more than he meant 
 to give ; for the Promifes of our Lord be- 
 ing the only Foundation of Certainty we 
 have to depend upon for the Continuance 
 of his Church, as he no doubt fulfils them^ 
 fo it becomes us to interpret them in fuch 
 Way and Manner, as that we may know 
 they are fulfilled, and the World may be 
 convinced he keeps his Word. In order to 
 this, it is neceflary to enquire, in the 
 
 3d Place, What is meant by the Gates of 
 
 Hell not prevailing againjl this Church, 
 
 Learned Men have underftood this different 
 Ways, and yet their feveral Interpretations 
 of this Promife are agreeable to Truth, to 
 the Nature of the Promife, and to the Oc- 
 cafion of making it ; fo that tho' they differ, 
 they do not neceffarily deftroy each other. 
 
 Some by the Word 'Ww$, which is here 
 tranflated Hell^ underftand no more than 
 the State of Souls departed, or that which 
 is elfevvhere called " the Gates of the 
 *' Graved" And then the Import of the 
 Promife will amount to this much, that al- 
 tho' Chrift has not fo vanquifhed Death, as 
 to (It his Followers out of a Condition of 
 dying, yet Death fhall not obtain a final and 
 
 ab- 
 
 f Ifa. xxxviii. 10, 
 
( 75 ) 
 abfolute Conqucft over them that die in the 
 Lord, in regard that they who have belie- 
 ved and obeyed this Chrlft, the Son of the 
 living God, fhall one Day rife again to Glo- 
 ry and Immortality; and thus the Gates of 
 Hell or Death fhall not prevail againfl: this 
 Church, becaufe the Members, of which 
 this great Body is compofed, fhall not con- 
 tinue dead for ever, but revive a fecond 
 1 ime to a better Life, and triumph over 
 this laft great Enemy of Mankind. 
 
 And indeed if we confidcr the Occafion 
 of making this Promife, and the Perfons to 
 whom it was made, this Interpretation will 
 appear not unreafonable. 
 
 The Occafion of making it, was that no- 
 ble Confeflion of the Divinity of Chrifl: ; 
 a Truth accompanied with very great Dan- 
 ger in thofe Days. — The Perfons to whom 
 it was made were firft the Apoftles, and not 
 to them only, but all thofe who, to the End 
 of the World, fhould believe the fame 
 Truth, and make the fame Confeflion. 
 
 As for the Apojtles^ (befides the common 
 Fate of Mortality) they were to expofe 
 themfelves (in the Difcharge of their Of- 
 fice) to the certain Peril of their Lives ; 
 and after they had preached and propagated 
 this Truth, which St. Teter (in Name of 
 jthem all) here confefTcd, they were to feal 
 Z K their 
 
( 76 ) 
 their Teftimony with their warmeft Blood. 
 iSFow, what could more conduce to eftablifn 
 their Minds in this hazardous Undertaking, 
 than theAffuranceof a future State? which 
 was therefore very feafonably given theni 
 in this Promife, that the Gates of Helly 
 that is, of Deaths fhould not finally pre- 
 v;^il againft them. 
 
 And ^s for other Chri/iians, who fliall 
 profefs this Fmh to the End of the World, 
 tho' perhaps they may not be in fuch immir 
 lient Danger from open Perfecutors, yet they 
 are obliged to take up the Crofs too, to be 
 ij:^ a conil:ant Readinefs to run the fame Ha- 
 zards, and endure the fame Hardfliips over 
 again, to declare War againft ghoftly Ene- 
 mies, to believe and obey all the neceflary 
 i)o6lrines and Duties couched in this fingle 
 Propofition, that <f Jefus is the Chrift, the 
 ?' Son of the living God ;'' fome of which 
 are much againft the Grain of Flefh and 
 Blood. In fhort, there can be no Truce 
 between our carnal Appetites, and the Se- 
 verities pf a Chriftian Converfation ; and 
 therefore it mpft be confefs'd, that Men 
 could hardly be perfuaded to a Condud fo 
 referved, and full of Aufterity, was there 
 not a Reverfion hereafter, fo very much to 
 be preferred to any prefent Enjoyment or 
 gratification here, that thp mere Expea:^ 
 ' ance 
 
C 77 ). 
 ance of this makes any Thing we can do or 
 fufFer, for fecuring it to ourfelves, highly 
 reafonable. 
 
 Now, -vyhat can contribute more to foften 
 thcfe Rigidities, and fweeten thofe felf-de^ 
 nying Duties, which human Nature counts 
 fo harfh, and hard of Digeflion, than this 
 Promife of ourblefTed Lord, (underftoodin 
 this Senfe) whereby we are fatisfied, that 
 the Gates of Hell, /. e. of Death or the 
 Grave, fhall not finally prevail againfl us ; 
 that is to fay, that we dy not for ever, only 
 like Plants in the Winter, lofe our Verdure 
 for a while, and difappear, yet fo, that the 
 Principle of Life ftill remains, tho' the 
 Signs and outward Effe6ls of it be with- 
 drawn, and we fhall bud and flourifh again, 
 more vigorous and beautiful than before, iu 
 never fading Glories, and eternal Spring. 
 
 Others again take thefe Words in the 
 more vulgar and common Acceptation, and 
 by Hell underftand the Place of infernal 
 Torments ; and becaufe the Gates of Ci- 
 ties were ordinarily fortified Places, and 
 that among the "Je^vs they were the Places 
 of Judicature, where their Magiflrates fat, 
 for the Diftribution of Juftice, and confult- 
 ing about the publick Good; therefore, by 
 Gates^ they underftand Strength and Toli'- 
 cj \ and then the Senfe of the Promife will 
 
 com^ 
 
( 78 ) 
 come to this much, That notwithflanding 
 the Devil, and his Inftruments, wicked 
 Men, and damned Spirits are irreconcileable 
 Enemies to the Progrefs of the Chriftian 
 Faith, and do all they can to obftru6l the 
 Salvation of Mens Souls, yet all in vain ; 
 Chriftianity fliall ftand and flourifli, in Spite 
 of them, and all their Power and Subtilty 
 fliall not be able to accomplifh the impious 
 Defign of quite defeating and overthrowing 
 it. 
 
 Now, this Promife may be applied two 
 Ways, either to private Cbrijlians in their 
 fingle Capacity, or to the whole Bodj of 
 them together united, which makes the Ca- 
 thoJick Church. 
 
 There have been fome (Men of no fmall 
 Chara6ler) who have applied it to the Church 
 in a diftributive Senfe, fo as every private 
 Chriftian may take it to himfelf ; and then 
 by the Gates of Hell not prevailing againft 
 Believers, is intended, not an abfolute Free- 
 dom and Immunity from Temptation, or 
 Sin either, but that Sin, or Temptation, 
 fhall not be the final Ruin of thofe who 
 ftedfaftly, in Profeffion and Pra6lice, ad- 
 here to this Truth, that " Jefus Chrift is 
 ** the Son of the living God." 
 
 But the Generality underftand it of the 
 Church colle^ive, that is, Chriftians, not 
 
 m 
 
C 79 ) 
 In their fingle and private Capacities, but u- 
 nited into one Body, under Chrift their 
 Head ; and then the Promife will amount to 
 this much, That notwithftanding the Devil 
 may endeavour, by Perfecution, to batter 
 down this Building upon the Rock, or by 
 Idolatry, or Herefy, to fap and undermine 
 it, yet thefe Attempts fhali be unfuccefsful, 
 in fo far as there fhall alv^ays be fome fo or- 
 thodox as to be fully perfuaded of, and fo 
 conftant as to profefs, the great and necef- 
 fary Truths of the Chriftian Religion ; and 
 thefe Chriftians, thus perfuaded, and thus 
 profefling, be they more or fevi^er, profpe- 
 rous or perfecuted, are the Church, in this 
 Pomife, againft which the Gates of Hell ne- 
 ver did, nor ever fhall, prevail, becaufe he 
 who made this Promife will always take Care, 
 that there fhall never, to the World's End, 
 be wanting a Society of Men, confefling 
 with St. Teter, " that Jefus is the Chrift, 
 " the Son of the living God." 
 
 Thefe are all the reaibnable Conftruffions 
 which this Text can well bear, the utmoft 
 Length to which this Promife will ftretch, 
 without Violence; but for the Infallibility 
 of any particular Man, or Church, it is 
 plainly more than what our bleifed Lord 
 meant to promife, and confequently more 
 
 than 
 
than we have any Reafon to expect or de- 
 pend upon. 
 
 And tho* thefe Opinions of learned Men, 
 about the Meaning and Extent of thisPro- 
 mife, do differ, yet they do not contradi6l 
 or deftroy one another ; eaeh of them may 
 be, and probably is true, being all naturally 
 deducible from the Promife itfelf, the Per- 
 fons to whom it was made, and the Occafion 
 of making it. 
 
 St. Ambrofe feems to have underftood it 
 in this Way, and in both thefe Senfes his 
 Words will ferve for an Abridgment and 
 Attcftation of what is here advanced on this 
 Subjeft : ' " Faith (fays he) is the Foun- 
 dation of the Church, for it is not of 
 the Perfon of St. Teter^ but his Faith, 
 that it is faid, that the Gates of Death 
 lliall not prevail againfl: it : But Confef- 
 fion overcomes Hell ; and this Confeflion 
 does not exclude one Herefy only ; for 
 when the Church (like a good Ship) is 
 tofled with many Waves, yet againfl: all 
 Herefies the Foundation of the Church 
 ought to ftand firm. The Time would 
 fooner fail me than the Names of Here- 
 ticks, and dlverfe Se6ls, yet in Spite of 
 them all, this is the common Faith^ that 
 
 " Chriji 
 
 * 2). Amhrof, Uh, de incarn, Domin. TPyfierlo. c. 5. torn. 2. 
 p. 224. Edit. Bafllcje. 
 
( 8r ) 
 
 " Chrijl is the Son of God, co-etefitcil iVith 
 " the Father^ and born of a Virgin;. 
 
 Now, from this Promlfe, thus explained^ 
 and as it appears to have been underftood by 
 St, Amhrofe^ and dther learned Men, An- 
 cients, as well as Moderns, it cannot be infer- 
 red, either ; 
 
 i/?, That the Church of Chrlft fhall always 
 continue irl outwardTeace and Splendor. We 
 know that after our Lord's Refurredion, it 
 was all contained in One flftgle Room, where 
 the Difciples were alTembled privately for 
 Fear of the Jews ; and during the primitive 
 Perfecutions, it was to be found brily in 
 Defatrts and Mountains, Holes and Caves 
 of the Earth, among fuch Perfons, as (ta 
 avoid the Fiiry of their Enemies) fervcd 
 God^ not in fplendid Temples and Syna- 
 gogues, with all the external Ponip of 
 Worfhip, but in fuch Manner and Places, 
 as the Wifdom of the Serpent, join d with the 
 Innocence of the Dove, put them upon ta- 
 king Shelter in. And fome Time after thefe 
 Perfecutions ceafed, Arianifm prevailed fo 
 far, that it became proverbial, *' One A- 
 " thanciJiHs againft the whole World ; and 
 " the whole World againft Athanafius." 
 
 And therefore, the true Church is not to 
 be fought, nor found out, only by fuch 
 fallible Marks, and Charaders, as, Num- 
 
 L bers, 
 
( 82 ) J^ 
 
 bers, Splendor, vifible Succeflion of Pa- 
 ftors in the fame Place, Countenance of 
 human and fecular Authority, Multitude of 
 Profeflqrs, pr Freedom of Worfhip: No, 
 thefe were but the thin Pretences of Old 
 BabyloHy " That fhe was a Lady for ever, 
 *' and faid in her Heart, I am, and none 
 " elfe befides me, <^'c. ^'* And of the 
 Church of Laodicea^ which faid, " I am 
 *' rich, and increafed with Goods, and 
 " have need of nothing." When the Spi- 
 rit of God (who beholds the Proud afar off) 
 judged otherwife of her Cafe, pronouncing 
 her " to be wretched, and miferable, and 
 " poor, and blind, and naked, and that fhe 
 " knew it not ^. 
 
 But the certain Marks whereby to difco- 
 ver and diftinguifh the true Chtirch^ is not 
 by the Boldnefs of her Pretenfions, but by 
 the Truth of her Doflrincs, the Sincerity 
 of her Members, and their ftedfaft Adhe- 
 rence to the faving Truths of the Gofpel ; 
 and efpecially to this one, which is the 
 Foundation of all the reft, that " Jefus is 
 " the Chrift, the Son of the living God." 
 
 idly, Neither can it be inferred from 
 hence, that the Church of God cannot 
 err in any Thing. For as Men may be fa- 
 
 ved, 
 
 • Ifa. xlvfi. 7. %. 
 , *» Rev. 'li'i* 17 * 
 
( S3 ) 
 
 ved, though they be not abfoiutely void of 
 aJJ Sins; and as a Man may exift, though 
 he be not entirely free from Weaknefs, De- 
 fects and Difeafes, which may for a Time 
 interrupt his Health and Vigour; fo the 
 Church may continue a true Church, though 
 it be not totally and abfoiutely exempted 
 from all Error. 
 
 For if nothing lefs than an abfolute Im- 
 munity from Error, an Impoffibility of 
 miftaking, is neceffary to the Being of a 
 Church, it will be very difputable, whether 
 Chrift ever had a true Church upon Earth, 
 fince abfolute Perfeftion is not to be attain^' 
 cd on this Side of Keaven. 
 
 How long were the Apoftles the Repre- 
 fentatives of the true Church, before they 
 had right Apprehenfions of Chrift's fpiritual 
 Kingdom, or had quitted their old vain Ex- 
 pe<Sation of a conquering temporal Mefliah, 
 to rellore the Kingdom to Ifrael? How 
 long was it, e'er St. Teter was perfuaded, 
 that the Gofpel fhould be preached to the 
 Gentiles *^? How many in St. T aid's Days 
 built Hay and Stubble upon the Foundati- 
 on "*? and yet they were of the Church, fo 
 long as they kept the Foundation. Was there 
 any of the primitive Churches planted by 
 the Apoftles themfclves, and under their 
 
 L 2 own 
 
 p A^s i. and X. ^ i Cor. iii. u, 
 
( §4 ). 
 
 pwn Direflion, abfolutely free from Errors, 
 
 and Corruptions? Does not the Spirit of 
 God by 'St. John reprove feyeral Errors ii> 
 the Churches of Afia ' ? And St. Taul by 
 the fame Spirit reproves feveral things amifs iq 
 the Churches of Greece, and others to 
 whom he wrote, that of Rome not except- 
 ed: And yet they were truly Parts and 
 Members of the Catholick Church qf Chrift, 
 notwithftanding thefe Faults and Errors, be- 
 caufe they all agreed in the main, the eflen- 
 tial Doctrines of Chriftianity. 
 
 All Men, as fuch, are fubje6l to Miftakes, 
 but all Miftakes do not overthrow the Be- 
 ing of a Church : And though it fhould be 
 granted that no Society of Men did ever 
 ferve God in perfect Purity; yet fo long as 
 their Corrupj-jons did not actually overturn 
 the main Points of Faith, fo long as they 
 held fad: the Form of found Words, and 
 kept to the FQundation, fuch Errors and 
 Corruptions in Matters of lefTer Moment, 
 are not inconfiftent v^ith this Prqmife ; for 
 the Gates qf Hell have not prevailed, till 
 Error rides triumphant, and draws all Men 
 pff from the Belief and Cqnfefliqn that 
 f« Jefus is the Chril]:, the Son of the living 
 {' God." 
 
 This wa? plainly the Cafe pf the Church 
 
 el 
 
 f Rev. ii. and iii. c?v. 
 
of Rovie^ at the Time of our Reformathn : 
 The Gat^ of Hell had not fo far prevailed 
 agaiurfl: her, as to deny the Divinity of the 
 Son of God ; fhe therefore continued a vi- 
 fibk Church, becaufe fhe held the Foun* 
 dation, though " fhe had built Wood, 
 " Hay and Stubble upon it," fuch as Tran^ 
 fubflantiation, Invocation of Saints and An- 
 gels, Mutilation of the Sacrament, <^c. 
 with Infallibility and Supremacy, the com- 
 mon Vouchers for all. 
 
 We therefore, as a national Church, by 
 the Sanation of Catholick Authority, found 
 it needful to reform from her Errors and 
 Corruptions in Faith, Worfhip and Polity, 
 that is, to purge off her Chaff, and to burn 
 up her " Wood, Hay and Stubble,'' but 
 fo as to keep the Foundation fafe and 
 found. 
 
 We did not therefore feparate our felves 
 from her as a viftble Churchy but as corrupt" 
 ed; th.H is, we gave up nothing that was 
 worth l:e?€.pmg, or could be kept with Truth 
 and a good Confcience, nothing but the 
 Corruptions and Innovations which fhe had 
 fuperinduced into the Do6lrine and Pra6lice 
 of the Catholick Church: As is evident 
 from this, That let their Superftru6lures, 
 (thofeThingSjI mean, which were unknown 
 {Q thp Apbftles and primitive Church) he 
 
 laid 
 -^ 
 
( 86 ) 
 laid afide, and not impofcd as Terms of 
 Communion, and we will then communi- 
 cate with her, with greater Joy and For- 
 wardnefs than ever our Anceltors feparated 
 from her. 
 
 But, until that is done, the Guilt of 
 Schifm lies at her Door, for forcing us out 
 of her Communion, by impofing unjuilifi- 
 able Terms of it ; and we muft be allowed 
 not to partake in other Mens Sins, (when 
 we fee them) left we ihare in their Danger 
 too. And though fome of their Corruptions 
 may perhaps be of a pretty old ftanding, 
 (though none of them fo old as they pre- 
 tend;) yet if they be Innovations and Er- 
 rors, (as has many a Time been proved) 
 it can never be too late to reform them, 
 bccaufe no Prefcription can pafs againft 
 Truth. 
 
 This DigrefHon (if it is one) will help to 
 difcover the Fallacy of that triflingWitticifm, 
 fo common in the Mouths of Roman Ca- 
 tholicks, when they mean to m.iflead our 
 People into their Communion, " Where 
 *' was your Church before Luther V That 
 is, they would have us ftiew, that our 
 Church has been fmce the Apoftles Days, 
 a Society void of Error ; that this Society 
 has always been vifible in the fame Shape it 
 is now, and that it has always been difHn<^ 
 
 from 
 
( S7,) 
 from theirs, and protefting againft their In« 
 novations and Corruptions.— 1 he firft where- 
 of is not neceffary, the fecond not reafo- 
 nable, and the third not poffible. 
 
 ly?, It is not neceflary, either to the Be- 
 ing or Vifibility of a Church, that (lie be 
 abfolutely free from all Errors, no more 
 than to the Exiftence of a Man, that he 
 have no Blemifti or Defecfi: : For it is fliew- 
 ed above, that this does not come within 
 the Compafs of our Saviour's Promife to 
 his Church, fince the Gates of Hell do not 
 finally prevail by every Error, (any more 
 than by every Sin or Failing) but only by 
 fuch as afle^l and fap the very Foundations. 
 
 2dly^ It is unreafonable to bid us fhevv, that 
 our Church has always appeared in the fame 
 Shape, when it is fo evident, that their own 
 Church has not always done fo. The Odds 
 between the ancient Church of Rome and the 
 prefent, is jufi: as great, as that between the 
 three ancient Creeds (which we ftill retain) 
 and the Creed of Pope Tins IV. which 
 is fwoUen one half bigger, and is now the 
 Standart of their Religion : So that if the 
 primitive Church of Rome was to vifit this 
 Earth once more, flie would not own the 
 modern Church of Rome to be the fame 
 in all Matters of Faith and Pracflice, as^when 
 flie left it ; but their new fuperinduced Do- 
 ctrines 
 
( . 83 ) . 
 
 flrines (whereof Infallibility is one) "would 
 appear as ftrange and unknown to her, as 
 their Faces. And, 
 
 3^/y, To bid us fliew, that our Church 
 has always been diftincl from theirs, and 
 protefted againft their Errors, is very tri- 
 fling. It has often been fhewed, that our 
 Church was diftincl and independent of 
 theirs at firft, and fo continued for many 
 Hundreds of Years, till at laft (by Ways 
 and Means) they brought our Fathers to 
 fubmit to their Encroachments, though 
 with great Relu^flancy. Their Innovations 
 were not the Growth of one Age, but came 
 up (like the Tares among the Wheat) 
 by leifurely and fecret Advances; fo that 
 New Rome was not built in one Day, any 
 more than the Old. And would they have 
 us to feparate from their Communion with- 
 out great Caufe, that is, to proteft againft 
 their Errors, before ever they were broach- 
 ed, maintained and declared to be theirs, 
 by enjoining the Belief and Practice of 
 them, as Terms of Communion, and un- 
 der the Penalty of a Curfe ? 
 
 We had indeed the Unhappinefs to be 
 too long blended with them, but that could 
 not run a Prefcription againft Truth, nor 
 make^t any Fault in us to reform from their 
 Errors, when it was in our Power, any 
 
 more 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 more than it was in Nehemiah and Zorobabel 
 lo rebuild their Temple, and make the new 
 one as like the old as poflible ; or in He-- 
 zekiah and Jofiah to reform the Jewijh 
 Church, (according to Scripture Rule) and 
 reltore their Religion to its ancient Purity; 
 or in the ancient Fathers, to reftore the Ca- 
 tholick Do6lrine, when Ariantfm gave Way ; 
 or in our Anceftors at the Reftoration of 
 our King in 1660, to reftore the Church to 
 her former Rights and Privileges, over-run 
 by the Sectaries in the Time of that great 
 Rebellion. 
 
 This Quibble of theirs did not deferve fb 
 much Notice, but I was willing to confider it 
 at length, as it has been apt to puzzle the Ig- 
 norant, though a fhorter Anfwer to it might 
 have been made, and would have been fuffici- 
 ent,that is, by afking another Queftion ; " Sup- 
 " pofe a Man to have enjoyed a State of 
 ** good Health for many Years ; that in the 
 *' Courfe of Time, this Man (turning ir- 
 *' regular, and negle^ing his wonted La- 
 *< bour) catches a Scurvy, which increafes 
 *' by Degrees to the over-running and disfi- 
 *' guring his whole Body, and in the Event 
 *' brings a Fever, a Roving and Delirium.— 
 *' But at laft, by the good Providence of 
 '^ God, on the Care of the Phyfician, and 
 
 M " the 
 
C 90 ) 
 ^' the Ufe of Medicines, Diet and Regimen, 
 ^' he recovers his former Health, Vigour 
 " and Looks. • — Pray, where was the Man 
 ^' all the long Time of his lUnefs?'' When 
 they give a dire(5l fatisfying Anfwer to this, 
 we fhall hear no more of their enfnaring 
 Query. 
 
 I am afraid, it will be thought I have 
 fpent top much Time on this Argument j 
 but the anfwering fully, folidly and dlftincl- 
 ly this fingle Paragraph of the Author of the 
 Manufcript, was (in effeft) to anfwer his 
 whole Paper. Indeed when it is confidered, 
 that this Fromife to St. Teter, is looked 
 upon by the Romijb Church, as it were her 
 Magna Chart a, her Charter of Eredion, or 
 Claim of Right ; and that her Miffionaries 
 fquander away fo much Rhetorlck, to make 
 it fpeak forth Infallibility ; it could not be 
 amifs to bellow fome Time, to fet it in a 
 true Light, and the rather, that I fhall be 
 iliorter on his other Texts. 
 
 I fhall conclude this Se(5lion, when I have 
 fpoken a few Words to my old Acquain- 
 tance, the Author of the Slmrteji Way^ ^^c. 
 I obferved in the Beginning of this Chap-^ 
 ter, that this mpdeft Author has afTured us, 
 that this Text, which I have been confider- 
 ing, " is the clearefi: and ftrongcil Proof 
 f^ of an infalhble Church," What Ground 
 
 he 
 
( 91 ) 
 he had for his Confidence, we have now 
 
 feen ; but I miifl: not overlook the Reafoh 
 
 he gives for it, " this Promife (fays he) i$ 
 
 ** abfolute and unconditional, for there is 
 
 " no Condition either exprelTed or implied 
 
 " in the w^hole Text," 
 
 Well faid, and ftrongly affirmed: But 
 may there not be a Condition tacitly im- 
 plied, though there be none exprefTed? If 
 this Gentleman would look back to the 
 Promife of an everlafting Priefthood made 
 to Eli and his Family, it feems as ftrong, 
 exprefs, abfolute and unconditional as this 
 one to St. Tefer,(^i Sain, ii. 30.) " I faidf 
 ^' indeed, faith the Lord God of IJrael, 
 "that thy Houfe, and the Houfe of thy 
 " Father fhould walk before me for ever/^ 
 Here is noCondition either exprelTed or hint- 
 ed at in the whole Promife ; and yet, who- 
 ever con fiders what happened afterwards to 
 that unfortunate Houfe, muft neceflarily 
 fuppofe a Condition, which was not ex- 
 prelled, but is evidently to be underftood , 
 from what follows, " but now the Lord 
 " faith, Be it far from me ; for them that 
 " honour me, I will honour, and they that 
 " defpife me, fhall be lightly elleemed." 
 
 Perhaps it may be replied to this, *' that 
 
 •' the Promifes under the Law, were indeed 
 
 ** conditional, but thefe under the Gofpel 
 
 M 2 " aic 
 
„( 92 ) 
 " are abfolute ;" and the Gentlemen I now 
 
 deal with, may prove it in their ufual Way, 
 
 that is, by affirming ftrongly. But 'tis e- 
 
 nough for us, that St. Taul was of another 
 
 Opinion, for he plainly underftood all the 
 
 Promifes made to the Church of Rome^ to 
 
 be conditional. His Sentiments are bell: ex- 
 
 prefled in his own Words, in the eleventh 
 
 Chapter of his Epiftle to that Church. " If 
 
 " God fpared not the natural Branches, (/. e. 
 
 " the Jezvs) take heed left he alfo fpare 
 
 ** not thee. Behold therefore the Good- 
 
 ** nefs and Severity of God ; on them which 
 
 ** fell. Severity, but towards thee, Goodnefs, 
 
 " if thou continue in his Goodnefs ; other- 
 
 " wife thou alfo fhalt be cut oif. Rom. xi. 
 
 « 21. 22." 
 
 And here I fear the Gentleman will be 
 difpofed to change the Weapon he once 
 chofe. In the mean time I leave him, 
 and his Fellow Writers, to fight it out with 
 St. Taul ; or to try, if they can reconcile 
 his ify with their y?;^///, his may be^ and their 
 rnnji not be, together. 
 
 § III. The fecond Text, brought by the 
 Author of theManufcript to prove the Infalli- 
 bility of the Roman Churchy is St. Mattb. 
 xxviii. 19. 20. " Go ye therefore, and teach 
 " all Nations baptizing, c^r. teaching them 
 
 '' to 
 
( 93 ) ^ 
 " to obferve all Things whatfoever I have 
 *' commanded you ; and behold, I am with 
 " you always even unto the End of the 
 " World. It is clear (fays he) * that this 
 " Promifeis not to be reftrained to the Per- 
 " fons of the Apoftles, who were not to 
 *' live to the End of the World, and there- 
 *' fore muft certainly be directed to them 
 " and their Succeflbrs, Paftors of Chrift's 
 " Church through all Ages; and 'tis no 
 *' lefs clear, that Chrift here promifes his 
 " powerful Prefence and Affiftance, not 
 *' for four or five hundred Years only, but 
 " always to the End of the World ; and 
 " confequently the Body of the Pallors of 
 " Chrift's Church will never go affray in 
 *' the By-paths of Herefy, or damnable 
 " Error, having him for their Guide, who 
 " is the Way^ the Truth, and the Life.'' 
 
 The Author of the Shortejl Way s has 
 alfo brought this Text, and in a Way no 
 lefs peremptory, but more pompous ; though 
 I fhall not tranfcribe his Words, as they are 
 both to the fame Purpofe. 
 
 Now, thus far I agree with thefe learned 
 Gentlemen, that this Promife is made to the 
 Apoftles and their SuccefTors, and that 
 Chrift's powerful Prefence and AfTiltance 
 
 IS 
 
 ^ Parag. Hi. 
 
 « Part i. p. 28. 6^r, 
 
. ^ 94 ) 
 
 is here promifed to his Church, not foi- 
 four or five hundred Years only, but unto 
 the End of the World. But here I muft 
 ftop, and am forry I cannot go all their 
 Lengths. 
 
 For, in this Text there is no Mention of 
 Romauj more than of Greek, or Afiatick 
 Churches : The Promife is evidently made 
 to the whole Church ; and by what exclufive 
 Right does any one Member appropriate 
 that which belongs to the whole Body? 
 It is already fhewed, that Roman and Ca- 
 tholick mean no more the fame Thing, than 
 Part and Whole do ; and how then comes 
 the Roman, to claim the Privilege granted 
 to the Catholick Church ? 
 
 For, however they may fancy the for- 
 mer Promife made to St. ^eter only, and 
 his Church ; yet by their own Acknowledg- 
 ment, this Promife is made to all the A- 
 pojlles and their Succejfors, and confequent- 
 ly it belongs to St. James, St. John, St. 
 ^aul, ^^. and their Succeffors, at Jeriifa^ 
 lem, in Afia, in Greece, and every where, 
 as well as to St. Teter^ and his Succelfors 
 at Antioch or Rome, 
 
 Befides, there is fome Reafon to doubt 
 whether the Afjiftance here promifed, will 
 always be to a Degree oi Infallibility, as it 
 was to the Apoftles themfelves, becaufe there 
 
 is 
 
( 95 ) 
 
 IS not always the fame Occafion for it ; for 
 
 their SuccefTors, though they were to preach 
 and baptize, yet they had not a new Go- 
 fpel to write, or another Religion to propa- 
 gate and fettle in the World. 
 
 Upon the whole, that this Text contains 
 a Promife of Infallibility, and that it fhall 
 belong to none but the Roman Church, 
 (which are the two Points thefe Writers 
 \vant to prove) cannot be inferred, either 
 from the Words of this Promife, or from 
 the Reafon of it. 
 
 The Words are, Behold I am ivith you aU 
 nvays^ (^c. Words full of Comfort and En- 
 couragement indeed, not to them only, but 
 to their SuccefTors, nay, and to all the Faith- 
 ful, as well as the Paftors of the Church ; 
 but that they promife no lefs than conftant 
 infaUible Affiftance, cannot well be infer- 
 red from the Words themfelves, if we may 
 be allowed to judge of their Meaning, by 
 comparing them with other Words of the 
 fame Value and Importance. Thus, our 
 Lord prpmifeth, ^' '' where two or three 
 " are jpet together in my Name, there am 
 " I in the midfl of them." And thus the 
 Promife made to Jojbua, ^ " I will never 
 [^ leave thee, por iorfake the," is by the 
 
 Apofll^ 
 
 ^ St. Matth. xviii. 20* 
 * JoOi. i. 5. 
 
 ^ 
 
L'' ' 
 
 Apoftle to the Hebrews^ ^ applied to all 
 Chriftians, and every good Man. I hope 
 thefe Gentlemen would not infer from 
 thcfe Promifes, that every private Chriftian, 
 every good Man, or every little Society met 
 for Devotion, is infallible, for this would 
 bring the Roman Church too many Part- 
 ners in that Privilege: And yet, if any 
 fhould take it into his Head to maintain, 
 that every private Congregation is infallible, 
 he might do it in the fame Way, and by 
 the fame Logick, with which thefe Authors 
 reafon for the Infallibihty of their Church, 
 'viz. " Chrift: hath promifed to' every pri- 
 ♦^ vate Chriftian Congregation, that he will 
 <' be in the midft: of it. — Confequently, 
 i^ fuch private Chriftian Congregation will 
 «* never go aftray in the By-paths of Here- 
 « fy, or damnable Error, having always in 
 «< the midft of them, him who is the Ways 
 « the Truth, and the Life " ^/^^^ 
 
 And as this infallible Afllftance to every 
 Age of the Church, cannot be inferred from 
 the Words of this Promife ; fo neither in 
 the fecond Place, can it be inferred from 
 the Reajojt of it, which may beft be col- 
 lected from the Occafion of making it. 
 
 Our Lord is here fending forth his A- 
 
 poftles, 
 
 ^ Heb. xlii. 5. 
 
., ( 97 ) 
 poflrles, \vith Commiflion to profelyte the 
 whole World to his Religion ; and becaufe 
 this was to be a Work of much Labour, 
 and great Danger, as well as of high Au- 
 thority, he promifes for their Encourage- 
 ment, that he would be always prefent, by 
 his Spirit, not with them only, but with 
 their SuccefTors in Office too, fo as to con- 
 tinue to thefe Succellors the Authority 
 which he now gave them, that is, to pro- 
 pagate the fame Religion, to preach the 
 fame Do6trine, to make Difciples to it in 
 all the World, and to tranfadl and feal his 
 Covenant with them, by a federal Rite 
 now inftituted for that Purpofe, /. e, Bap- 
 tifm, of which they were appointed the 
 Minifters, and promifeth that he will afford 
 the needful Support and Affiftance to every 
 fucceeding Age of his Church. 
 
 In the firft Age, the Difficulties being 
 greater, the Oppofition more fierce, and 
 the Dangers more formidable, the Affift- 
 ance communicated to the Twelve, and 
 other Planters of Chriftianity, amounted 
 even to Infallibility : But when the great 
 Difficulty was over, that is, when the 
 Church was formed, and a ftanding Rule 
 cftabliflied, to which all after Ages were 
 obliged to conform, the fame Degree of 
 Affiftance was not neceflary, and therefore 
 
 N is ^ 
 
. ( 98 ) . 
 
 is not continued, otherwife we muft allow 
 all the Bifhops in the World to be infpi- 
 red, as the Apoftles were, which is not 
 contended for. 
 
 Archbifhop Laud (in his Conference 
 with Mr. Fiper^ has exprelTed this Mat- 
 ter difl:in6tly, when fpeaking of feveral Pro- 
 mifes in the Gofpels ^5 and this among the 
 reft, he fays, ^' thefe Promifes were made 
 " of continual Prefcnce and Afliftance, that 
 •^ I grant; and they were made to the A- 
 " poftles and their Succeifors, that I grant 
 *' too; but in a different Degree : For it 
 " was of continual and infallible Afliftance 
 '* to the Apoftles, but to their Succeifors, 
 " of continual and fitting AfTiftance, but 
 ^' not infallible. 
 
 But becaufe Dr. Laud may be confider- 
 ed as a Party in this Cafe, I fliall mention 
 another, againft whom the Popifh Writers 
 would not choofe to bring the fame Objecti- 
 on ; St. CJjryJofiom^ in his Homily on this 
 Part of the holy Gofpel "-, feems to have un- 
 derftood it in the very Way I have ex- 
 plained it ; for he extends it to all the Faith- 
 ful, as well as to the Paftors, but fays never 
 aWord of the Infallibility of either. " Chrift, 
 
 " fays 
 
 1 St. Luke X. 16. St. John xiv. 1 6. St. Matth. xxviii.' 20. 
 ^ D. Chryfof. homil. 91. in Matth. xxviii. torn. ii. p. 715. 
 edit. BafUcje; anno 1558. 
 
( 99 ) 
 fays he, commands them (/. e, the A- 
 
 poftles) to fpread themfelves over the 
 whole World, but at the fame Time that 
 he appoints them to great Things, he 
 ftrengthens their Minds, faying, I am 
 with you alzuays, 8cc. See here again 
 their Authority, behold how this is faid 
 
 for the Sake of fending them forth 1 
 
 Neither does he promife to be with them 
 only, but with all thofe, who after them 
 fhould believe, for the Apoflles were not 
 to live to the World's End : But he fpeaks 
 to the Faithful as to one Body. Nei- 
 ther do ye, faith Chrift, objecl to me 
 the Difficulty of the Thing, for I am 
 -with you, who make all things eafy. 
 The fame thing, which in the Old Te- 
 ftament he faid to the Prophets, (to Je- 
 remiah pleading his Youth, and to Mo- 
 fes and Ezekiel withdrawing themfelves) 
 1 ^am with you, the fame in this Place he 
 faith to the Difciples." 
 By this it appears, that St, Chryfojlom un- 
 derftoodthis Promife, as an Encouragement 
 not only to the Apoftles in their difficult 
 Undertaking, but to all Believers, in their 
 feveral Stations and Capacities: But I hope, 
 none will infer from thence that St. Chryfo- 
 jlom thought all Believers were infallible, 
 becaufe the Apoftles were fo, any more 
 N 2 than 
 
( lOO ) 
 
 than that all 'Jews were infallible, becaufc 
 their Prophets y^^ere fo. 
 
 However they may pretend, that the Pro- 
 mife to St. T^ter, (St. Matth. xvi.) is abfo- 
 lute and unconditional, they cannot have 
 the Confidence to alledge the fame Thing 
 here ; for in this Text, the Condition ap- 
 pears in the very Face of the Promife, fo 
 that whatever this Promife contains, or to 
 whomfoever it is made, it is like to prove 
 nothing for the Church of Rome. 
 
 " Go ye, teach all Nations, and baptize, 
 ** (6'c. teaching them to obferve all things, 
 *' whatfoever I have commanded you, and 
 " lo ! I am with you, (^d' 
 
 Here Chrift's Prefence and AfTiftance is 
 promifed while they taught what Chrift had 
 commanded, becaufe fo long they were 
 certainly, (or, if you will, infallibly) in the 
 right, but no longer; and therefore, if 
 any of their SucceiTors fhould teach what 
 Chrift has not commanded, or teach the dire% 
 contrary, they forfeit their Title to his 
 Prefence and Ailiftance, and can lay no far- 
 ther Claim to this Promife. 
 
 Now this is precifely the Cafe of the 
 
 prefent Church of Rome. Jefus 
 
 Chrift inftituting the Sacrament of his Body 
 and Blood, faid, " drink ye all of this." — 
 But the Roman Church fays, none fliall 
 
 dripk 
 
drink of it but Priefts. The Law (which 
 Chrift came not to deftroy) fays, " Thou 
 ^' fhalt neither make nor worfhip a graven 
 " Image;" but the Roman Church allows 
 
 both St. Tatd (who was infallible, fo 
 
 far as he was infpired) fays, " we iliould 
 ^* neither teach nor worfhip (in the Con- 
 
 '* gregation) in an unknown Tongue." •' 
 
 The Roman Church ordains the dired con- 
 trary, (6^(7. 
 
 After all which. It feems not very felf- 
 denied, to challenge to themfelves an ex- 
 clufive Privilege, when they have fo noto- 
 rioufly failed, and come fhort of the Con- 
 dition, on which that Privilege was promi- 
 fed to the whole Church of Chrift upon 
 Earth. 
 
 § IV. The third Proof of Infallibility in 
 the Roman Church adduced by the Author 
 of the Manufcript, "^ is taken from two Texts 
 (coupled together, though atfomeDiftance,) 
 in St. John% Gofpel ; the one in Chap. 
 Kiv. Ver. i6, 17. where our Saviour tells 
 his Apoftles, " that he will pray the Fa- 
 " ther, and he fhall give them another 
 •' Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth, 
 " C^^." and the other Chap.xvi, Ver. 33. he 
 SilTures them, " that the Spirit of Truth, 
 
 " whea 
 
 ? Vide the Gofpels. Exod. xx. and x Cor. xiv. 
 
( I02 ) 
 
 '^ when he is come, will guide them into 
 
 " all Truth." " In thefe Words, fays 
 
 *' he, is promifed the Dire^lion of the Ho- 
 '^ ly Spirit, to guide, not only the Apoftles, 
 *^ but alfo their SucceiTors, into all Truth, 
 " for Chrift affures the Holy Spirit will 
 " abide with them for ever ; whereas 
 ^< the Apoftles were to live only a fmall 
 " Number of Years in which they were to 
 " be preferved from all Errors." 
 
 The Author of the Shortefi Way, &cc. 
 has brought forth thefe Texts to the fame 
 Purpofe ''. 
 
 To form a right Underftanding of the Na- 
 ture and Extent of thisPromife, two Things 
 feem neceflary to be enquired into, viz, 
 what is mean'd by all Truth ; and who are 
 the Terfons to whom this Promife belongs. 
 
 ly?. As to leading them into all Truth, 
 though the Promife feems univerfal in 
 its Terms, yet it is limited in its Mean- 
 ing; for no Man. ever imagined, that the 
 Holy Spirit was to lead the Apoftles into 
 the Kno\vledge of all natural Truths, 
 into all the Depths of Philofopby, or into 
 the Myftcrics of all Arts and Sciences ; but 
 only that he fhould inftru(ft them in fuch 
 Things, as their Office and Truft required 
 
 and 
 
 ? part i. p. 28, 29. 
 
and obliged them to know, that is, religi- 
 ous and divine Truths. 
 
 It is plain then, that fome Limitation 
 ought to be laid upon this general Promife, 
 of leading into all Truth ; and the befl: Way 
 of doing that, is by the Context : Now, if 
 we limit thefe general Words in this very 
 reafonable Way, the plain and obvious Senfe 
 of the Promife will appear to be this, That 
 becaufe there were fome Truths, fit for the 
 Apoftles to know, which they were not ca- 
 pable of receiving at that Time, while our 
 Lord was with them in Perfon, p *' I have 
 " yet many Things to fay to you, but you 
 " cannot bear them now," fays our bleffed 
 Lord ; therefore, after his Afcenfion, he 
 would fend his Holy Spirit, toinfl:ru(51: them> 
 in thofe Things, and to guide them into all 
 thofe Truths, which it was not then fea- 
 fonable to acquaint them with ; fuch as the 
 Nature of his Kingdom upon Earth, which 
 was to be fpiritual only, and not intended 
 to interfere with the juft Rights of temporal 
 Princes, and the enlarging the JLxtent of It, 
 by bringing the Gentiles into his Church, 
 a^'c. But by what Art any Man can infer 
 from thence, that our Saviour would con- 
 tinue fuch conflant new Revelations, or 
 
 fuch 
 
 P St. John xvi. 12. 
 
( "^^4 ) 
 fuch Infallible AfTiftance of his Holy Spi- 
 rit, with any particular Man or Church to 
 the End of the World, is not eafy to con- 
 ceive. 
 
 For this Promife plainly implies the Re- 
 velation of fome new Truths to the Apo- 
 ftles, which they were not inftru^led in be- 
 fore, and therefore cannot (^in that Senfe) 
 belong to any Church in after Ages : For 
 even that Church, which claims Infallibili- 
 ty as her fpecial Prerogative, does not pre- 
 tend to any new Revelation of Objeds of 
 Faith not known before, and therefore 
 can challenge nothing extraordinary in virtue 
 of this Promife. This will appear the more 
 plain, if we confider, 
 
 ^dly^ The Terfons to whom this Promife 
 belongs. It was made perfonally and pri- 
 ij^arily to the Apoftles, and to them it was 
 abfolute, and proved fo to be, by the Mi- 
 racles, which gave Teftimony to them^* The 
 Condition of the Chriftian Religion then, 
 required fuch infallible Affiftance to be af- 
 forded them, as might fatisfy Pofterity, 
 that the Grounds of it were laid in perfect 
 and unerring Truth, and that every Thing 
 taught and delivered down by them, and 
 derived from them, might be relied upon, 
 without Hazard of Deceit or Impofition. 
 
 But from the Tenor of this rromife, it 
 
 cannot 
 
cannot be inferred, that the fame nifalllblc 
 AfTiftance was to be gontinued to the Suc- 
 ceflbrs of thefe Apoftles, the Governors of 
 the Church in fucceedhig Ages, becaufe 
 they did not Hand in the fame Need of it ; 
 for they had no new Do<5trines to publifh, 
 if they had had it, and they might well 
 enough interprete and explain old ones 
 without it: And we have Reafon to think, 
 that our bleffed Lord (who does nothing 
 in vain) had not in his Intention to give 
 that Privilege, which was not neceffary ia 
 itfelf, nor agreeable to the Reafon of the 
 Thing. 
 
 The Apoftles were to give a Rule, to 
 which all fucceeding Ages were to con- 
 form, and this Rule mufl: be exaft and 
 ftraight, to qualify it to anfwer the Purpo- 
 fes of a Rule. — But there is not the fame 
 Occafion for Things to be fo, that come 
 to be meafured by this Rule, becaufe, what- 
 ever in thefe is crooked, or defedive, or 
 redundant, will foon be difcovered by com- 
 paring it with, and amended by conform- 
 ing it to that Rule. This fhews that the 
 fame Meafure of AfTiftance is not neceffary 
 to applying the Rule, as there is to form- 
 ing it. 
 
 Thus again, the Apoftles are called the 
 O Foundation^ 
 
- ( 106 ), 
 
 Foundation ^5 on which the Church is built, 
 that is, they laid the Foundation, and there- 
 fore it behoved them to be infallibly di- 
 rected to do it right : But all the Care left 
 for thofe that come after, is, to fuit the 
 Building to that Foundation, to follow 
 the firft Model, and to fee that their Ma- 
 terials and Workmanfhip be of a Piece with 
 it. And in this they may go right very 
 fafely, and well, without being abfolutely fe- 
 cured agalnft the Poffibility of going wrong. 
 St. Taul evidently alludes to this, when he 
 fays, " that "^ Chrift alone laid the Foun-. 
 " dation, but that others built upon it, as 
 '' they were differently able and difpofed.'" 
 Now, every wdfe Archite6l is fenfible of the 
 Pifference between laying a Foundation 
 and carrying up a Superf]:ru(5lure : In the 
 former, no Nicety can be too great, no 
 Skill, or Care, can be over-much ; but in the 
 latter, the Proportions ly ready in Sight, 
 and a moderate reafonable Care and Affift- 
 ance will fuffice, becaufe the Foundation 
 itfelf is a Direclion for making the reft of 
 the Edifice agreeable to it. 
 
 Here then lies the Difference between 
 the Apoftles and their Succeffors, between 
 
 the 
 
 *3 Kph. ii. 20. 
 * I Cor. iii. ii. 
 
( 107 ) 
 the firft and latter Ages of the Church, 
 , which fhews plainly, that an infallible 
 Guidance of the Holy Spirit, is not fo ne- 
 ceffary now as it was then, and for that Rea- 
 fon is not continued now, any more than 
 thofe other miraculous Powers and Gifts (of 
 Tongues, Interpretation of Tongues, Pro- 
 phecy, Healing, (6"^.) which were poured 
 forth, together with the infallible Aflift- 
 ance of the Holy Ghoft, upon the Apoftles 
 and firft Planters of Chriftianity, to con- 
 firm their doctrines : For the Miracles which 
 they wrought by the Power of the Spirit, 
 were proper Vouchers, that thePerfons which 
 wrought them both fpoke and wrote by the 
 very fame Spirit. 
 
 That the djvine Spirit was promifed, 
 to abide with, to guide and comfort the 
 Church, and every faithful Member of it, 
 not only to the End of the Apoftolick Age, 
 but even to the End of the World, is not 
 denied ; but his Operations are continued 
 now, in a Manner very different, and in a 
 Degree far inferior to that which the A- 
 poftles had; his Infpiration made them in- 
 fallible in their Doflrine, and his Affiftance 
 may make every Chriftian found, and or- 
 thodox, and fteady, in the Belief of that 
 Dodrine, if they pleafe to make ufe of it, 
 O ^ which 
 
 :^ 
 
( io8 ) 
 
 '^hich they may, or may noj: do, as they 
 incline. 
 
 This Promife, which was abfolute to the 
 Apoftles, belongs to the Church in all A- 
 ges, under certain Conditions and Limitati- 
 ons ; they were infallible as following the 
 immediate Di6lates of the Holy Ghoft, in 
 all they fpoke or wrote ; the Church (col- 
 le(fl:ive or diftributive) is infallibly right too, 
 jfo far as her Do(5]:rines and Decrees agree 
 with their Writings, and no farther. 
 
 The accurate Mr. Chillino- worth has illu- 
 ftrated this Difference by a very pertinent 
 Similitude % " The ApolHes and the Church 
 *' (fays he) may be compared to the Star 
 *' and the Wife Men: The Star was di- 
 *^ rented by the Finger of God, and there- 
 ^' fore could not biit go right to the Place 
 *^ where Chrifl: lay ; but the Wife Men 
 were led by the Star, fo that if they 
 would, they might follow it, if they 
 would not, they might choofe : So was 
 it between the Apoftles writing Scripture 
 *' and the Church ; they, in their #^riting, 
 ^' were infallibly afTifted to propofe no- 
 f' thing as a divine Truth, but what real- 
 f ly waa fo. The Church is alfo led into 
 
 ^* all 
 
 s 
 
 William Chilllngwofth's Safe Way, &c. Chap. iil. § 
 V. p. io6. - " ' 
 
 jixxiv. p. io6 
 
( i?9 ) 
 " all Truth, but it is by the interveening 
 
 " of the Apoftles Writings, by which flie 
 *' is led, juft as the Wife Men were led by 
 *' the Star, or as a Traveller is directed by a 
 " Mercurial Statue, or as a Pilot is by his 
 " Chart and Compafs, led fujficientlj^ not 
 *^ ii'vefijlibly^ led fo as that flic may fol- 
 " low, not fo as that flie niuft." 
 
 This feems to give the true State of the 
 Cafe, and fliews, how in this Refpe<5l too, 
 the Spirit abides with Chrift's Difciples for 
 ever ; for he abides with all whom he af- 
 fifts, but he does not make all whom he 
 aflifts infallible : We have not now the like 
 vifible and wonderful EfFe6ls of his divine 
 Prefence which the firft Difciples had, be- 
 caufe we need them not ; but we have, at 
 lead we may have, (if we are not unfaith- 
 ful and wanting to ourfelves) as much as 
 is fufficient for our prefent Circumftances, 
 and that is enough. 
 
 Cardinal Bellarmine brings this Text to 
 prove the Infallibility of a General Coun- 
 cil, confirmed by the Pope; and indeed the 
 Argument he founds upon it is a very ftrange 
 one.--" The Apoftles, feverally confidered, 
 " were infallible, by Virtue of this Pro- 
 f* mife, and their Succeffors, fays he, are 
 " comprehended in this Promife; but their 
 f^ Succeffors are not infallible in their feve- 
 
 " ral 
 
.. ( J'° ) 
 
 ** ral Capacities, as the Apoftles were ; there- 
 *^ fore, fays he, they are infallible, when 
 ** they are gathered together." 
 
 This is neither more nor lefs, than from 
 Fallibility in the Premilles, to infer Infal- 
 libility in the Conclufion ; whereas, to rea- 
 fon juftly, and confequentially, it niuft ra- 
 ther be concluded, that, if this Promife of 
 leading into all Truth, be underftood of 
 the Apoftles, and their SuccelTors, in the 
 fame Manner, that is, fo as to make them 
 both infallible, then, as the Apoftles were 
 infallible, not only when met together in 
 Council, but feverally confidered, or in 
 their fingle Capacities, fo muft e^ch of 
 their Succeflbrs be too; which is niore 
 than any Roman Catholick contends foi"* 
 
 I muft alfo obferve, that fome refo™ed 
 Catholicks have taken the fame Cardinal 
 fcverely to task for not dealing fairly ^"^'ith 
 this Part of the Gofpel, in that his A^'gu- 
 nient is artfully patched up from two ^^-• 
 ftind Texts, which he would have pafs for 
 one. Thus, that God would lead them '^^' 
 to all Truth, he proves from St. John xvi. 
 13. and that God would do this for ever, J^e 
 would fain prove from St. John xiv. 16. ^7- 
 
 Whereas this Text does not fay, that 
 
 God would lead them into all Truth for 
 ever, but only that the Spirit fhould abi<Je 
 
 with 
 
C III ) 
 
 with them for ever, and that as a Comfor- 
 ter, which is a very different Thing ; for I 
 believe, no wife Man of the Romip Church 
 will affirm, that every one, with whom the 
 Spirit abides as a Comforter, is infalUble. 
 
 The Gentlemen with whom I now deal, 
 have copied after the Cardinal, in jumbling 
 thefe two Texts together, upon which I 
 fhall forbear to make farther Remarks, fince 
 the Fraud is already reproved in the learn- 
 ed Author from whom they borrowed it. 
 
 The Sum of this Se<5lion is, The A- 
 poftles were infallible fo far as they were 
 infpired, and no farther ; but the Rofnan 
 Church does not pretend to be infpired as 
 they were, therefore fhe is not infallible. 
 
 And to let the Reader fee, how cauti- 
 ous Men fhould be of interpreting general 
 Words to their utmofl: Latitude : Put the 
 Cafe, that an unwary or fanciful Perfon, 
 upon reading thefe Texts of St. John, i £- 
 pijl. Chap. ii. vcr, 20. 27. " Ye have an Un- 
 " dion from the Holy One, and ye know 
 " all things, and the fame Anointing teach- 
 " eth you all things," fhould take it in- 
 to his Head to maintain, not only the In- 
 faUihility, but the Omnijcience of all Belie- 
 vers ; he might do it with as good a Grace, 
 and in the fame Way of Argumentation, as 
 thefe People do the Infallibility of their 
 
 Church, 
 
 /« 
 
( 112 ) 
 
 Church, from the Promife of leading into 
 all Truth. 
 
 § V. The fourth Argument for the In- 
 fallibility of the Ro7nan Church, brought 
 by the Author of the Manufcript, is fetch- 
 ed from St. Mfl///;fw xviii. 17. " If he ne- 
 ^^ gleft to hear the Church, let him beun- 
 " to thee as an Heathen and a Publican." — 
 *^ From which Words, fays our Author, it 
 " appears clearly, that all Men are bound to 
 " obey and fubmit to the Judgment of the 
 " Church, {N. B. That by this we muft: 
 " underftand the Church of Rome, or the 
 " Argument goes for nothing) unlefs they 
 '* would be look'd upon and dealt with as 
 " the worft and wickedeft of Men ; and 
 " if this be true, in the fmalleft Trefpafles, 
 " according to our Saviour's Words, how 
 " much more in Offences, where the Souls 
 " of Men, the Truth of Religion, and the 
 " Unity and Peace of the Church are en- 
 " dangered ? 
 
 The Author of the Short eft Way, brings 
 the fame Text % and fays, " Can any Man 
 " deferve thefc infamous Chara<5lers (/. e. 
 *' of Heathen and Publican) for not hear- 
 " ing aChurch that can teach falfe Doftrine r 
 
 Thefc 
 
 f Part i. p. 30. 
 
( it3 ) 
 T liefe Words, hear the Churchy taken by 
 themfelyes, and feparated from all that went 
 before, would feem to fpeak out this Mat- 
 ter, full and ftrong ; but when the Occafion 
 of them is confidered, as it (lands in the 
 preceeding Words, with which they are e- 
 vidently and infeparably conne6led, nothing 
 can be more clear, than that our Saviour is 
 here fpeaking only of fuch private Differen- 
 ces as may happen amongft Men, (and that 
 not in Points of Faith, but of Fa6l) and of 
 the Way of compofing them* " If thy 
 " Brother fin againft thee,'' — —What was 
 to be done ? Firft, private Endeavours were 
 to be ufed, then the Mediation of Friends 
 was to be tried, and if nothing elfe would 
 do, the Matter was to be referred to the 
 Church, the Body or Affembly to which 
 they belongecJi and they who would not be 
 gained upon by fuch wife Methods, were 
 no longer to be efteemed as Brethren, but 
 were to be looked upon as very bad Men, 
 like Heathens: .^Fhey might upon fuch Ob- 
 jftinacy a-nd Refraftorinefs be excommunica- 
 ted, and profecuted afterwards in temporal 
 Courts, fince (by their Perverfenefs) they 
 had forfeited all Right to that Tendernefs 
 and Charity which is due to Fellow Chri- 
 ftians* 
 
 -W.:- P St, 
 
( "4 ). 
 
 St. Chryfoflom^ in his Homily on this Text, 
 
 has explained it in this Way " ; the beft 
 Commentators have made no more out of 
 it; and indeed this Expofition comes up 
 fo fully to the Occafion and Scope of the 
 Words, that there is no Shadow of Reafon, 
 to carry them any farther. 
 
 But let us for once take thefe Words, 
 hear the Churchy by themfelves, and in their 
 utmoft Extent, yet ftill the Church o^ Rome 
 is not in the Text: How then comes fhe 
 to make a Monopoly of the Privilege here 
 conveyed? Has not the Gt^eek Church, or 
 have not the Churches of England and Scot- 
 land as good Right to be heard, and to claim 
 the Benefit of this Privilege, as fhe has? 
 If it be faid, they have not, as they do not 
 pretend to be infallible. — It is anfwered, no 
 more has the Roman Church, while fhe does 
 not bring better Vouchers; on the contrary, 
 fhe is the more to be fufpecled, becaufe of 
 that faucy, groundlefs Pretence. 
 
 But once more, and for Argument's Sake, 
 let it be fuppofed, that our Lord had faid, 
 hear the Church of Rome) yet even that 
 would not bear out her Pretence of Infalli- 
 bility, as thefe Gentlemen would inflnuate. 
 Authority indeed it does imply, but Autho- 
 rity 
 
 Homil. 6i. in cap. xviii. Matth. torn. ii. col. 509. drf. 
 
rity does not always imply Infallibility. 
 
 Thus Children are commanded to obey their 
 Parents, and Subje6ls their Princes, under 
 fevere Penalties ^ ; but are Parents or Ma- 
 giftrates therefore infallible? Our Lord fends 
 forth, not his Apoftles, but his feventy Dif- 
 ciples, not in a Body, but by two and two, 
 with this Authority, *' he that heareth you, 
 " heareth me, ^r. >'." But did ever any 
 Body pretend to infer from this, that every 
 Prieft, or every Minifter of Gods Word, 
 or every Couple of them is infallible? 
 
 That implicite Faith and blind Obedience, 
 which the Ro7iianiJls would infer from this 
 Text, is a very dangerous Doctrine, and has 
 done a great deal of Mifchief in the World, 
 full as much as ever private Judgment has 
 done, notwithftanding all the Reproach and 
 Condemnation it meets with. The Ifrae- 
 Utes committed Idolatry, in worfhipping the 
 Golden Calf, notwithrtanding the Counte- 
 nance and Authority of their High Priefl: ^ : 
 Our Lord foretels the Fate of the " Blind 
 " leading the Blind \"— And St. Teter af- 
 fures US; that the Jevjs were guilty of a ve- 
 
 P 2 ry 
 
 » ColofT. iii. 20. Dcut. xxl. i8. Jolh. i. i8. Rom. xiii, i. 
 
 y St. Luke X. 1 6. 
 
 ' Exod. xxxii. 
 
 ? St. Mauh. XV. I4« 
 
xy great Sin, in crucifying our Saviour ^, 
 notwithftanding they did it in Obedience to 
 their Rulers; and in this very Aclj they 
 did but hear the Qhurch^ and fubrnit to her 
 Judgment. 
 
 The Prerogative of Jefus Chrifl: himfelf, 
 the Pre-eminence of his Authority, is ex- 
 preffed in thefe Words, ^' Him ihall ye 
 ^^ hear in all things whatfoever he Ihall 
 *^ fay unto you ^'' The Apoftles, though 
 *' they were infallible, did not arrogate this 
 to themfelves ; no, all the Lengths they 
 "went, was, '^ Be ye Followers of us, as we 
 ^' are of ChrifK" St. Taul difclaims a 
 Dominion over the Faith of Chriftiansr— 
 Now Subjection and Dominion are Rela^ 
 lives: So that if the People owe an implicite 
 ^ubjeftion of their Faith to their Paftors, 
 the Paftors have an abfolute Dominion o- 
 ver the Faith of the People ; which is fome- 
 vrhat more than Apoftolical. In fhort, this 
 Do6lrine of implicite Faith and Obedi- 
 ence, muft needs be apocryphal, fo long 
 as the Epiftle to the Galatians is canoni- 
 cal. .- — << Though we, or an Angel 
 
 ^' from Heaven, preach any other Do6lrine 
 ^^ unto you, |:han that >yhich we have 
 
 " preached 
 
 *> Afts in. 14. 17. 
 
 p Aas ]iu 22. I Cor. xi. I. ij Gojr. x. 94? 
 
( "7 ) 
 *< preached unto you, let him be accur- 
 
 " fed ^.'' If any one will compare this 
 with that very odd, impious Affertion of 
 Cardinal Bellarmine % " That if the Pope 
 ^' fliould err, in commanding Vices, and for- 
 " bidding Virtues, the Church were bound ^ 
 ^\ to believe Vices to be good, and Virtues 
 
 *' to be evil," he will fee whether the 
 
 Cardinal's Opinion be the fame with that 
 of the Apoftolick Age; and whether the 
 prefent Roman Church (which is fo liberal 
 in difpenfing her Curfes to all that differ 
 from her Sentiments) does not herfelf come 
 within the Compafs of the Apoftle's Cen* 
 fure and Anathema. 
 
 The Truth of the Matter is, this Text, 
 hear the Churchy is improperly adduced 
 here, being quite foreign to the Purpofe" 
 for which it is brought; for if it proves 
 the Church's Infallibility in any Thing, it 
 muft be in the Thing referred to in the Con- 
 text, that is, the Church's Cenfures. But 
 
 they themfelves allow the Church is fal- 
 lible in her Cenfures, as depending upon 
 Teftimony, and Matters of Fa<ft ; and there- 
 fore it looks very (bange to infer from 
 thence her Infallibility in other Things 
 which are not fpoken of in this Place. 
 
 §VL 
 
 d Gal. i. 8, 9. 
 
 ^ Pe Rom. Pontif, lib. iv. cap. 5, 
 
( ii8 ) 
 ' § Vl. The fifth Argument brought by 
 the Author of the Manufcript to prove the 
 Infallibility of his Church, is taken from 
 
 I Tim. iii. 15. * Where, fays he ^, St. 
 
 *^ Taiil calls the Church of the living God, 
 
 " the Millar and Ground of Truth ; and 
 
 " if fhe be the Pillar and Ground of Truth, 
 " fhe can never fupport or uphold Error, 
 " or Herefy, and confequently fhe will 
 
 ^* never err in Matters of Faith.'' And 
 
 the Author of the Sbortejl Way s tells us 
 in his peremptory Way, " that this Say- 
 *^ ing of the Apoftle would be flatly falfe, 
 " if the Church were capable of teach- 
 " ing any thing contrary to God's revealed 
 
 « Word." _ 
 
 But what if it is Timothy^ and not the 
 Church, that is here called a Tillar ? If 
 this is the Cafe, thefe Gentlemen muft put 
 their Argument into another Shape, or it 
 
 will conclude nothing. Some learned 
 
 Men, and accurate Criticks ^' have been of 
 this Opinion : They fay, the Apoftle had im- 
 mediately before called the Church of God 
 a Houfe, and that to have called her a Pillar 
 with the very next Breath, would not have 
 come up to that Propriety and Elegance of 
 
 Stile, 
 
 ^ Parag. vi. 
 
 g Part i. p. 30. 
 
 t» Mr. Chilling worth. 
 
(119 ), 
 Stile, for which St. TauFs Writings arc 
 remarkable :. But if we allow of an Ellipfis 
 here, (a Figure not unufual with the inlpi- 
 red Writers) the Senfe, without any Vio- 
 lence to the Words, will run thus, " That 
 *' thou (viz. Thnothy^ mayft know how 
 ** thou oughteft to behave thy felf in the 
 " Houfe of God, which is the Church, as 
 " a Pillar, or as becomes a Pillar." 
 
 But I am far from advifing the Reader 
 
 to lay undue Strefs on Criticifm. And 
 
 therefore (not to infift farther on this) let 
 it be granted, that it is the Church, which 
 is here called the Pillar and Ground of the 
 Truth ; yet even thus, it will not ferve the 
 Purpofe it was brought for. For, either 
 this is to be underftood of the univerfal 
 Church, or of a particular Church, there 
 can be no Medium. 
 
 If it is to be underftood of the univerfal 
 Church, then it proves only, (what is not 
 denied) i;/z. the In defect ib Hi ty of the whole 
 Church, which may well enough confift 
 with the Error and Apoftacy of feveral par- 
 ticular Churches, tho' they may once have 
 been very eminent for theirFaithjPurity, and 
 Piety : Of this we have many melancholy 
 Inftances, particularly in the Churches of 
 ylfta and Africa') and what has been their 
 unhappy Fate, may be that of the Roman^ 
 
 or 
 
( I^o ) 
 
 or any particular Church, and yet the Ca- 
 tholick Church not fail. 
 
 But if thefe Words are to be underftood 
 of any particular Churchy it muft be of that 
 particular one whereof Timothy was Bifhop, 
 and that was not Rome, but Epkefus^ which 
 (notwithftanding of her being then a Pillar 
 and Ground of Truth) afterwards fell a- 
 way. And fo our Author's Argument will 
 come out in this Form, viz, *' The Church 
 *' of Ephejus, which has long ago failed, 
 " was once fo glorious a Church, as to be 
 " called by St. Taul a Pillar and Ground 
 
 " of Truth ; therefore the Church of 
 
 " Ko7ne is infallible.'' Sure, Men muft: 
 
 learn a new Syfl:em of Logick, e'er they 
 can find any Connexion or Confequencc 
 here. 
 
 But whatever Church is here meant, let 
 us fuppofe it is the Church of Rome, yet 
 the Argument will ftill be unconcluding; 
 for the Text intimates only what that 
 Church was at that Time: But from a De- 
 claration of the Church's prefent State, to 
 infer an AfTurance of her perpetual Conti- 
 nuance in that State, looks like flraining 
 the Text too far. " Zion was once an Ha- 
 " bitation of Righteoufnefs," and yet the 
 Prophet IJaiah was not mi fin formed, when 
 he faid, *' The faithful City was become 
 
 " an 
 
<* an Harl<5t '.'* Nay^ if this Way of reas 
 foiling is juft, our Church mufl: (by their 
 own Confcflion) be found and orthodox 
 ftill, after all the bitter Things they have 
 faid againft us : For, if the Roman Church 
 is this Pillar, then certainly, while we were 
 in the Communion of the ii<37/^^;/ Church, 
 we were a Part of this Pillar ; and if (as my 
 Authors fay) this Pillar can never fupport 
 or uphold Error or Hercfy, or teach any 
 Thing contrary to the revealed Word of 
 God, then we can never have erred, and fo 
 there will be no Reafon to perfuade Peo- 
 ple to leave our Communion, on Account 
 of greater Safety in theirs. 
 
 I fee no Way left to avoid the Strength 
 of this, but by faying, that fome Part of 
 this Pillar may fall into Decay, and the refl 
 fland firm : Well, be it fo, but pray why not 
 the Patt at Ro7ne, as well as that in Scot- 
 land^ fince neither of the two is mentioned 
 in the Text I 
 
 The Truth of the Matter is, this figu- 
 rative Term, Tilla?^^ implies Solidity, not 
 Infallibility, it implies the Difficulty of its 
 Removal, not the abfolute Impoiribihty of 
 the Thing > it imports a Church's Duty, 
 not her conftant Prae^ice, what fhe ought 
 
 Q^ to 
 
 » Ifa. i. 21. 
 
( '^^ ). , 
 
 to be, not what fhe always is. T hus " Ru- 
 <* lers are faid to be a Terror, not to good 
 " Works, but to the evil ^;' from which, 
 the utmoft we can infer is, that they ought 
 
 to be, not that they always are To. Thus 
 
 our Saviour calls the chief Officers in his 
 Church, " the Salt of the Earth," and yet 
 he fuppofes it poffible " that the Salt may 
 " lofe 'its Savour ^." And thus Solomon de- 
 fcribes the Duty, not the conftant Pra6lice 
 of fovereign Princes. — " A divine Sen- 
 '' tence is in the Lips of the King, (fays he) 
 ^' bis Mouth tranfgrcjfeth not hi "Judgment *"." 
 Had the New Teftament contained any 
 Declaration feemingly fo rtrong in Favours 
 of the Church of Rome^ That jloe tranfgref^ 
 feth not in Judgment^ it had faved thefe learn- 
 ed Gentlemen the Labour of bringing fe- 
 ven or eight different Texts, and all of them 
 fo remote from the Purpofe for which they 
 are brought. 
 
 Once more, if it is poffible for a Church 
 to be a Pillar of Truth, and a Scat of Er- 
 ror at the fame Time, the Confequence drawn 
 from this Text, (that the Church is a Pil- 
 lar of Truth, therefore (he is infallible) 
 will appear to be not juftly formed: And 
 
 this, 
 
 ^ Rom. vaW. 5. 
 J St. Matth. V. 13. 
 "» Prov. xvi. 10. 
 
( 123 ) 
 this, however uncouth it may look at firft, 
 is really true. For, 
 
 Let us but draw back the Curtain, with 
 which this Metaphor is vailed, and we fhall 
 find, that to be ,a Pillar of the Truth, and 
 a Defender or Supporter of the Faith, is 
 the fame Thing: Now, eveiy one that has 
 read the Bible, or looked into the Records 
 of paft Ages, with any Attention, muft 
 have obferved feveral Inftances of Perfons 
 and Societies, profeffing all necelFary Truths, 
 and yet at the fame Time tainted with feve- 
 ral grofs Errors. Thus, St. Taul tells us 
 of fome, who " held to the Foundation, 
 *' while they built Hay and Stubble upon 
 " it "." And it appears from St. Johns 
 EpilHes to the feven Churches in Afta % 
 that this was the Cafe with moft of them, 
 (this of Ephejus not excepted) that while 
 they defended the Truth of Chriftianity a- 
 gainO Je-ws and Pagans, fome of them did. 
 alfo maintain the Do6lrines of Balaam and 
 Jezebel, and the Herefy of the Nicolaitans. 
 
 1 have already fhcwed p, and fhall there- 
 fore not repeat it here, that this was the 
 Cafe of the Church of Rome at the Time 
 of our Reformation.— -And really when 
 
 0^2 it 
 
 " I Cor. iii. ii, 
 ® Rev. ii. 
 P P. 46, 84* 
 
( 1^4 ) 
 it is eonfidered, that the Apoftles themfelves, 
 
 even while they lived, could not wholly pre- 
 
 ferve every Church they planted free from 
 
 actual Corruption, it will appear a goodly 
 
 Confidence in any Church now, to pretend 
 
 to be above the Poffibility of Corruption, 
 
 and then make th^t very bare, fhamclefs 
 
 Pretence, the Pillar and Ground, the Shield 
 
 and Defence of all her Errors. 
 
 I am afraid I have given the Reader too 
 
 much Trouble on this Text, which 1 might 
 
 have prevented, by telling him at firlf, that 
 
 this Expreffion, Tillcir ^nd Qround of Truths 
 
 is plainly figurative, and it is never fafe to 
 
 build upon Metaphors, far lefs to lay too 
 
 much Weight upon them. — .For whatever 
 
 the Importgmce of it may be, it is ftill a Meta-^ 
 
 fbor^ and therefore can be no Argument. 
 
 § VII. The next Te^t brought to uphold 
 Roman Infallibility, is EpheJ, iv. ii. 12, 
 i^c. ^' He gave fome Apoftles, ^^^, and 
 ^' fome Paftors and Teachers, for the per- 
 ^' fe(fling of the Saints, that we henceforth 
 ^' be no more Children, tolTed to and fro, 
 ^' and carried about with every Wind of 
 ^« Dpc):rine, by the Slight pf Men, 6"^." 
 ^' Whence it is apparent, fays my Author, 
 <' that Paftors and Teachers arc placed in 
 [[ {fee Churfh to fecure the Faith of Chri- 
 
 /' ftians, 
 
(. 125 ) 
 *^ ftlans, and to hinder them to be tofTed a- 
 " bout with every Wind of Do^rine, which 
 " BlefTing the Paltors cannot procure to 
 ^' the People, unicfs the Pallors thcmfelves 
 " be fecured from wavering and Error "i." 
 
 The Author of the Manufcript is fingle 
 in this Argument, he is not accompanied 
 by the Author ol' the Short e/i Way^ fo that 
 if it proves any Thing for him, he has all 
 the Honour, but if it is found to operate 
 the contrary Way, he muft bear the Blame 
 of betraying his Caufe, and had better have 
 let it alone : I have tranfcribed the Text ex- 
 actly as the Gentleman has laid it, though 
 I muft afterwards take the Liberty to fet 
 it down in St. Taid\ Way. 
 
 The Apoftle is here fpeaking of Chrift's 
 triumphant Afcenfion to his moft glorious 
 Throne in the higheft Heavens, there to ex- 
 ercife an univerfal Dominion over, and fhed 
 his Influences upon, every Part of his my- 
 ftical Body, the Church ; for which Pur- 
 pofe, St. ^aiil farther fays, that he qua- 
 lified Perfons for, and fent them forth in 
 the Several different Capacities here men- 
 tioned, -u/z, '' Apoftles, Prophets, Evan- 
 " gehfts, Paftors and Teachers," that is, 
 fome to reveal his Will, others to explain it, 
 fome to propagate and record it in authen- 
 
 tick 
 
 ^ Parag. vil, 
 
( 1^6 ) 
 tick Writings, fome to inftruft the People 
 in it, and to govern according to it, (thus 
 recorded) where it was already received ; 
 and thefe different Offices (he fays) and the 
 Powers for performing them, were all de- 
 figned for the Benefit of the. Body in com- 
 mon, and every Party concerned was here- 
 by obliged to contribute his hci\ Endeavours 
 for the Improvement and mutual Support of 
 Believers, till by Means of all thefe feveral 
 Offices, we attain to fuch Strength, and 
 Steadinefs, and found Judgment, as may 
 fet us above that childiih Ignorance and 
 Levity, which floats between different O- 
 pinions, and like a Wave is carried to this 
 or that Side, by every Breath of Sophiftry, 
 every artful Turn of Argument managed 
 by crafty Seducers, who employ their ut- 
 moft Skill and Indullry, to corrupt the 
 Chriftian Do(ftrine. 
 
 This is the plain and obvious Meaning 
 of thefe four Verfcs, but how they will be 
 brought to fpeak out InfaUibility in the pre- 
 fent Roman Church, is hard to devife. St. 
 Taul here evidently points at the different 
 Periods of Chriflianity, its Infant and grown 
 State, the firfland latter Ages of the Church, 
 and the different Helps and A/liilances af- 
 forded to each. 
 
 The 
 
( 127 ) 
 
 The Church, In her Infant State, was 
 mod: dcfcncelefs and expofcd, and therefore 
 Care was taken to afford her.a proportionable 
 Affiftance^ Apoftles to reveal the Will of 
 God to her, Prophets (not only to foretel fu- 
 ture Events, but) to interpret and explain 
 this Revelation, and Evangelifts to promul- 
 gate it, and record it in Writing. 
 
 But, when by thefe Means the Church 
 was grown up to perfe6l Manhood and Ma- 
 turity, and by being poffejOTed of a Rule, 
 (left her by thefe Apoftles, Prophets, and 
 Evangelifts) to which all fucceeding Ages 
 were to conform, the Danger of being mif- 
 Icd grew lefs, then (in Proportion) her 
 Helps and Affiftances grew lefs too, and 
 thefe extraordinary Offices of Apoftles, Pro- 
 phets and Evangelifts (I mean fuch Parts of 
 thefe Offices as were intended only to be tem- 
 porary, and are therefore called extraordina- 
 ry) were difcontinued, as being no longer ne- 
 ceffary, when the ordinary Offices of Pa- 
 ftors and Teachers might fuffice. 
 
 This being the true State of the Cafe, 
 our Author's Argument from this Paffage 
 muft come out in a Shape fo odd, that I 
 am aftiamed to prefent it to the View of 
 my Reader in its natural Drefs, viz. " The 
 " Church, in the Apoftles Days, enjoyed 
 " the Affiftance and Dirc<5tIon of extraor- 
 
 " dinary 
 
( 1^8 ) 
 " dinary Officers, Prophets and Evangc- 
 
 ** lifts. But the Church of Rome in our 
 
 " Days, enjoys only the ordinary Guid- 
 
 " ance of Paftors and Teachers ; -there- 
 
 " fore the one is as infaUible as the o- 
 
 ther/' " The one had a Spirit of 
 
 *' Prophecy, and the Privilege of reveal- 
 
 *' ing new Objects of Faith, but the 
 
 ** other pretends to neither ; there- 
 
 *' fore they are equally privileged, and e- 
 
 *' qually infaUible. The Apoftles, Pro- 
 
 *' phets, and EvangeHfts, were immediate- 
 ** ly infpired, — but the Paftors and Teach- 
 *' ers in fucceeding Ages, neither are, nor 
 
 " pretend to be fo; therefore they 
 
 ** are all upon a Level for Infallibilty. 
 
 Really, if this Gentleman had thought 
 frt to aftert the perpetual Continuance in 
 his Church of a Spirit of Prophecy, and 
 the Gift of Tongues, and a Power of writing 
 a fifth Gofpel, and of enlarging the Canon 
 of Scripture, he might have inferred from 
 this Text all thefe Privileges, juft as well 
 as he has done her Infallibility. 
 
 Far be it from me to accufe this Author 
 of ill Defign, in not giving his Difciples 
 this Text whole and entire, as he has done 
 the prcceeding ones ; and yet I cannot but 
 think, that if he had given the whole 
 
 Text, 
 
( 1^9 ) 
 Text, in St. "Taul's Way, if indeed of an 
 (^^r.he had fet in Prophets and Evangelijls, 
 as well as Paftors and Teachers, theUncon- 
 clufivenefs of his Argument muft have fooner 
 caft up to View. 
 
 However, I will not pronounce harfhly 
 upon his thus mincing of the Text, as it 
 may be owing to Hafte or Ovcrfight. But 
 upon a Review of what is already faid on 
 this Subject, I think I may venture to af- 
 firm, that a vain groundlefs Pretence of In- 
 fallibility, is among thefe Slights of Meii 
 St. Taut here cautions againft, thefe cunning 
 CraftineJJeSy whereby they ly in wait to de- 
 ceive. 
 
 § VIII. It being thus made appear (I 
 hopcj with Abundance of Evidence) that 
 the Promifes in the Gofpel do not convey, 
 or afcertain to the Rojnan Church, this great 
 Privilege of Infallibility fhe contends for; 
 it can fcarce be imagined, that one Prophe- 
 cy from the Old Teftament (wherein flic is 
 not particularly defigned any more than in 
 the other) fliould bear her out in her high 
 Pretences. 
 
 However, as a proper Supplement to tie 
 many Texts brought from the holy Go- 
 fpels and Epiilles, the Author of the Mann- 
 
 R fcript 
 
( I30 ) 
 fcflpt '' adds one from the Prophet Ifaiah, 
 Chap. lix. Ver. 20, 21. " The Redeemer 
 
 " fhall come to Zion, As for me, this is 
 
 " my Covenant with them, faith the Lord, 
 *^ my Spirit which is upon thee, and my 
 " Words which I have put in thy Mouth, 
 *' fhall not depart out of thy Mouth, nor 
 " out of the Mouth of thy Seed, nor out 
 " of the Mouth of thy Seeds Seed, faith 
 *' the Lord, from henceforth and for ever, 
 " In this plain Text (fays our Author) 
 '' God has given us a full AlTurance, that 
 " after the Coming of our Redeemer, his 
 *' Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth, which 
 '^ he bequeatheth to his Church, fliall ne- 
 *' ver abandon her ; and that the Words 
 *' which he has put in her Mouth, that is, 
 *' the whole Chriftian Truth in its Purity, 
 '' as it was taught her by the fame Re- 
 *^ deemer, fhould never depart out of her 
 *' Mouth, but be conftantly taught and 
 *' profefTed by her Seed for ever. 
 
 That this Prophecy refpeds the Times 
 of the Mejfiah^ is acknowledged ; and that 
 it contains a mofl: gracious Promife, that 
 the Spirit of God ^fhould abide with his 
 Church for ever, is likeways acknowledged, 
 with Thankfulnefs to God for it. How his 
 
 Spirit 
 
 *■ Parag. viii. 
 
C 131 ) 
 
 Spirit abides with his Church, the Re- 
 deemer (mhg beft knew it) has himfelf told 
 us, in fome of the Texts before confidered, 
 that is, he abides with the Church for ever, 
 byl his Aids and Influences, difpenfed in 
 fuch Meafures and Proportions, as the Exi- 
 gences of different Times and Circumftan- 
 ces fhoiild require. 
 
 With the Apoftles, and firft Planters of 
 Chriftianity, who were to publifh and efla- 
 blifli Chrift's Religion in the World, he a- 
 bode by infallible DireBion^ fo as to lead 
 
 them into all Truth '. But with fucceed- 
 
 ing Ages of the Church (which have the 
 Advantage of an infallible Rule, left by thefe 
 unerring Guides) he abides only as a Com- 
 forter. 
 
 In this Senfe (and the Promife will ftretch 
 to none other) it is not denied, that ^hc 
 Holy Spirit abides with the Church for ever, 
 nay, and with every Member of it, with 
 evfery faithful Chriftian for ever; but to in- 
 fer from thence, that every one with whom 
 the Holy Spirit abides as a Comforter, is 
 infallible, would be to prove too much, and 
 more than is contended for. 
 
 Had the Church of Ro7?ie retained the 
 Spirit of Prophecy, had (he inherited all 
 
 R 2 thofe 
 
 * St^ John xvi. 13. and xiv. 16. 
 
, < 132 ) ^ 
 
 tiiofe extraordinary Offices mentioned in the 
 preceeding Text, it is probable flie would 
 not have interpreted this Prophecy of IJaiah 
 In the Manner fhe has done, nor appropri- 
 ated it to herfelf alone, as her Miffionafies 
 do : But fo long as the Spirit of the Pro- 
 phets is fubjed to the Prophets, iS long 
 as the Meaning of an ancient Prophecy is 
 not explained and determined, by the im- 
 mediate Impulfe of the fame Spirit, by which 
 that Prophecy was at firft dilated, the bed 
 and fafeft Way for us to underftand the 
 Meaning and Extent of Old Teftament 
 Predictions, not already interpreted, and ap- 
 plied in the New, is to explain them by their 
 Accompiifliment: And if we take this Way, 
 and judge by the Event, the Roman InhX- 
 libility will not be collefted from this Pro- 
 phecy. 
 
 ' W*^ are fure, that whatever God foretels 
 niuft come to pafs, and whatever he pro- 
 mifeth muft: be performed ; but if we will 
 ftrain his Predictions or Promifes beyond 
 his Intention, we fet them in a direft Con- 
 tradicflion to his Providence, and thereoy 
 open the Mouths of Ddfts againft all Re- 
 velation. 
 
 This may be illuftrated by zn Inftjince 
 from the fame Prophet, in the fecond and 
 eleventh Chapters of his Book, where he 
 ^ " jias 
 
. ( 133 ) . 
 
 has deferibed the peaceful Times of the 
 
 Mejfiah in very ftrong Terms. — " That 
 
 " they ihall beat their Swords into Plough 
 
 ^' Shares, and their Spears into pruning 
 
 *' Hooks; that Nation fhall not hft up 
 
 " Sword againft Nation, neither ihall they 
 
 " learn War any more ; that the Wolf ihall 
 
 ^' dwell with the Lamb, and the Leopard 
 
 *' ihall ly down with the Calf, and the 
 
 *' young Lion and the Fatling together, 
 
 *' and a httle Child ihall lead them. And the 
 
 *' Cow and the Bear iliall feed, their young 
 
 ^' Ones ihall ly down together: And the 
 
 *' Lion ihall eat Straw like the Ox. And 
 
 *' the fucking Child ihall play on the Hole 
 
 *' of theAfp, and the weaned Child ihall put 
 
 *' his Hand on the Cockatrice Den. They 
 
 '*' fliall not hurt nor deftroy in all my holy 
 
 *' Mountain ; for the Earth ihall be full of 
 
 *' the Knowledge of the Lord, as the Wa- 
 
 ^' ters cover the Sea." 
 
 I deiire this Gentleman to fpeak out, and 
 tell plainly, whether this is really the State 
 of Chrifteqdom ? His Church (even with- 
 out the Aid of Infallibility) can well inform 
 him the contrary is true ; for no Chriftian 
 Church in the World, ever occailoned fo 
 pany Wars, and Rebellions, Murders and 
 Mailacres, as ihe has done. 
 
 It is therefore evident, that this Predidloa 
 
 dcfcribes 
 
C 134 ) 
 defcribes rather what ought to be the State 
 of Chriftendom, than what it really is ; and 
 the Prophet's Meaning and Intendment is "to 
 ihow, that as the Mejfiah, our blelTed Re- 
 deemer, was to come to plant Peace on 
 Earth, and good Will amongft Men, fo if 
 his Precepts and Example were duly attend- 
 ed to, and obeyed and followed as they 
 ought, the fierceft Tempers would be fub- 
 dued, and there fhould be no War, Strife, 
 Debate, or Contention, among his Difciples. 
 
 But if this Prophecy Ihould be inter- 
 preted in a Manner as ftri^t and literal, as 
 this Author would have us underftand his 
 lafl: Text, it is not fulfilled, and probably 
 will not be, 'till the Mejjiah'^ fecond Co- 
 ming. 
 
 I believe I need fay no more in Anfwer 
 to his laft Argument from Scripture, but 
 only fubmit it to the Judgment of the Read- 
 er, Whetheranuniverfal, uninterrupted, un- 
 difturbed Peace among all Chriftians, may 
 not as fairly and confequentially be in- 
 ferred from this Prophecy, as the perpetual 
 Infallibility of the Roman Church from the 
 other ? 
 
 § IX. I thought I had done with the Scri- 
 pture Proofs of their Church's Infallibility; 
 but the Author of the Shorteft Way to end 
 
 Dif- 
 
( 135 ) 
 
 Dijputes^ has furprizcd me with another 
 Text, one indeed with which I did not exped 
 to be attacked from that Quarter ; it is in St. 
 Matthew vii. 13. where we arc command- 
 ed to beware of falfe Trophets^ &c. 
 
 This is turning our own Cannon againft 
 us, and attempting to beat us with our own 
 Weapons: One would be apt to think this 
 learned Gentleman had changed Sides, and 
 was now maintaining the Caufe he had clfe- 
 where oppofed and condemned, that of 
 private Judgment. For how can we di- 
 itinguifh falfe Prophets from true ? Or how 
 can we judge of thofe Fruits, by which they 
 are to be known, but by the due Exercifc 
 of that exploded Facultj'^, our Reafon, and 
 Judgment ? To have bid us beware on other 
 Terms, had been only to bid a blind Man 
 judge of Colours, or look well to his Steps ; 
 and there is no Command in the Gofpei 
 fo unreafonable. 
 
 But the Gentleman meant nothing in 
 Favour of private Judgment, fo far from 
 that, he upbraids all them who underftand 
 the Text in this Way, with bringing only 
 
 ^' ftrange Stuff and Incoherences. No, 
 
 ^* fays he, Chrifl: in com manding us to be- 
 " ware of falfe Prophets, has fet a Mark 
 
 " of 
 
 « Parti, p. 30, 3I« 
 
( 13^ ) 
 
 " of Infamy upon the Broachers of new 
 
 « DoflrinCy to diftinguilh them from his 
 « Church, which he therefore commands 
 " us to believe, under Pain of eternal 
 
 " Damnation." And for Proof of this 
 
 we are referred to St. Mark xvi. i6. " He 
 *' who believes fhall be faved, and he who 
 " believes not fhall be damned.'' 
 
 This ingenious Author is ftill unlucky in 
 the Choice of his Proofs, for there is no 
 Mention of any Church (certainly not of 
 the Rommi) in this Text. But let it be fup- 
 pofed for once, that the Church of Rome 
 had been found here, yet may there not be 
 falfe Prophets in a true Church ? Were not 
 the Do6lrines of Balaam, Jezebel, and the 
 Nicolaitans, maintained in feme of the 
 Churches of Afm, even while they conti- 
 nued to be true Churches? And are there 
 not as many new DoBrines (Do6lrines un- 
 taught and unknown in the Apoftolick Age) 
 maintained in the prefent Church of Rome, 
 as in any of the Eaflern, or in the Reform- 
 ed Churches. 
 
 Now, thefe new DoBrines are (confelTed- 
 ly) the Fruits, by which falfe Tr op bets are 
 to be known : But unkfs we will beware 
 without confidering, and condemn without 
 Evidence, wc muft firit examine whether 
 the Dod:rines are new, and how is this to 
 
 be 
 
( ^37 ) 
 be done othcrwife than by the due Ufe of 
 
 our Reafon and Judgment? 
 
 If it be faid, that in fuch Cafes of Dubi- 
 
 tancy, we ought to bear the Church, and 
 
 fubmit to her Authority; fo fay I too, If 
 
 it is meant of the cathoh'ck or univerfal 
 
 Church of Chrift: But if it is meant of the 
 
 Church of Rofne, or any particular Church, 
 
 firft, we mufi: find out what particular Church 
 
 it is (whether Eaftern or Weftern, whether 
 
 Reformed orUnreformed) to which we ought 
 
 to fubmit; and that can be done only by 
 
 the due Exercife of our private Judgment, 
 
 to which this Author's Book is an Appeal, 
 
 notwithftanding all he has faid againft it; 
 
 for it is in vain to bring Arguments from 
 
 Scripture, or Tradition to convince us, that 
 
 theirs is the only true Church, and we are 
 
 Hereticks, and that therefore we ought to 
 
 abjure our ow^n Communion and embrace 
 
 theirs, unlefs our Reafon is fatisfied, that 
 
 thefe Arguments are true and concluding: 
 
 So that we are juft where we were, and all 
 
 our Author's Fetches, and fine Flouriflies, 
 
 have not brought thefe Texts to prove what 
 
 he brought them for. 
 
 But the Matter of Fafl is', that in this 
 
 Place of St. Mark, Jefus Chrift gives Com- 
 
 miffion to the Apoftles whom he had cho- 
 
 fcn, " to go into all the World, and preach 
 
 S the 
 
tc 
 
 ( 138 ) 
 
 " the Gofpel to every Creature," — that is, 
 to ejftabliili his catholick or univerfal Church 
 upon Earth, not reftricled to any one Re- 
 gion or Country, as the Jewijh Church had 
 been ; and then tells them, what the diffe- 
 rent Fates would be of thofe who received 
 the Chriftian Faith, and of thofe who did 
 not. " He that believes, <6^^." 
 
 Now put this Author's Argument into 
 Form, and it comes out thus, '' Jefus Chrift 
 
 has faid, that they who reject the Chrifti- 
 '^ an Faith taught by his infallible Apoftles, 
 " and vouched by inconteftable Miracles, 
 
 " fliall be damned. But the Church of 
 
 *' Rome, has broached new Do6lrines, has 
 " added to the ancient Faith (taught by 
 " thefe ApofHes, and received by the pri- 
 " mitive Church) twelve new Articles, and 
 " does not work inconteftable Miracles to 
 <' vouch thefe new Articles, as the Apoftles 
 ** did to vouch the old Ones, and yet claims 
 *' the fame Authority to herfelf, and the 
 " fame (or greater) SubmifTion from the 
 ^' Faithful, as the Apoftles did. — Therefore 
 *' fhe is as infallible as the Apoftles were: 
 "The Danger of not fubmitting to her 
 " Authority, is equal to that of rejecting 
 " the Apoftles Doctrine ; and they who do 
 " not believe that flie is the Mother and 
 '' Miftrcfs of all Churches, and that her 
 
 ^ Bilhop, 
 
( 139 ) 
 ^' Bilhop, the Pope, is the Head of the 
 
 *' whole catholick Church, and Chrift's 
 
 " Vicar Genera! upon Earth, fhall as cer- 
 
 *' tainly be damned, as they who deny, 
 
 " that Jefns Chrijl is the Son of the living 
 
 " Godr 
 
 However Men may fancy themfelves pri- 
 vileged to do Evil, with good Defign, or 
 to promote Truth by Means of Falfhood 
 and Sophiftry, I really cannot help wonder- 
 ing, how any Man of ordinary Modefty, 
 could offer fuch bare-faced Affronts to the 
 common Senfe and Reafon of Mankind. 
 
 It has been already obferved in this Trea- 
 tifc", that no Man, or Company of Men, caa 
 be infallible, unlefs God beflow Infallibility 
 upon them ; for Infallibility is not a natu- 
 ral Endowment, but a fupernatural Gift; 
 and therefore no Reafon, nothing but plain 
 and exprefs Scripture, can prove the Bifhop 
 of Rome^ or a general Council confirmed 
 by him, to be infallible: God may make 
 them infallible if he pleafes, and if he plea- 
 fes, he may not do it. And therefore our 
 only Enquiry here, is, what God has done? 
 And this can be known only by Revelati- 
 on recorded in the facred Scriptures of 
 Truth. 
 
 5 z Whether 
 
 » Page ^^, 
 
( MO ) 
 Whether thefe holy Books will fupport 
 the high Pretences of Catholicifm and In- 
 fallibility in the Church of Rome^ I have 
 endeavoured to fhew in this long Chapter, 
 and do now ftibmit it to the Judgment of 
 the impartial Reader. As the Cafe ap- 
 pears to me, the Texts adduced by them 
 do not conie up to the Purpofe for which 
 they are brought; — —and therefore prove 
 nothing upon their Side of the Queftion, 
 but the Prejudice, Partiality, and Confidence 
 of thofe, who would impofe fuch falfe, tho' 
 artful, Reafoning upon the World. 
 
 To xnake this fHU clearer, let me fuppofe, 
 That I was born in Greece^ and that a 
 Rom'jjh Miffionary cornes and tells me, I 
 muft chopfe a Church for my Guide to 
 Heaven. — Well, if itmuit be fo, (fay I) 
 I will choofe our own Greek Church,— 
 No, by no Means, (fays he) you mull 
 choofe a Guide that cannot miflead you, 
 cannot poffibly go wrong, and that is to 
 be found no where, but in the Church 
 of Rome, -"Why, (fay I) what Reafon^ 
 or Colour of Reafon is there for that? 
 What is there in the Promifes qf Chriff, 
 which makes Rome the Scat of Infallibi- 
 lity, and direfls me to choofe that Church 
 and no other ? — — I^ it fo faid in the holy 
 Scriptures ?~No,(fays he) not exprefly, but 
 
 fMt 
 
^* it is by Implication and neceflary Confe- 
 
 " quence. Well, (fay I) that will do. if 
 
 ^' it appears, but tell me what neceflary Con- 
 " fequence, or Deduction from holy Scri- 
 " pture, fliould determine me to that Choice ? 
 ^' —Look, (fays he) there are Promifes made 
 *' to the Church, and ye are commanded 
 
 *^ to hear the Church, And what then I 
 
 ^' (fay I) there is no Word of Rome in 
 <' thefe Promifes, or in that Command. 
 ^' Were not our Eaftern Churches planted 
 <' by the Apoftles, as well as that of Ronie^ 
 ^' and fome of them before her? Have we 
 *' not a conftant SuccefHon of Bifhops in 
 *' them? Have we not four Patriarchs in 
 " our Communion, and you but one ? For 
 " what imaginable Reafon then, fhould you 
 '' dare ,to exclude our Churches from any 
 " Share in the Promifes of Chrid? — But 
 ** (fays he) it belongs to the Church to inter^ 
 
 *' pret Scripture. So fay I too, but it is 
 
 " the Cathoiick Churchy in all Ages and in 
 '' all Places, not the prefent Roman, - 
 " Thus (fays he) ye fHll deceive yourfelves 
 '' with your own Fancies, and private Inter- 
 " pretations of Scripture, but great is your 
 '* Danger if you do not believe the Church 
 ^' of Rome.—Th'Sits, ftrange, (fay I) that the 
 " Doctrine of holy Scripture, which I fol- 
 5' loWj as it has been taught and declared by 
 
 "the 
 
( hO 
 
 <« the catholick Church of Chrift, fhould ftill 
 «< be called a private Interpretation. But pray 
 ^< ye, Sir, does the Church of Rome pretend 
 << to any new Revelations of Matter of 
 " Do6lrine? — No, fhe does not, but on- 
 
 " ly to declare the old Do6lrines -^ 
 
 *' Has fhe not the Books of the old Reve- 
 
 *' lation? — Yes. Are they not legible? — 
 
 *' Yes, (fays he) but you cannot underftand 
 " them. — Why, Sir, (fay I) let me try if 
 '^ I can, for it is only on the Authority of 
 *^ God, and for the Reverence I ov^e to 
 *' him, that I believe his Word, and there- 
 " fore I cannot be fatisfied till I fee his 
 " Word. — What (fays he) will you not 
 *' believe the Church which brings you this 
 " Word? — I believe (fay I) the univerfal 
 " Church, which has carefully conveyed 
 '* down to me this facred Word, but not 
 '* the Roman Church, which (in many In- 
 " ftances) has attempted to corrupt, and 
 *^ alter this Word, and at laft to fnatch it 
 *' quite out of my Hands. I beg you'll ex- 
 *' cufe me for not believing her, whom I 
 " have Reafon to fufpeft of ill Defign, and 
 " ril make my Apology, by this Simili- 
 " tudc: 
 
 " A Man brings me a Letter from my 
 '* Father, while I am in a foreign Country, 
 *' dire<5lingtheCourfeofmyTravels3 whom 
 
 ^' I 
 
( H3 ) 
 ** I ftiould converfe with, whom I fhould 
 " truft, and how to make my Way Home. 
 " At the fame Time the Man tells me, I 
 " need not look into the Letter itfelf, for 
 ** he was authorized by my Father to tell 
 *' me his Meaning. Altho' I believe he 
 ** dealt faithfully in bringing me the true 
 *' Letter, do you think I will truft him for 
 ** the Meaning of it? No, 1 will open it, 
 ** if it was only to fee, whether he had 
 *' fuch Authority from him, or not: For 
 *^ I remember that a former Letter from 
 *' my Father to his elder Son then travel- 
 ** ling, contained this remarkable PaflTagc 
 *' concerning the Bearers of it, — To the 
 ** Law, and to the Teftimony, if they 
 " fpeak not according to this Word, it is 
 ** becaufe there is no Light in them, IJhiah 
 <« viii. 20. Befides, I know that if my Fa- 
 " ther was pleafed to write to me about 
 *' Matters of fuch Importance, he would 
 *' write in fuch Manner that I might under- 
 *^ ftand him, and if any Difficulties arife in 
 " Point of the Geography, or Laws of the 
 *' Country I am in, I will take Advice of 
 *' thofe who are moft fit and able to dire6l 
 " me, and not of him who brags moft of 
 *' his own Skill, nor of them who have a 
 *' feparate Intereft to drive. But after all, 
 " I muft ftill know what my Father would 
 
 " have 
 
( 144 ) 
 *^ have me to do, and I muft know it from 
 
 *' the Words of his Letter, and not from 
 
 " the Mouth of the Meffenger only. 
 
 ^' Or, if the Meffenger tells me farther, 
 
 " that he has Authority to deliver other 
 
 " Things by Word of Mouth, w^hich I 
 
 ^' am equally bound to believe with what 
 
 " I find in the Letter, can any one exped 
 
 " I fliould believe him, unlefs it appears 
 
 " from the Letter it felf, that my Father 
 
 " gave him fuch Authority? — Let him va- 
 
 ^' pour upon his Merit, let him tell me ne- 
 
 " ver fo much, how long he has been my 
 
 '' Father's Servant, and how faithful he 
 
 ** has been to him, and that never yet has 
 
 *' he once miftaken, or tranfgrefled my Fa- 
 
 *^ ther's 'Orders, and that he has done and 
 
 '^ fuffered much for him, and can produce 
 
 '' a Number of Certificates from Time to 
 
 '' Time of his good Behaviour; yet all 
 
 this can bring me no Satisfaction, fo long 
 
 as the Letter he brings, is confeffed to 
 
 be my Father's own Hand-writing, and 
 
 that it was written, and fent of Purpofe, 
 
 " to direct me in a Matter which he knew 
 
 *' to be of the greateft Concernment in the 
 
 *' World to me ; and yet that I am not allowed 
 
 '' to open and read this Letter, and to judge 
 
 *' or confider of my own Matters by the 
 
 " Directions it contains. Can I imagine 
 
 '' that 
 
 <£ 
 
 <i 
 
C. H5 ) 
 
 ^* that one fo wife and careful, as my in- 
 *' dulgenc Father is, Ihoiild omit fetting 
 «' down in his own Letter fuch important 
 <' Things, and leave them to the Difcretion 
 " of one, who may either millake his Mean- 
 " ing, or have fome Jobs to carry on, dif- 
 " ferent from my teal Interefl: or Safety. — 
 «' It cannot be, and therefore ail the fair 
 *' Pretences in the World, fhall never make 
 *' me believe any Thing to be his Mind 
 *' and Will, as neceflary for me to do, in 
 *' a Matter which fo much relates to my 
 « Welfare, but what I find under his own 
 « Hand. 
 
 " I fee (fays the Miflionary) you are 
 " learned and wife in your own Conceit, 
 " and have been taught all the idle, frothy 
 " Tales, the wretched Stuff of Hereticks^ 
 *' who are no better than Heathens and 
 " Publicans, fo long as they refufe to hear 
 ♦« the Church) you underftand the Scriptures 
 <* in one Way, the Church interpretes them 
 " in another: Who [hall be Judge? 
 
 « Fair and foftly, Sir, (fay I) bring out 
 " your ftrongeft Arguments, but do not i- 
 ♦' magine I am to be bullied into Submif- 
 *' (ion, or convinced only by the blufrering 
 «* Noife of bad Names, and hard Words, 
 « I do not difclaim the Judgment, and juil 
 '' Authority of the Catholick Church, be- 
 
 T " caufe 
 
( 146 ) 
 «* caufe I find her in the ancient Creeds, 
 ** and in niy Father's Letter; but I fufped 
 «< that of the Roman Church, becaufe I 
 <« find her in neither of them. Neither am 
 " I afraid of your (fuppofed) knotty Qucfti- 
 " on, Who fiall be Judge? To let you fee 
 " I am not, I will anfwer it difl:in<ftly in 
 " the following Particulars : 
 
 •< ly?, That our Lord JefusChrifl, theon- 
 ** ly Head of his whole Church, is the great 
 *^ and only univerfal Judge of the World, 
 <* who will pafs Sentence upon you and 
 ** me at the lall: Day, whether we will or 
 " not. 
 
 " 2dly^ That as the Sentence of that 
 " great Day will proceed upon -what uOe 
 " have done in the Bodj, whether it be good 
 " or evil; and as we mult then give an Ac- 
 " count of our own Actions, and every 
 ** Man muft anfwer for himlelf, and not 
 *' another; and as it will be no Apolo- 
 *' gy then, that we have followed a Multi^ 
 *' tude to Evil, and obeyed Men more than 
 " God] as this (I fay) is the Cafe, it would 
 *' fecm not unreafonablc that we fhould 
 ** judge for ourfelves, and that what will 
 ** be the Subject of our Sentence then, 
 " fhould be the Subje^ of our Choice now, 
 ** Allow me to illuftrate this by putting a 
 *< Cafe, wherein it will be admitted, we muft 
 
 " judge 
 
C H7 ) 
 " judge for ouiTclves, and not fubmit to 
 
 *^ Numbers or Power. -It is a Cafe 
 
 " which has happened, and may happen 
 " again, and is not remote from the pre- 
 " fent Purpofe, as it is ftri^tly the Cafe be- 
 <« tween the Church of Roj}ie and her Si- 
 " fter-Churches. — It is this. — Suppofe a 
 " foreign Prince invades and conquers a 
 " Kingdom, and takes upon himfelf the 
 « exclufive Privilege of interpreting the old 
 " Laws of that Kingdom, and of making 
 <^ new Ones, and all with Defign to exclude 
 << the rightful Prince from the Poffeffion 
 " of his own Kingdom, and the Exercife 
 « of his juft Authority ; would not (in that 
 '« Cafe) every loyal Subject have Title to 
 " j^^S^ f^^ /;/772/t^//of the Perfon to whom 
 " his Xllegiance is due ? 
 
 " But, 7,dly, We do not decline a reafon- 
 " able Guidance and Judgment, even in 
 " this World, we only defire our Judges 
 << may be juft, and fuch as God hath ap- 
 *« pointed to that Office. If you of the 
 <* Roman Church will needs judge for us, 
 « fhew your Credentials, your Warrant, 
 <« for we will not take your bare Word for 
 " it: If you pretend you have a divine 
 «< CommifFion for that EfFc^, pray ye, cx- 
 ** hibit it, for we will not be put off with 
 
 *' Pretences, Nay, we farther defire to 
 
 X z *' know 
 
C H8 ) 
 ^f know, ivho fjiall be Judge of this Tre-^ 
 " fence F We have no Reafon to truft you, 
 «^ and ye will not truft us; fo here we 
 '^ ftop at once, unlefs the Commiffion be 
 '' produced, which impowers you to judge, 
 '• who challenge fuch Authority over our 
 <'« Judgment. And farther ftill, let me tell 
 *^ you, Sir, that a general, indefinite, ob- 
 " fcure Gommiflion, (which may extend 
 *' to all other Guides in the Church as well 
 " as to you) will by no Means be deemed 
 «« fufficient : Let us fee whom Chrift has 
 *' appointed in his own Words, and we 
 *' will inftantly fubmit, for we look on him 
 *' as fupreme Judge, and Lawgiver to his 
 " Church ; and if he has thought fit to ap- 
 " point any one Man, or Church, to be this 
 ^' fupreme infallible Judge^ we have done. 
 " But we earneftly defire to know, where 
 "fuch Appointment is? There appears in 
 f' Scripture no Patent to you, who claim 
 *' this high Prerogative ; your Church of 
 f' Rome is not named in any Prophecy or 
 *' Promife in the Old or New Teftament, 
 ^^ and Ihe pretends to no later Revelation, or 
 ^' any new Commiffion from Heaven for 
 it. 
 
 " You fee now, we are not puzzled to 
 anfwer your Queftion, Who jhall be Judge ? 
 if gut we (defire to be well fatisfied about it ^ 
 . " and 
 
 a 
 
 Ci 
 
( H9 ) 
 *^ and for that EfFe^H:, we defirc to fee his 
 
 " Warrant and Commiflion from the So- 
 ^' vereign Lord of the Church, that we 
 " may know, not only, who hath appointed 
 " him, but who he is? Whether the Pope 
 " in his Chair, or a general Council, (O'c 
 
 " This is very material for us to know, 
 ^^ and therefore not impertinent to ask, 
 ^' fince even you of the Roman Communion, 
 •' are not yet agreed among yourfelves a- 
 ^' bout this Point. You very well know, 
 *^ (though perhaps you'd be content I did 
 *' not) that not yet feventy Years ago, the 
 " Affembly of the Clergy of France fo- 
 <* lemnly declared, That they did not be- 
 ** lieve the Pope's Judgment (or Sentence) 
 *^ to be infallible''; and that in the fame 
 *' Year, the Clergy of Hungary rejeded 
 '' and cenfured this Declaration, as abfurd 
 
 *' and deteftable. They forbid any to 
 
 " read, hold or teach that Doc^lrine, and 
 " own the Pope to be the only infallible 
 " Judge of Controverfies y ; that a Do6lor 
 " of the Sorbon, in his Notes on the Hun- 
 " garian Cenfure, calls this, the new Here- 
 " /} ?/ ^^^ J^fi^^^ ^ ' That on the other 
 ^' Side, large Volumes have been printed to 
 
 " prove, 
 
 » Declaratlo Cler. Galilean, Prop. iv. anii. 1682. 
 
 y Cenfura Hungarica, 24 Odobris, 1682- 
 
 f Tradat. de libertate Eccief. Galilean. LcQ.iii, 1684. j 
 
( »50 ) 
 
 prove, that the Right of judging' tnf alii-' 
 bly belongs only to the Tope ^ ; and that 
 
 * later than all thefe, another learned Do- 
 ' clor of the Sorbon has written a Book to 
 ' prove, not only that the Topes Judgment 
 ' is not irreformable, {^and therefore not in- 
 ' fallible) but that it is a dangerous Thing 
 ' to believe it fo^ and that no Man ought to 
 ' do it, unlefs infallible Troof is brought of 
 ' //; And he proves at large, that not Jo 
 
 ' much as probable Evidence can be brought 
 
 * for ity either from Scripture or Tradition ''. 
 " And now, Sir, let me ask in my Turn, 
 
 * Who is this Judge ? Is the Pope this in- 
 ' fallible Decider of Controverfies, or not? 
 ' 1„ defirc a dire6l Anfwer, either Yes, or 
 
 No, as you pleafe, that I may know 
 who is the Judge, to whofe Sentence I 
 am obliged (in Confcience and Duty) to 
 fubmit; for it is unreafonable in you, to 
 infxit for my Submiffion to an unerring 
 Guide, an infallible Judge of Controver- 
 fies, when you neither fliew his Com- 
 milTion, or fo much as name him, or tell 
 who he is. 
 " But after all, Sir, that you may not 
 
 " think 
 
 a Regale raccrdotlum Romano Pontifici aflertum, audlore 
 Eugcnio Lombardo, 1684. 
 
 t^ De antiqua Ecclefiae diiclplina, DiiTert. 5. auflore Lud. 
 Ellies DuPui; 1686. 
 
^^ think I avoid a fair Trial, or am unwil- 
 ling to have the Caufe in difpute between 
 us, heard and determined according to 
 Truth and Equity ; I do hereby declare 
 and promife, that I will fubmit to the 
 ** Decifion of the catholick or univerfal 
 " Church of Chrift : Whatever appears to 
 *' have been her Sentiments in this Matter, 
 " efpecially in the earlieft and befl: Times, 
 " when they were neareft to the Fountain 
 *^ Head, and before the Streams had become 
 " muddy, that fhall determine me. And 
 " whether thefe holy Men, the great Lights 
 ** of the ancient Church, and many of them 
 " Martyrs for the Chriftian Faith, whe- 
 " ther they did believe, or teach, the In- 
 " fallibilitji of the Church of Royne^ fhall be 
 " the Subject of our Enquiry afterwards." 
 In the mean time I will conclude this 
 Conference, with my humble Addrefs to 
 the great Judge of the Worlds the God who 
 will infallibly pronounce Sentence upon you 
 and me, at the laft Day, and who (to our 
 great Confolation) is a God of Mercy, as 
 well as of Truth, " That it would pleafe 
 " him to dire<ft you and me, and all Man- 
 ^' kind, in the Knowledge of the Truth, 
 *^ and in the Practice of Righteoufnefs ; 
 " and may his Holy Spirit enable us, in 
 " whatever we think, or fpeak, or do, or 
 
 '' fuffcr, 
 
^^ fuffer, to leek his Honour and Glory a*' 
 «' bove all things, that fo we may be finally 
 <' received into that blefled Region, where 
 <« all Miftakes and Animofities fhall ceafe, 
 <' and we fhall unite in loving and praifing 
 *' him for ever, through the Merits of Jefus 
 « Chrifl our Lord* Anient 
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 In 'which our Author s Citations from the 
 Fathers^ are examined^ and found to have 
 no Relation to his Argument^ and thefe 
 great and holy Men, are refcued frorn the 
 Imputation he would fix upon them, of 
 7naintaining the Infallibility of the Church 
 of Rome. 
 
 HAving in the preceeding Chapter laid 
 before the Reader the true and ge- 
 nuine Senfe of thefe feveral Texts of ho- 
 ly Scripture, which have been alledged (by 
 the Authors I am confidering) for Proof of 
 Infallibility in the Roman Church, and ha- 
 ving freed them from thofe falfeand corrupt 
 Glofles, which they, and other Komanifts^ 
 have put upon tJiem, to feduce Men into 
 their Communion ; I proceed now (by di- 
 vine Aid) to the like plain and impartial 
 Examination of the Authorities which are 
 
 alledged 
 
i ^S3 ) 
 alledged from the ancient Fathers of iht 
 Church, in order to eftablifh, and fupport 
 the fame darling Scheme of Infallibility in 
 the Chmxh oiRome: And I havcrcafon to 
 believe, that as the holy Scriptures (thofe 
 Fountains of Truth and faving Knowledge) 
 have given no Countenance to it, fo neither 
 will the Writers of the earlieft Ages, to 
 whom it was abfolutely unknown. We arc 
 always defirous to appeal to them, and it is 
 from their Sentiments and Pra(^ice (in con- 
 formity to the facred Writings, of Which 
 they are the beft Interpreters) that we holdf 
 and profefs the Truth, in Oppofitlon to all 
 Errors, Innovations and Additions, which 
 the Roman Church has made to that holy 
 Faith, which was once delivered to the 
 Saints. 
 
 That our Author's Argumetit from the 
 Fathers may appear to the beft Advantage, 
 and in its utmoft Strength, I will firft fet 
 down his Authorities all together, and then, 
 after fome general Remarks upon them, 
 will examine them feparately. 
 
 " The fame Truth (fays the Author of 
 " the Manufcript) is clearly taught by the 
 ." holy Fathers from the Beginning. St. //t- 
 « nceus Bifhop and Martyr in the Age after 
 ^' the Apoftles, writes thus, I'lh, 3. de hcercj. 
 *< c, 4. Truth is not to be fought from o- 
 
 U '' thers, 
 
** thers, which you may have eafily from 
 " the Church, with which the Apoftles 
 " have moft fully depofited all Truth ; that 
 " whofoever defires it, may have from her 
 « the Water of Life ; for flie is the Gate 
 « of Life: But all the reft (all other Scfts) 
 ** are Thieves and Robbers ; for which 
 " Reafon we muft avoid them: But the 
 *' Things which are of the Church, we 
 •* muft with the greateft Diligence love, and 
 " lay hold of her Tradition of the Truth. 
 ** All this could not be faid of a Church 
 •* which could lead her Children into Er- 
 •* ror: She has all Truth depofited with 
 •' her ; it is eafy to have this Truth from 
 « her and from her only ; it is not to be 
 *« fought, nor can it be found amongft 
 *« thofe, that are feparated from her. The 
 «« fame Father lib, 3. c. 40. tells us, that 
 << where the Church is, there is the Spirit; 
 «« and where the Spirit of God is, there is 
 " the Church and all Grace: Now theSpi- 
 •* rit is Truth, (^c, whence it follows, that 
 ** the Church cannot fall into pernicious 
 " Errors, feeing the Spirit of Truth and all 
 ** Grace is always where the Church is. 
 
 " Tertullian who lived foon after St. Ire^ 
 " tt^Hs in lib. de Trafcript, c. 28. is no left 
 " plain for the unerring Authority of the 
 ** Church, where he teaches that to attribute 
 
 (( 
 
 an 
 
( '55 ) 
 .** an Error to the Church, Is to accule the 
 " Holy Ghoft himfelf. Let us fuppofe, fays 
 " he, that all Churches have erred, that the 
 " ApolHe was miftaken in his Teftimony, 
 " that the Holy Ghoft has had a Regard 
 " to none to lead it into Truth, though he 
 ** was for this Reafon fent by Chrift, for 
 " this Reafon begged of the Father that he 
 *' might be the Teacher of Truth. Let us 
 " fuppofe that this Steward of God, this 
 " Vicar of Chrift, has neglected his Duty, 
 " (which is not pofTible) fuffering the 
 " Churches to underftand wrong, and be- 
 " licve wrong what he taught to the A- 
 " poftles. Is there any Likelihood that fo 
 « many ihould all err in the fame Faith, 
 •« 6^^. Where we fee that Antiquity under- 
 « ftood the Promifes of Chrift, St. John 
 <' xiv. 1 6, 17, 26, (6^c-. and xvi. 13. or the 
 « Holy Ghoft abiding with the Church for 
 « ever, and teaching her all Truth. 
 
 " St. Cyprian^ one of the greateft Bifhops 
 « of the third Age, and a Martyr, lib. Of 
 *< the Unity of the Church, writes thus: 
 <« The Church enlightened by the Lord, 
 « fpreads her Rays through the whole 
 «« World; yet it is but one Light which 
 " is thus diffufed. By her Fertility fhe 
 ** ftretches out her Branches over all the 
 *« Earth, and every Place is watered by her 
 ^ U 2 ** copious 
 
( ^56 ) .; 
 
 *♦ copious Streams: Yet there is but one 
 *^' Head, and one Source, one Mother, rich 
 *• in her numerous Offspring : By her Fruit-' 
 *' fulnefs we are born, with her Milk we 
 ^^ are nourifhed, and we are enlivened by 
 '^ her Spirit: The Spoufe of ChrKl: cannot 
 '^ play the Adulterefs ; fhe is uncorrupt; 
 ^' Ihe is chafte ; Ihe knows but one Houfe, 
 ^^ and with a pure Modefty maintains" the 
 <' San6lity of one Bedchamber. So he. 
 *' Now could all this be faid of a Church' 
 ?' capable of manifold Corruptions, and, 
 <' inllead pf continuing the pure Spoufe of 
 *' Chrift, of becoming the Whgre of Ba- 
 «' bjlo}2 ? The fame Father, Epijl, ^^. tells 
 •' us, that the Church never departeth from 
 *' that which fhe once hath learned ; and if 
 *' fo, fhe never departs from the Faith once 
 ^' delivered to the Saints. 
 
 *' The Church of Chrift, according to 
 *' Laciantiusy (who lived moiUv in the third 
 f' Age) lib 4. Injtit, is the Fountain of 
 «' Truth, the Houfe of Faith, the Temple 
 *' of God. According to St. Athanafius^ 
 ^* Trath adv. haeref, fhe is the perfect Dove, 
 *< fhe holds the Helm of the pure and or- 
 f' thodox Faith, fhe is the Rock that breaks 
 ^' all the Waves of Herefy. And according 
 M to St. Tacian (a holy Bifhop of the fourth 
 J.' Age) epiji, ihe is a fpotlefs Virgin. So 
 
 '' in 
 
( ^57 ) 
 ^ in the Judgment of thefc Fathers flic 
 ^^ cannot be conquered or corrupted by Er- 
 <' ror. 
 
 " St. Align [line in the 5th Age, in Tfal. §y. 
 " fays, that it is in the Church's Womb that 
 «' Truth remains. Whofoever is fcparatcd 
 <« from the Womb of the Church, mufl: of 
 ^f- NecefTity fpeak Lies. I fay, he muft ne- 
 « cefTarily fpeak Lies, who refufes to be 
 '« conceived, or being conceived, has been 
 <« thrown out by the Mother. By which 
 ^' Words of this great Father, we are affu- 
 <« red, that the Womb of the Church is e- 
 <« ver the Seat of Truth, and that whofo- 
 ^' ever goes aflray from this Womb, muft 
 «' of NecelTity fall into Errors and Lies; 
 <' which could not be true, if the Church 
 <' herfelf could be guilty of Lies and Er- 
 ^' rors. In the fame Place he adds, it may 
 " be that a Man can lie, but it cannot be 
 *« that Truth ca^ He: From the Mouth of 
 << Truth I have the Knowledge of Chrift, 
 «' who is Truth itfelf : From the Mouth of 
 (' Truth I have the Knowledge of the 
 " Church, Partaker of Truth : Where to 
 " fallible Men he oppofes Chrift, who is 
 <« Truth by Eflence ; and to his Church, 
 ^^ which is Truth by Participation. The 
 ^' fame Father {Epiji. 118.) fays, that if 
 ^^ the whole Church through the World 
 "" [^ praftifc 
 
( 158 ) 
 f' praftife any of thefe Things ; it is moft 
 <« infolent Madnefs to difpute whether that 
 «^ ought to be praftifed or not. Now, if it be 
 «< infolent Madnefs to condemn the univer- 
 «' fal Church in Matters of Difcipline, what 
 " muft it be reckoned to impeach the whole 
 <* Church of Errors in Faith ? 
 
 " Vincentius Lirinenfis, in his excellent 
 <* Work againft all Herefies Cominon. capi 
 " 32. fays, the Church of Chrift is a moft 
 " diligent and faithful Preferver of Do- 
 *^ 6lrines depofited with her, never changes 
 ** any thing in them : She retrenches no- 
 ** thing, fhe adds nothing; fhe neither 
 ** parts with what is neceflary, nor takes 
 ** up what is fuperfluous : She neither lo- 
 ** {t% what is her own, nor ufurps what is 
 ** not her own. It is clear this cannot be 
 *< faid of the Church, unlefs fhe be infal- 
 ** lible \ 
 
 The Author of the Shortejl Way ^ has 
 cited the fame Fathers, (at leaft three of 
 them) and the fame Teftimonies from them; 
 and has brought no more (that I remem- 
 ber) but one from St. Cyril of Alexandriay 
 which, in my Opinion, he had as well have 
 let alone: But that he may have no Ground 
 
 to 
 
 c Author of the Manufcript, parag. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. X4' 
 ? Shortcfl Way, Part j. p. 34 to 39, 
 
( }59 ) 
 to complain of unfair Dealing, I fhall tran* 
 
 fcribe it too, as it (lands in his 36th Page. 
 
 " St. Cjril of Alexandria^ fays he, {diaL 
 " de Trin. lib^,) writes thus, — He gave the 
 " Name of the Rock to nothing elfe but the 
 ** unfhaken and conftant Faith of the Di- 
 ** fciple, on which the Church of Chrift is 
 " fo fettled and eftablifhed as never to fall, 
 ** but to bear up againlt the Gates of Hell, 
 " and fo to remain for ever/' 
 
 Here their whole Artillery is planted at 
 once againft us; but when the Battery is 
 unmasked, it will appear a very harmlefs, 
 inofFenfive one, and that our Danger is 
 not equal to the Alarm." 
 
 Thefe Authorities do indeed prove what 
 is not (nor ever was) denied by any wife 
 Proteftant, that is, the Indefc^iblity, or per- 
 petual Duration and Stability of the catho- 
 lick Church, which St. Cj'ril and Vincentius 
 here call the Church of Chrijl^ and others, 
 fimply the Church \ that fhe is fo well e- 
 llablifhed upon the Rock, which St. "Te^ 
 ter confefTed, as never to fall, but to re- 
 main for ever firm, and unfhaken againft 
 
 the Gates of Hell We ftedfaftly 
 
 believe all this, we adore and blefs our 
 God and Saviour for his gracious Promife 
 of Prote6tion, and Perpetuity to his Church, 
 and do not in the lead doubt but he will 
 make it good, fo as never, to the World's 
 
 End, 
 
( i6o ) 
 
 . End, fhall there be wanting a Society of 
 
 Men. profeffing the Chriftian Faith, and 
 
 confeiling with St. Teter, " that Jefus is 
 
 " the Chrift the Son of the living God." 
 
 But what Connexion has ail this with 
 the Subjecl in Difpute? There is no Men- 
 tion of Rome in all thefe eight Quotations^; 
 nor is any Reafon fliewed to convince us, 
 that when the Church of Chrift is men- 
 tioned, and glorious things faid of her, 
 the Church of Rome, and no other, is to 
 be ui\derftood. If thefe holy Fathers meant 
 fo, why did they not name heri why did 
 they not fpeak the Language of Pope Tins 
 IV. and put Roman into the Creed ? 
 This, and nothing fhort of this, would have 
 brought them to fpeak up to the Purpofe 
 for which thefe learned Authors have cal- 
 led them forth : But they had not then' (o 
 learned Chrift, Roman CathoUck was no 
 more the Stile of their TimeSj than AJian^ 
 Greek, or African CathoUck ; nor had it e- 
 ver entered into their Minds, that a Part 
 was the Whole of a Thing, or that Roman 
 and CathoUck were equivalent Terms, and 
 fignified the fame. 
 
 In a former Part of this little Treatife, 
 1 tranflated a Paragragh from a very learn- 
 ed Man of the Romifh Communion, in the 
 ijth Century {^Af^honjus Tojlatus Bifhop 
 
 of 
 
( i6i )^ 
 t)f Avik \ti Spaiii) which will clear up this 
 Matter, and confirm the general Remark 
 I have made on thefe Authorities from the 
 Fathers, as it fhews, that even in his Time 
 they had not learned to blend and confound 
 the Catbolick with the Roman Church, fo as 
 when the one is mentioned, the other is al- 
 ways to be underftood. — No fuch thing. — 
 " The cathoHck Church (fays he) never 
 " erreth, becaufe it never errs altogether: 
 " But the Lati7t (or Romait) Church is 72ot 
 " the Catbolick Churchy only a certain Tart 
 *« of it. Therefore though all of her fhould 
 " err, yet the Catholick Church would not 
 '^ err, becaufe the Catholick Church would 
 ** remain in thofe Parts which do not err, 
 *' whether they are greater or lefs, more 
 " or fewer than thofe which do ^" 
 
 This fhort Abridgment contains the Sum 
 and Subftance of all thefe eight Quotations 
 from the Fathers. The two Gentlemen 
 which have Golle<n:ed them, do not con- 
 tend, that St. Iren^us, or St. Cjril, or any 
 of thofe between, have faid more, than that 
 " the Church never errs ;" and To/latus fays 
 no lefs, only with this Odds, that To/latus 
 fpeaks out what (it is very probable) thefe 
 ancient Fathers thought, viz. that the La-^ 
 X ti?t 
 
 « ToU, Abulenf. praefat. In Matth. qusell. 4 8c 13. prol. 2^ 
 
{ l62 ) 
 
 iht or Roman Church is not the Catholick 
 Church. 
 
 Here I forefee I muft be ftopt fhort, and 
 accufed of heretical Petulancy, and Ralh- 
 nefs, in prefuming to judge of the Senti- 
 ments of thofe venerable Fathers concern- 
 ing the Matter in Queftion. 
 ' To clear myfelf of this Charge, fome E- 
 dairciffemcnt will be neceffary; and in or- 
 der to it, I only defire this one pojiulatiim 
 may be granted me, viz. " That a Man's 
 *' private Opinion, the real Sentiments of 
 *' his Mind, are bed collected from his 
 " Conduct, the Tenor of his Life and 
 <« Praaice." 
 
 . This (I humbly think) will not be deni- 
 ed me, as it is commonly allowed in other 
 Inftances: If a Man lives in ContraditHiion 
 and Repugnancy to the Rules of the Go- 
 fpel, we pronounce without Scruple or He- 
 fitation that this Man does not believe the 
 Gofpcl as he ought. — -And whoever takes 
 the Trouble to read this little Eilay of 
 mine, and compare it with the Works of 
 thcfe learned Gentlemen I am anfwering, 
 will inftantly conclude, that they are Ro-- 
 man Catholicks, and I a Proteftant, as 
 they argue ftrenuoufly for, and I (as well 
 as I can) againft the InfalhbiHty, and u- 
 
 niverfal 
 
. ( '6^ ) 
 
 niverfal Jurlfdi^lion of the Billiop and 
 Church oi Rome, 
 
 Jiift fo, if it fliali appear from the Wri- 
 tings and the Hidory of St. hciheus^ and 
 the other Fathers, here forced into the 
 Field againfl: ns, that they had no Regard, 
 and paid no implicite Submifllon or Obe- 
 dience to the InfaUibility or fupreme Au- 
 thority of the Bifhop of Rome^ but fome- 
 times complained of his Proceedings, admo- 
 nifhed, contradi6led, and difobeyed him ; or 
 (if you will) oppofed and proteftcd againfl: 
 
 his Meafures; then I do pofitively infift, 
 
 that I have hit the Mark, and difcovered their 
 real Sentiments, which, in the prefent Que- 
 ftion, were on my Side, and not on that of 
 my Adverfaries. 
 
 To make this Point clear and certain, 
 I fhall take thefe Authorities feparately, and 
 examine them one by one: But, that the 
 Reader may not be alarmed, as if I vras 
 undertaking a very tedious Task, 1 pro- 
 mife him that I will endeavour to make this 
 Chapter Ihorter than the preceeding one. 
 
 As I write only for the Ufe and Bene- 
 fit of the lefs learned Reader, or fuch as 
 have no Accefs to better Afliftance, it is 
 not neceflary to infift fo long on this Ar- 
 gurnent, as on the former. They have 
 (bjeffed be God for it) the holy Scriptures 
 X 2 ia 
 
( i64 ) 
 Jn their PoflefGon, and may have Recourfe 
 to them when they pleafc; and therefore 
 I judged it my Duty, to treat more at large 
 pf the Texts aliedged from them, in Sup- 
 port of the Romip Caufe, to fet them in the 
 ftrongeft Light, and fully to refcue them 
 from thofe artificial Strainings and falfe 
 Glqfles, which thefe Gentlemen would put 
 upon them. 
 
 But ordinary Readers have not fo eafy Ac-^ 
 cefs to the Writings of the Fathers-, nor could 
 confqlt them, if they had : For this Rea- 
 fon I am refolved to avoid all fuch unne- 
 ceffary, long Citations from them, as might 
 perhaps carry forne Shew of Learning, with- 
 out conveying any Profit to them, for whofe 
 Sake I write. But as for others who havq 
 Capacity, and Oportunities to fatisfy themfel- 
 yes at the Fountain, if they will pleafe to look 
 into the Books ^nd Places referred to at 
 th^ Foot of each Page, or the End of each 
 Se(5lion, they will find the Fa^ls advanced 
 \>y me, in that Page or Se<ftion properly 
 vouched, 
 
 § I, St. Irendsus (with whom thefe Au- 
 thors begin their Proof) was Biihop of 
 Lyons, in the fecond Century, ^nd fuifer-^ 
 ^d Martyrdom in the third Century under 
 tl>e Emperof Sevems, anno 20Z or 2,0^*^ — 
 
i ^^5 ) 
 He was the Difciple of St. Tolycnrp, as he 
 had been of St. John the Evangclilt, and 
 confcqucnrly was as likely as any one of 
 his Time, to know what was truly primi- 
 tive and apoftolical ; and, as he was a Man 
 of Learning, exemplary Holinefs, and un- 
 common Worth, great Regard is due to his 
 Teftimony. 
 
 In his Books referred to by our Author, 
 he has indeed the Words cited, " that in 
 *' the Church is the Truth, the Water of 
 <' Life, the Gate of Life, the Spirit, 6'^." 
 All this is true, if underftood as he meant 
 it, of the Catholick Church of Chrift, but 
 not if reftricted and appHed to any one par- 
 ticular Church, farther than as that particular 
 Church is a Part of this one great Body. 
 
 That St. Irenteus meant it thus, appears 
 from thofe very Books of his, where he 
 mentions the Doctrine dehvered by the 
 Church founded by the Apoftles, Prophets 
 and Evangelifts, evidently referring to that 
 Text of St. Taul to the Ephefians, which 
 has been confidered in the 7th Section of 
 the former Chapter. 
 
 But, to give Weight to thefe Gentlcmens 
 Argument, and bring it to conclude any 
 thing to their Purpofe, we muft undcrftand 
 all this to be meant of the Church of RomCy 
 and no other : Whether St. Irenais meant it 
 
 fo, 
 
( 166 ) 
 fo, whether he had any extraordinary Bias 
 to that Church, and gave her a Preference 
 to, and Power over other Churches, will ap- 
 pear from the following fhort Narrative of 
 a memorable Controverfy in his Time, and 
 of the Part he acled in it. 
 
 About the Middle of the fecond Centu- 
 ry, a Difpute began to turn warm between 
 the Eaftern and Weftern Bifhops, about 
 the Celebration of Eajler, the former keep- 
 ing that Solemnity on the 14th Day of the 
 Moon in the firft Month, \_March'] on what 
 Day foever of the Week it happened, and 
 the latter putting it off 'till the Sunday fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 In the Pontificate of Anicetus^ St. ^o- 
 lycarpy Bifhop of Smyrna^ came to Kome^ 
 with a View to adjufl: this Difference: Tho' 
 neither of thefe two Bifhops would relin- 
 cuifh his own Opinion, and the Practice of 
 his Church, yet they parted good Friends, 
 refolving not to break Communion, but to 
 maintain Peace and Charity. Soter and E^ 
 leutherlus (SuccefTors of Ankettis^ carried 
 the Matter foftly too, and made no Breach 
 with the ^lartodecirnans. But 
 
 ViBor (a Man of lefs Temper) not fa- 
 
 tisfied with what his PredccefTors had done, 
 
 took upon him to hnpoje the Roman G/- 
 
 Horn on all the Churches which followed 
 
 ^ ;h^ 
 
( ^67 ) 
 the contrary Pracftice. In this bold Attempt 
 (which we may call the firft Eflay of Tapal 
 VfiirpaUo)i) ViBor fucceeded very ill : His 
 Brother Bifhops then did not confidcr him as 
 Chrifl's Vicar-general upon Earth, or Head 
 of the univerfal Church, and therefore would 
 not obey him. 
 
 Amongft the reft Tolycrates, at that Time 
 Bifhop of Ephejusy (who is greatly com- 
 mended by Enfebius and St. Jerome, as a 
 Man mighty in the Scriptures, and one of 
 the moft eminent for Piety and Learning of 
 any in the Church at that Time) perem- 
 ptorily refufed to relinquifli the Pra<5lice of 
 his own Church, which (he faid) had been 
 introduced by the Apoftles St. John and St. 
 *Philip, and handed down to him by fevea 
 Bifhops of his own Family. 
 
 Hereupon F/*5^r( impatient of Contradicti- 
 on) writes a Letter threatning to excommuni- 
 cate him, unlefs he conformed to the Pra^Ice 
 of the Church of Rojne: Tolj crates great- 
 ly furprized at this rough Language of his 
 Fellow Bifhop, allbmbles all the Bifliops of 
 the leller y^/ia, in Council at Ephefiis, where 
 it was unanimoufly refolved, that the Pra- 
 ftice received from their PredecelTors ought 
 not to be changed : And Tolycrates wrote 
 to the Bifhop of Rome, acquainting him 
 with this Refolution; and giving him to 
 
 under- 
 
( i<58 ) 
 underftaiid, that as to his Menaces, he had 
 better forbear them,fince they had no Man- 
 ner of Effect upon him or his Brethren. 
 
 Upon this ViHor (giving Way to an impo- 
 tent Paflion) excommunicates the Churches 
 oi Afta^ and wrote to the other Bifliops^ 
 not commanding indeed, but exhorting them 
 to follow his Example, and forbear com- 
 municating with their refractory Brethren 
 In the Eaft. 
 
 Here the Cafe is brought to a Crifis! 
 Let us now fee what was the IHbe. Did 
 the Afiatlck Bifliops, or thofe others to 
 whom ViElor fignified his Pleafure, inftant- 
 ly fubmit and comply ? Did they acknow- 
 ledge their Error in differing from his Holi- 
 nefs and the Apoftolick See ? Did they con- 
 fefs the Pope's univerfal Headfhip, and fo- 
 vereign Authority? Or, did they confider 
 Kovie as the Center of ecclefialHcal Unity, 
 or as ^^ the Mother and Miftrefs of all 
 ^« Churches ?" No fuch thing ; fo far to the 
 contrary, that not one of them followed 
 his Example or Advice, or fliewed the leaft 
 Inclination to fecond and fupport him in an 
 Attempt fo rafh, and uncharitable, but (as 
 EuJcbiuSy and other ecclefiaftical Hiftorians 
 tell us) they all joined in oppofing hisMea- 
 fures, and in fharply rebuking him as a Dif- 
 turber of the Church's Peace. 
 
 Among 
 
Among the refi:, our Ircjheus wrote him 
 an excellent Letter, putting him in Mind of 
 the Moderation of hisPredeccffors, and tel* 
 ling him, that though he agreed with him 
 in the Main of the Controverfy, yet he could 
 not approve of his cutting off whole Church- 
 es, for their Obfervance of Cu{l:oms, which 
 they had received from their Anceftors. 
 
 Valefius (in his Note on this Part of the 
 Hiftory) is of Opinion, that this was a fy- 
 nodical Letter^ written or approved of by 
 the Bifhops of France^ conveened by St. 7- 
 refi^us, to prevent the Mifchief with which 
 the Church was threatened, by the Teme- 
 rity of ViBor. However that may be, it 
 is certain that Iren^us wrote at the famo 
 Time to other Bifhops, to diffuade them 
 (no doubt) from joining in the pernicious 
 Meafures of the Bifhtop oi Rome. Accord- 
 ingly this vigorous Oppofition had its Ef- 
 fect, the Storm ceafed, ViBor was baffled in 
 his Attempt, and the ylfiaticks continued 
 in the peaceable PolTefTion of their ancient 
 Practice, above 120 Years after, till the Point 
 was determined by a lefs difputed Authori- 
 ty, /. e. of the great Council of Nice. 
 
 'Tis true, that from this violent Proceed- 
 ing oFVitlor, Baronius draws an Argument 
 for the Pope's Supremacy, but one fo odd 
 and unbecoming a Man of Senfe, that he 
 Y leaves 
 
( I70 ) 
 lestves Room to fufped he wrote with a 
 View to a Cardinal's Hat. " The Pope 
 " (fays he) excommunicated the ylfiaticks^ 
 *' v/hich he would never have ventured to 
 ** do, had he not known, that he had Power 
 <* and Jurifdiction over them ^J' How 
 
 eafy is it to retort his Argument thus : 
 
 '' The Afiaticks made no Account of the 
 " BIfhop of Rojne's Excommunication, 
 *' which they would never have ventured to 
 •* do, had they not known that he had no 
 *' Power or Jurifdi<5lion over them." I hope 
 this is as good Senfe, as good Logick, and 
 much more probable than the other. 
 
 Whoever wants to be further informed 
 of this Matter, may confult * Enfebius^ So- 
 crates, St. Jero7ne, EpiphaniuSy | Du Tin, <!^c. 
 where he will find this is a true Reprefen- 
 tation of the Cafe; and if it is, I think 'tis 
 impoffible to beheve, that the InfaUibility, 
 or Supremacy of the Bifhop or Church of 
 Rome, was known or fubmitted to in the fe- 
 cond Century ; and T will leave the Reader to 
 judge for himfelf, whether, not Irenaus on- 
 ly, but all the other Bifhops Eaftern and 
 
 Weftern 
 
 ^ Bar. ad ann. 198. n. 10. 
 
 * Eufeb. I. 5. c. 20. 23, 4, 5, 8. Idem de vit. Conft. 1. 3. c. 
 18. Socrat. 1. 5. c. 21, 22. Epiph. hger. 70. c, 10. Hier. vir. ill. 
 
 t Du Pin. ccclef. hift. v. i. p. 58. ^c. 
 
Weftern of that Time, did not behave more 
 like good Proteftants than good Papifts, in 
 this Queftion ^ 
 
 For if the Pope's vicar'tatus gcneralis, his 
 univerfal Jurifdi^tion, and Right to decide 
 Controverfies infallibly, were true Doctrines 
 at that Time, (and if they were not true then, 
 they could not be fince) it is plain that St. 
 Jren^us, and all thofe Bifhops and holy 
 Men, who joined in the Oppofition to Vi8or, 
 and defpifed his Cenfures, were Rebels and 
 Schifmaticks, and no better than Heathens 
 and Publicans, in that they refufed to hear 
 the Church. 
 
 Upon the whole, let the impartial Reader 
 determine, whether, when St. Ireineus fpeaks 
 of the Church founded by the ApoiHes, 
 Prophets and Evangelifts, he meant the 
 Church of Rome^ and none other? and 
 whether my two learned Advcrfaries did 
 wifely, in fetting this excellent Bifhop, and 
 Martyr, in the Front of their Authorities? 
 
 It were eafy to colleft from the Writings 
 of this ancient Father fomc other Things, 
 wherein he differed from the Do61rine and 
 Practice of the prefcnt Roman Church, par- 
 ticularly as to the holy Eucharifl and Com- 
 munion in both Kinds. But this would 
 
 run my Effay to undue Length, and is not 
 
 neceffary, as his Sentiments upon the Point 
 
 Y 2 in 
 
( '72 ) . , 
 in Queftion, are (I humbly think) evident * 
 enough, from what is already faid. 
 
 § II. TertuUian is the next of the an- 
 cient Writers dragg'd in here, to give Evi- 
 dence of the univerfal Authority of the Ro- 
 tnan Church, a Church by which he thought 
 himfelf but ill ufed ; and of the Infallibility 
 of a Pope, of whom he complains, for fuf~ 
 fering himfelf to be impofed upon by that 
 crafty Heretick Traxeas g. 
 
 T^rtdlian was born in Africa^ perhaps at 
 Carthage-, was a Prieft of the Catholick 
 Church, before he turned Montanijl: ; and 
 from two Books, which (in the Decline of 
 Life) he wrpt.e to his Wife, it feems very 
 probable th^it he wap a married Prieft, which 
 the prefent Roman Church would think no 
 fm.all Blemifh in the Chara(5ler of any of 
 her Clergy. 
 
 That his Book de pr^/cription. (to which 
 the Author of the Manufcript fends us for 
 his Teftimpny in this Caufe) was written 
 after be had lapfed into the Errors of Mon- 
 tantts, is agreed by very learned Criticks, 
 both Romifh and Proteftant, I mean Dii 
 ^in and Cave; So that the Author of the 
 Manufcript has fqffered his Zeal to boil 
 
 oyer, 
 
 g Jert. In Prax. c. i. p. 40;. 
 
( 173 ) 
 over, when he would bring a profeifTed He- 
 reticle to fuport the Do6lrine of* (according 
 to him) the catholick Church. 
 
 tlowevcr, as this Book of Trejcription is 
 a wife good one, and (though written after 
 Tertullian had made a falfe Step, from which 
 he never recovered himfelf) yet contains 
 nothing but what may be underftood in a 
 found catholick Senfe, I will take no Ad- 
 vantage of my Author's napping, but con- 
 fider the Book itfelf, wdth the Way of rea- 
 foning in it. I cannot find how to lay this 
 before the Reader, in a Way lefs liable to 
 Exception, than by tranfcribing a few Lines 
 from the learned Du Tin, in his Abflra^lof 
 TertHlUan\ Works ^. " This Book (fays 
 <' he) is entituled of T refer ipt ions, or rather 
 *' Trefcription againji all Herefes, becaufe 
 *' herein he fhews that their Doftrine is not 
 *^ to be admitted, by Reafon of its Novel- 
 *' ty. Before he enters upon this Matter, 
 " he endeavours to obviate the Scandal of 
 ♦' thofe who admire, how there could be 
 <' any Herefies in the World, how they 
 " could have been fo great and fo powerful, 
 *' and how it comes to pafs, that io many 
 " confiderable Perfons in the Church have 
 *' been feduced to embrace them, by fhevv- 
 
 " ing 
 
 ^^ Ecclef. hifl. V. J. p. 77. 
 
** ing that Herefies have been foretold, that 
 *' they are necelTary for the Trial of our 
 " Faith, and that we muft not judge of 
 " Faith by Perfons, but of Perfons by their 
 " Faith". — After having given this neceffary 
 Caution, he lays down the firft Princi- 
 ple of Prefcription. — ^' We are not allowed 
 " (fays he) to introduce atiy Thing that is 
 " new into Religion, nor to ufe by our- 
 " felves what another has invented: We 
 ^' have the Apoftles of our Lord for Foun- 
 " ders, who were not themfelves the Inven- 
 " tors and Authors of what they have left 
 " us, but they have faithfully taught the 
 " World, the Doctrine which they receiv- 
 *' ed from Jefus Chrift. Herefies have rifen 
 " from Philofophy and human Wifdom, 
 which are quite different from the Spirit of 
 Chriftianity. We are not allowed to en- 
 tertain our Curiofity, nor to enquire after 
 any Thing that is beyond what has been 
 " taught by Jefus Chrifi: and his Go- 
 ^' fpel. Nobis ciir'wfitate non opus efi pojl 
 *' Chrijlum Jefiimy nee inquijttione foji e- 
 " ^cangclhimr 
 
 To the fame Purpofe let me add a Sen- 
 tence in his Book againlT: Traxeas^ ' where 
 he lays it down as a P.ule, a Principle by 
 
 which 
 
 i Tert. in Prax. c. i. p. 405. 
 
 (( 
 
 C£ 
 
( '75 ) 
 which all Hercfies may be tried and con- 
 demned. " Id effe verum, qnodcunque pri- 
 *' 77mm^ id ejje adulferum, qnodcunque pojieri- 
 ^' Its. i, e. Whatever is firft (or oldcft in 
 *' Chriftianity) is true, but whatever is of 
 *' later Date, is not fo." 
 
 Does not TertuUian here argue like a Pro- 
 teftant, when inftead of Rccourfc to an in- 
 fallible Judge at Rome^ he fends us to the 
 facred Scriptures, to Jefus Chrift, and his 
 Apoftles, for the Trial and Condemnation 
 of Herefy I I will be bold to fay, that if 
 the twelve new Articles added to the an- 
 cient Creed by Tins IV. and his Trideii- 
 tine Synod, are duly tried by this Touch- 
 ftone, they will all be found falfe and for- 
 ged Articles of Faith. 
 
 But not to infift further on Generals, let 
 us confider what Tej^tullian has advanced in 
 thePallage referred to. — *' He fays, theHo- 
 " ly Ghofl: was fent by Chrift, and bcgg'd 
 " of the Father, to be a Teacher of Truth. 
 " (This is acknowledged.) He fays, the Ho- 
 *^ ly Ghoft, this Vicar of Chrift, could not 
 
 " poffibly neglect his Office, (this alfo is 
 
 ** acknowledged ;) from which he concludes, 
 ** that there is no Likelihood, that all 
 " Churches fliould err." All this is ac- 
 knowledged, fo that we have no Difpute 
 with TertuUian on this Subjecfl:. 
 
 But 
 
( 176 ) 
 
 But what is all this to the Point in Qiieftl- 
 on? What Advantage can accrue to the 
 Church of Ro7ne from this Quotation, more 
 than to any other particular Church upon 
 Earth ? For, when our Author's Argument 
 is put into Form, the Amount of it is no 
 more than this. — " The Churches of Chrift 
 *' in Terttillians Time, had not all erred, 
 " nor was it likely they would all err. — — 
 *' Therefore the Church of Rome is certaiii- 
 *' ly and conftantly infallible.'* 
 
 To fhew that this was not Tertullian\ 
 Meaning, and that he never dreamed that 
 any fuch Inference could be made from his 
 Words, I will fubjoin a little of his Hifto- 
 
 ViSor^ Biihop o( Rome, (whom I mentio- 
 ned in the former Section, not much to his 
 Honour) had owned and approved the pro- 
 phetlck Spirit of Montanus, and his two 
 Propheteffes, Trijca and Maxemilla) for 
 the fame Tertullian (who was his Contem-* 
 porary) tells us in exprefs Terms ^, *' That 
 <' he received their Prophecies, and that 
 «' upon receiving them, he gave Letters of 
 <' Peace to the Churches of ^^^ and y/;/^- 
 <« gia ; but that one Traxeas^]u[\ come from 
 <' thofe Parts, gave him a falfe Account of 
 
 '' thofc 
 
 k Tert. loc. fupra citato. 
 
*' thole Prophets and their Churches, and 
 *' remonflrating, that by approving them, 
 *^ he condemned his PredecefTors, prevailed 
 *' upon him to revoke the Letters, which 
 " he had already written in their Behalf." 
 
 Here is a Bifhop of Ro7?ie (vi^hom that 
 Church has placed among the Saints) plain- 
 ly changing Sides, and altering his Opinion 
 even in Matters of Faith. Was he infalli- 
 bly right oil both Sides of the Queftion? 
 or could Tertullian think him fo, when he 
 complains of the Deceit by which he was 
 impofed upon ? One would imagine Infalli- 
 bility would fhut the Door againft all Jm- 
 politions. 
 
 If it be faid, that Tertullian^ now a Man- 
 tan'iji^ a Heretick, belies his Holinefs in this 
 Particular, be it fo. — But why fhould Pro- 
 teftants be knocked down with the Autho- 
 rity of a Liar, a Heretick ? Is he more to 
 be relied on in Matters of Do6lrine, than 
 in Matters of Fact ? Though really this falfe 
 Step of Vitlor ftands upon other Authori- 
 ty than that oi Tertullian^ and is not deni- 
 ed by the Learned in the Church of Koine 
 at this Day. 
 
 Baronius and Bellarmine (the two great 
 Advocates for papal Privileges) arc greatly 
 j^uzzled how to bring Viclor out of this 
 Scrape; they own that the Pope was deceiv- 
 
 Z cd, 
 
( 178 ) 
 
 ed, but for all that they will not give up 
 
 his Infallibility. " It is no new Thing 
 
 " (fays Baronitis ^ ) nor what ought to caufc 
 *' in us theleaftSurprize, that aPopelhould 
 " be over-reached by Impoftors." — No, a 
 Pope over-reached in Matters of Faith ! What 
 then becomes of Infallibility? or what is 
 the Ufe of it? 
 
 " The Montanijls (fays Bellarmine "") 
 *' craftily concealed from the Pope vi^hat 
 " was erroneous and heretical in their Pro- 
 " phecies, fo that he difcovering nothing 
 *' in their Do6lrine, repugnant to that of the 
 *' Church, believed that they ha-d been un- 
 " juftly accufed to, and comdemned by his 
 " Predeceflors/' — Finely argued! St. ViBor 
 It feems muft be cleared at any Rate, tho' 
 at the Expence of his Predeceflbrs : For if 
 Vi^or believed that the Montanijts liad been 
 unjuftly condemned by his Predeceflbrs, he 
 could not believe that thefe PredecefTors 
 were infallible; fo that, in every Light, this 
 Facl overfets the pretended Infallibihty. 
 Befides, if the Pope's Infallibility depends 
 on a right Information, and neither he nor 
 we can know, whether he has been rightly 
 informed or not, his Infallibility is thereby 
 rendered quite ufelcfs, and not worth con- 
 tending 
 
 1 Bar. adann. 73. n. 4. 
 
 ft^ Bdl.de fum. Pont. 1. 4. c. 8. 
 
( J79 ) 
 tending for, fince in every particular Cafe, 
 
 we may doubt (and that Doubt cannot be 
 
 removed) whether the Information upon 
 
 which he a(5ts, was right or no. 
 
 I fhall clofe this Sc6lion with a Paffagc 
 from the celebrated Dr. Dtt Tin^ where he 
 gives an Account of the Genius and Stilc 
 of Tertullian, and of the Judgment that 
 ought to be pafTed upon his Writings ". 
 " He was of a very quick and fprightly 
 " Temper, (fays he) but had not all that 
 " Exaftnefs and Clearnefs that might have 
 " been wifhed : There is very often more 
 " of Glittering than Solidity in his Rcafon- 
 " ings; he rather ftrikes and dazzles, by 
 " his bold Expreflions, than convinces by 
 " the Force of his Arguments: His Exccl- 
 " lency confifted in Satyr, his Jefts are ve- 
 " ry ingenious and biting : He attacked his 
 " Adverfaries very cunningly, and over- 
 " threw them by a Multitude of Reafons; 
 " or, if he does not perfuade by his Rea- 
 " fonings, he at Icaft forces Confcnt, by 
 « that pompous Way of Expreffion, where- 
 <' by he fets them off, &c,'' 
 
 This is a true Portrait of the " Author 
 
 « of the Shorteft Way to end Difputes a- 
 
 ^' bout Religion." It dcfcribcs fo exa^ly 
 
 Z 2 his 
 
 » Dtt Pia.fcckf. bill. s. i. p. 76, 83, 
 
( i8o ) 
 his Genius, Stile and Manner of Writing, 
 that I could not help tranfcribing it, as it 
 does him great Juftice; the Character fit? 
 him as well, as if it had been drawn for him ; 
 and I hope it will not be thought an Affront, 
 to compare him with one, whom his Bro- 
 ther W iter has clafled among the venerable 
 Fathers of the Church. 
 
 § III. As to St. Cypriariy Bifhop of Car* 
 fhage, and a Martyr for the Chriftian Faith, 
 (who comes next in the Order of the Manu- 
 fcript,) I am glad to find our Author call 
 him " one of the greateft Bifhops of the 
 ^' third Age." If he had faid the greateft, 
 I fliould not have differed with him ; but 
 though we are thus far agreed, I am afraid 
 we fhall travel no farther in the fame Road. 
 
 Our learned Countryman Dr. Sage, and 
 Dr. Fell of England, have taken great Pains, 
 to have the Sentiments of St. Cjprian well 
 iinderftood, and Mr. Marjhal has tranflated 
 his Works into elegant Englilh : So that I 
 have lefs Occafion to fpend much Time on 
 this Article, as whofoever is fo inchned, 
 may fatisfy himfelf . 
 
 I am really at a lofs to find out, what 
 Ufe our Author could intend to make of 
 St. Cyprian, (who is fo evidently on our 
 Side;) or how he could hope to turn to his 
 
 Ad. 
 
( i8i ) 
 
 Advantage the Paffage referred to, as it is 
 lefs to the Purpofe for which he brings it, 
 (if that be pollible) than the Quotations 
 from Iren^us and Terttillian, 
 
 St. Cyprian was indeed a vigorous Afler* 
 tor of the Unity of the Church, not in this 
 Paflage only, but in fifty others, which I 
 could bring from his Books and Epilllcs, 
 and very otten he makes the Prefervation of 
 this Unity, an Argument againft the wrong 
 Meafures of the Bifhop oi Rome, Can wc 
 then imagine, that when he mentions the 
 Church, he means the Church of Rome ? 
 the contrary will appear by and by, even to 
 Demonftration. 
 
 In this Paflage, he evidently points to the 
 catholick not the Roman Church : " For he 
 " compares the Church to the one Sun, 
 *' fending forth many Rays, one Tree, 
 " fpreading many Branches, one Fountain, 
 " yielding many Streams, or one fruitful 
 ^' Mother, with a numerous Offspring." — 
 By all thefe Similitudes intending to illuflratc 
 and prove, that as there is but one Faith, 
 one Hope, one Baptifm, and one Lord, fo 
 there is but one Church, And will our Au- 
 thor dare to fay, this is the Church of Rome 
 and no other I I hope he is not fo far for- 
 faken of Truth and Modcfty. If St. Cy- 
 trian had had any one particular Church in 
 
 liis 
 
( t82 ) 
 
 his Eye, it muft have been that of Jeriifa^ 
 leniy where this Sun firft rofe, this Tree 
 firft fprouted, and thefe Streams had their 
 Source, that is, where the Chriftian Reli- 
 gion had its exordium. 
 
 It is a common Fallacy, which runs thro' 
 the Writings and Converfation of the Po- 
 pifli Miffionaries; wherever in the Scrip- 
 tures or Fathers, they find the Word Churchy 
 they would have it underftood of theirs on- 
 ly, as if there was no other. Though they 
 might with equal Propriety, bring thofe 
 Expreffions of St. Taul, — " The Church- 
 
 ^' es of Chrift falute you % And the 
 
 *< Church of the Firft-born which are writ- 
 «« ten in Heaven P,'* to prove the Infallibi- 
 lity, and Univerfality of the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 St. Cyprian had great Refpeft for Corne^ 
 litis Bifliop of Rome^ who was indeed an 
 excellent Prelate, and had the Honour of 
 Martyrdom. — In his Letters to this Conie- 
 litis, he calls him " his Brother S his dear 
 " Brother, his deareft Brother.'* And in 
 his Letter to the Presbyters, and Deacons 
 of Rome, written during the Vacancy of 
 that See, he calls Fabian their late Bifhop, 
 
 his 
 
 o Rom. xvl. 16. 
 T Heb. xii. 23. 
 q Epiil 60. 4f 5?^ 
 
(. '^3 .) 
 
 his LoUegue^) which implies fueh an Equa- 
 lity, as was among th^ Tribunes or Con- 
 fuls, or any other joint Adminiftrators of 
 one and the fame Office. 
 
 If the Bifhop of Carthage had thought 
 himfelf fubje^t, or in any Rcfped: infe- 
 riour to the Bifhop of Rome, he would 
 not have ufed this Term of uncontcfled E- 
 quahty. I fuppofe, if any Bifhop of the 
 Roman Communion now, fhould addrcfs his 
 Holinefs in the fame Terms, he would fooa 
 be taught his Diftance. But there was then 
 no other Odds among Prelates, except that 
 the Bifhop of the chief City had the Pre- 
 cedency in Meetings, but no Advantage ia 
 point of Power or Jurifdiflion. 
 
 In a Letter to his Brother ^lintus (a 
 Bifhop in Mauritania') he fays % " That no 
 " Prefcription can be formed on Cuflom, 
 " where the Cafe is to be debated by the 
 " Reafon of Things. — That even Teler the 
 « firft of the Apoftles, on whom Chrift 
 " built his Church, made for himfelf no 
 '' infolent or haughty Claims, pretended 
 *' not to the Primacy, nor infilled upon a- 
 " ny Obedience as due to him, from fuch 
 "as came hito the Church after him, but 
 
 " was 
 
 r Epift. 9, 
 6 Epiil. 71, 
 
( »S4 .) 
 
 « was content to receive good Counfel 
 « from Taul^ {viz. in the Difpute about 
 *< C5rcumcifion)and to give into thofe Mea- 
 " fures which Taul (with fo much Reafon) 
 « infifted upon." 
 
 St. Cyprian had a Very dijfTerent Opinion 
 of Stephen Bifhop of Rome, and ufed him 
 with lefs Refpe6t than he had done Corne^ 
 lius. In a Letter to his Brother Tompeius 
 (Bifhop of Sabrata in THpoly %) he accufes 
 Stephen " of Error, Unwarinefs, and tJn- 
 «< skilfulnefs, of Pride, Impertinence, and 
 << Self-contradi«5tion.'* — - — And Fer77iiUajt 
 (Bifhop of defarea in Cappadocid) in a Let- 
 ter addreft to Cyprian his Brother in the 
 Lord, loudly complains " " of the Abfur- 
 *< dity of Stephens Conduct." Is this the 
 Language of Men, who believed Infallibili- 
 ty or Supremacy to refide at Rorne ? 
 
 But left thefe ExprefTions of St. Cyprian 
 may be confidered as proceeding from Paf- 
 fion, or the Keennefs of his Temper, I will 
 bring other Evidence of his Sentiments and 
 Condu^l, with refpefl to the fame Roman 
 Pontiff. 
 
 In his Time two Spanijh Bifhops {viz, 
 BafiUdes of Leon and AJlorga^ and Martial 
 
 of 
 
 t Epift. 74. 
 
 " Opcr. D. Cyprian, p. 527. edit. Bafileae ann. 1525, 
 
( i85 ) 
 of Merida) having lapfcd in Time of Per* 
 fecution, or being found (at Icaft) among 
 the Libellatici^ the Bifliops of Spain had 
 judged thejn unworthy of the Epifcopate, 
 and difpofed of their Sees to Sabinus and 
 F^lix: Upon this, Bafdides (and very pro- 
 bably Martial too) had Recourfe to Ste- 
 phen Bifhop of Rome, who gave Counte- 
 nance to the Petitioner, and admitted him 
 to his Communion. In this Difbefs, the 
 Spanijh Bifhops wrote, and font Deputies 
 to theBifhops of ^^7V^, who affcmblcd in 
 a Council at Carthage^ to the Number of 
 twenty eight, with St. Cyprian at their Head ; 
 and there it was concluded, '' that Bafili- 
 *' des and Material ought not to be acknow- 
 *^ ledged as Bifhops; that it was not lawful to 
 ** communicate with them; that fuch Bifhops 
 *' as did, ought to be excommunicated them- 
 '' felves: And finally, that their impofing 
 *« upon 6"/^//;^;/, inftead of giving them any 
 *' Right to the Sees they had forfeited by 
 ^' their Wickednefs, added to their Guilt, 
 
 " ■ And the Election of Sabinus and F^- 
 
 " lix was confirmed, and they acknowled- 
 ** ged by the ylfrican Bifhops as their Col- 
 " legues." 
 
 One would imagine, this was coming 
 
 Far fhort of that Refpca and Submiflion, 
 
 now claimed as due to the Sec of Ror<ic ; 
 
 A a but 
 
( i86 ) 
 
 but Be liar mine and Baronius (with" their u- 
 fnal Sagacity) turn the Argument the other 
 Way, and will needs have it conclude for the 
 Pope's Supremacy: " For (fay they) Bafi" 
 *' lides and Martial woul'd not have appeal- 
 " ed to the Bifliop of Rone, had they not 
 '' acknowledged him for the Head of the 
 
 " Church." Well, be it fo; but by the 
 
 fame Logick, the Bifhops of Spain diP- 
 regarding Stephen, and appealing to St. 
 Cyprian, will imply their acknowledging 
 the Bifhop of Carthage for Head of the 
 Church. So that the two Cardinals will 
 
 get nothing by this. Let them enjoy their 
 
 two depofed Bifhops, and we will be con- 
 tent with the catholick Bifhops of Spain^ 
 and the African Church, on our Side. 
 
 I will mention but one Inflance more, by 
 which this Matter will, I hope, be put beyond 
 all Doubt. It is the Controverfy about \hzBa- 
 ftijinof Hereticks, which (about the Middle 
 of the 3d Century) rent the whole Church 
 into two Parties, the one headed by St. Cy^ 
 prian, and the other by Stephen. I do not 
 enter into the Merits of the Caufe, nor v/ill 
 I take upon me to fay, which of them was in 
 the right, (perhaps they both went to Ex- 
 tremes.) But when I have given a fhort 
 Abftra6l of the Cafe, it will evidently appear, 
 that St. Cyprian did not confider the Bifhop 
 
 of 
 
( i87 ) 
 of Ro?ne as univerfal Paftor, or infallible 
 Judge of Controverfies. 
 
 " The Bifhops of Nnmidia having con- 
 " fulted St. Cjpriaji, and a Council then 
 fitting at Carthage, concerning the Vali- 
 dity of Baptifm adminiftrcd by Hcrcticks, 
 they gave as their Opinion, that it was 
 null and void, and confequently that fuch 
 ^' as came over from them, from what Seft 
 " foever they came, ought to be baptized 
 *' by a catholick Minifter *." 
 
 St. Cyprian owned there was but one Ba- 
 pti/m, and therefore avoided the Word Re- 
 baptlzatlon, but thought that Hercticks had 
 not the Power of conferring this one Ba- 
 ptifm. 
 
 This Judgment was confirmed by a fub- 
 fequent Council of 71 Bifhops ^itCartbage^ 
 and a fynodical Letter written " to ac- 
 ^' quaint Stephen Bifhop of Rojfie with 
 •" thefe Refolutions, hoping he would ap- 
 *' prove and embrace them ; but at the 
 *' fame Time declaring, that if any Bifhop 
 ^« fhould think fit to rejed: them, and fol- 
 " low different Opinions, (agreeable to the 
 " Liberty they all claimed) no Breach of 
 *< Peace and Unity fhould thence follow 
 
 " on either Side ^." 
 
 A a 2 Stephens 
 
 a Cypr. Ep. 72. 
 *> jLd. Ep. 7Q. 73- 
 
C i88 ) 
 
 Stephen s Opinion in this Matter was di- 
 really contrary to theirs, viz, " that Ba- 
 '' ptifm conferred by Hereticks of what- 
 " ever Se6l or Perfuafion (e'x quacunque /?^- 
 ^' reft ad vos venerint^ was valid ; not duly 
 " confidering that fome Hereticks of thofe 
 *^ Times, particularly the Montanifis and 
 ^' Marcionites, did not baptize, as is com- 
 ^' manded in the Gofpel, in the Name of 
 ^' the Holy Trinity." 
 
 To this refpe6i:ful Letter from the Coun- 
 f cil of Carthage, ^' Stephen w^rites an An- 
 f fwer ftuffed with Pride and Arrogance, with 
 f' many hard Names and bitter Inve^ives a- 
 ^' gainrt Cyprian, whom he orders to quit his 
 ^' Opinion, threatning to cut him off from 
 ^^ the Communion of the Church, if he did 
 ^' not, and all that Ihouid adhere to him *=. 
 
 Now was the Time fpr Cyprian to humble 
 himfelf to the vifible Head of the whole 
 catholick Church, and acquiefce in the 
 peremptory Decifion of the infallible Judge 
 of Controverfies ; but he feems not to have 
 known fuch an one, or that thefe Powers 
 and Privileges were lodged with the Ro- 
 man Pontif, for he took the direcfl: contra- 
 ry Courfe: And ^t, Augujline owns, " that 
 M Cyprian was not obliged to yield to the 
 
 " Au^ 
 
 <= Cypr. Ed. "t^ 
 
( i89 ) 
 
 " Authority of Stephen^ nor give up the 
 ^' Point, until he was convinced by Dint 
 " of Reafon, or the Decifion of an oecu- 
 " menical Council *^. 
 
 St. Cyprian, in a Letter to Tompeins^ 
 " complains of this Haughtinefs in Ste* 
 *' phen^ whom he treats with more than 
 " ordinary Sharpnefs and Acrimony, cal- 
 ^' ling him a Favourer and Abettor of He- 
 *' reticles againft the Church of God ^" 
 
 However, as Cyprian fought nothing but 
 Truth, and never took too much upon 
 himfelf, he fummoned another great Coun- 
 cil (of 85 or 87 Bifliops, befides Presbyters 
 and Deacons) which met at C^r//;^^<f on the 
 I ft of September anno 256. The whole Cafe 
 being laid before this Council, St. Cyprian 
 made a Speech, exhorting his Collegues to 
 fpeak their Minds freely, adding thcfe memo- 
 rable Words (with a fquint Look, no doubt, 
 to the Pride and Arrogance of theBifhopof 
 Rome.^ '' Let none of us fct up for the Btjhop 
 .*' ofBiJhops ; let none of us prefume to reduce 
 " our Collegues by a tyrannical Fear, to the 
 " Ncceflity of obeying.'* This Council, 
 not convinced of the fupreme Authority, 
 jior awed by the Menaces of the Bifhop of 
 
 Kome^ 
 
 ^ Aug. de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 7. 18. & lib. 2. cip. 8. 
 ?5- torn. 7. p. 374. 
 ^ Cypr. Ep. 74. 
 
( ^90 ) 
 Roi7ie, unanlmoufly confirmed the Decrees 
 of the two former Councils about baptizing 
 Hereticks ; and that they might, if poffible, 
 preferve the Peace of the Church, they fent 
 Deputies to acquaint Stephen with what 
 they had done, and with the Reafons on 
 which their Opinion was grounded. 
 
 Stephen refufed to fee the Deputies, for- 
 bad his Flock to correfpond with them, or to 
 afford them Lodging, and the common Ne- 
 cefTaries of Life, excluding them, not only 
 from his Communion, but from common 
 Hofpitality ^. And at laft, that he might ap- 
 pear a Man of his Word, " he cut off from 
 " his Communion all the Bifhops who had 
 ** aflifted at the Council, and all thofe who 
 " held the fame Opinion,'* — that is, the 
 Biftiops of Africa^ Numidia^ Mauritania^ 
 Cilicia, Cappadocia^ Galatia, and jEgypt g. 
 
 What was the Refult of all this? Did all 
 thefe Bilhops and Churches fubmit to the 
 Pope, as Chrift's Vicar General upon Earth? 
 No, not one of them. Stephen s. Anathe- 
 ma proved but hrutiim fiilmen^ as thofe of 
 ViRor had done before: No Regard was 
 had to them, even by thofe of his own Par- 
 ty, who, by continuing in Communion with 
 thofe whom he had cut off from his,fufficient- 
 ly declared their Thoughts, touching his rafh 
 
 ancj 
 
 i Firm, ad Cypr. Ep. 8i, 75. 
 8 Eufeb. lib. 7. cap. 5. 
 
and unchriftian Condu<5l: And St. Align- 
 Jline commends them for doing fo, telling 
 *' us, that the Peace of Chrift triumphed in 
 *' their Hearts, and put a Stop to the grow- 
 « ing Schifm." 
 
 And here I will leave the Reader to 
 judge, if it is probable that St. Cjprian be- 
 lieved, or ever wrote a Line in Support of 
 the Infallibility, or Supremacy of the Bi- 
 fliop or Church of Rome. 
 
 § IV. In the next Paragraph of the Ma- 
 nufcript, our learned Author has crowded 
 together three feveral Authorities, viz, of 
 LaBantius, St. ylthanaftus^ and St. Vacian ; 
 as if he intended an immediate Storm, by 
 fuch triple Difcharge of his Artillery: But 
 unluckily for him, the Words are as gene- 
 ral, indefinite and unmeaning of what he 
 would have them fpeak out, as thefe already 
 confidered. They prove indeed all that 
 they contain (and which is not denied) for 
 the Church catholick, but not for the Ro- 
 man, or any one particular Church, as will 
 foon appear: So that thefe Teftimonies are 
 good ones, only they are nothing to our 
 Author's Purpofe. 
 
 I. La8 ant i us (^fuppofed to be fo firnam- 
 ed from the Softnefs and Delicacy of his 
 Stile, his proper Name being Lucius Cellus 
 
 Fir- 
 
( 192 ) 
 
 Firmtanus') had ftudied and taught Rheto- 
 rick, with fuch Succefs and Reputation, 
 that Conftantine took him to be Preceptor to 
 his Son Crifpus. He is confelTedly the 
 moft eloquent of all the ecclefiaftical Au- 
 thors that wrote in Latin, infomuch that he 
 5s called the Chriftian Cicero, and fome 
 Criticks have afErmed, that he was nothing 
 inferior to Tuily, in the Purity of his Lan- 
 guage, and Turn of his Phrafe. 
 
 But though this is acknowledged of his 
 Stile, yet St. Jerome thinks him wanting in 
 point of Accuracy, when he treats of the 
 Myfteries of Chriftianity; and Pope Dt?- 
 mafus faid, ^' he found no great Pleafure 
 ** in reading the Books of LatlantiusJ" Af- 
 ter all which, I wonder how this Gentle- 
 man has put him into fuch Company, 
 However the Words cited from him, Par. 
 12, viz, " That the Church is the Foun- 
 <« tain of Truth, the Houfe of Faith, and 
 " the Temple of God," are certainly ortho- 
 dox and unexceptionable, as they are the 
 fame, or at leaft equivalent to fome in the 
 holy Scriptures, which have been confidered 
 in the precceding Chapter, p. 93. and there- 
 fore do not need another Examination here, 
 
 I fhall only fay, that as this Author has 
 given us Proteftants a Quotation from La- 
 dantius. which we did not need, fince we 
 
 had 
 
( '93 ) 
 liad the Thing before, from an Authority 
 Jnuch greater than his; it were to be wifhcd 
 he had fent to thofe of his own Communi- 
 on, another Paflage from the fame Latlan- 
 t'lus^ who in the very next (that Is in the 
 5th) Book of his Inftitutions, fays '' that 
 " the Way to convert and recover Men 
 " from Error, Is by the Force of Rcafon, 
 *^ not of Punifhments; that we cannot, and 
 " that we ought not to conftrain Men to 
 ** be of our Religion, which is a Thing 
 " not to be propagated or defended by kill- 
 " ing of others, but by dying ibr it our- 
 " felves, not by Cruelty, but by Patience '"Z* 
 This had been good Advice to the Fathers 
 of the Inquifition, as fitly applied, and as 
 nccefTary for them, as the other to us. Had 
 LaSiantius lived fome Centuries later, and 
 been in the Communion of the Church of 
 Ro?7ie, he muft have ftifled thofe Senti- 
 ments, for fear of condemning her modern 
 Arts (^Mahumetan Methods) of propagating 
 Religion, by Racks and Tortures, by Re- 
 bellions, Murders and MafTacres. 
 
 2. Of all Things I wonder moft to find 
 St. Athanafius brought into the Field a- 
 eainft us, to fupport Roman Infallibility. 
 ^ Bb Had 
 
 »» Du Pin. V. I. p. 165. drr« 
 
.. ( 194 ) 
 Had I been writing for the Church of Rom^y 
 
 I would carefully have avoided to name 
 that extraordinary Man, who can be fcarce 
 mentioned, without bringing to the Re- 
 membrance of them who know the Hifto- 
 ry of that Time, a moft glaring Inftance of 
 Ro7nan Fallibility, and actual Defe(^ion from 
 the catholick Faith. 
 
 St. yltlmnafius had early appeared a vi- 
 gorous AfTertor of the Divinity of bur 
 Lord Jefus Chriff, which he maintained a- 
 gainft the ylrians, with more Learning and 
 Argument, greater Firmnefs and Conffan- 
 cy, than any other of that Time: He di- 
 flinguifhed himfelf at the great Council of 
 Nice^ though he was there only as a Dea- 
 con to Alexander Bifhop of Alexandria, to 
 whom he fucceeded in that See, where con* 
 tinuing a vigilant Keeper, and ftrenuous De- 
 fender of the catholick Do6trine, the Arians 
 (unequal to him in point of fair Argument) 
 had Recourfe to Lies and Calumnies, with 
 which they (luffed Informations and Com- 
 plaints fent againft him to the Emperor. 
 
 Athanaftus, to prevent the Storm which 
 this might bring upon him, writes to J«- 
 lius Bifhop of Rome^ clearing himfelf of 
 what thefe falfe Accufations had charged 
 him with. Julius dying ere this Vindicati- 
 on came to Ro7ney it was put into the Hands 
 
 of 
 
11 
 
 of Liberius who fucceedcd him in the Chair, 
 22d May 352. — He (beaig in dread oi 
 ConJlantiuSy then Mafter of Italy) wanted 
 to ingratiate himfelf with the Arians^ and 
 by their Means with the Emperor: For 
 this Purpofe he is faid to have written a 
 Letter to St. ylthanajius^ and another to 
 the Eiijebians or Arians, acquainting them, 
 '' that he communicated with them, but as 
 " for ylthanajius^ he had cut him off from 
 " his Communion, and from that of his 
 <' Church." — This Letter is prefervcd in 
 the Fragments of Hilary Bifliop of Tot- 
 Biers '\ and if it is a true one, brings an in- 
 delible Reproach upon the Memory of that 
 Pope. But as Baroniiis^ the Benedi8ineSy 
 and Du Tin^ have queftloned its Authen- 
 ticity, I will not infift upon it; and the 
 rather, that if the Timidity of Liberius at 
 that Time did puih him to make that falfe 
 Step, he foon recovered his Pannick, and 
 repented of what he had done. For when 
 Conjiantius aflembled a Council at Arles^ 
 Liberius laboured hard to prevent the Con- 
 demnation of Atbanajius ; but to his great 
 Grief, his Legates at that Council, (being 
 threatened with Banifhment, in cafe of Re- 
 i:ufancy) figned that Condemnation, and 
 Bb 2 (to 
 
 [ Hilar, frag. x. p. 36. 40. 
 
. ( 196 ) ^ 
 
 (to ufe their own foftening Expreflion) 
 ^' yielded to the Torrent of the T imes^." 
 
 This Condemnation of St. Atkanafius 
 was repeated in a fubfequent Council at 
 M^lcin, in the Year 355, where (^Ruffinus 
 fays) of three hundred Weftern Bifhops, 
 there were but thvtt {viz, Dionyjius of Mi- 
 lan, Eujkbius of Vercelliy and Lucifer of 
 Cagliari) who fhewed a Firmnefs and Intre- 
 pidity becoming Men of their facred Cha- 
 racter K 
 
 The Emperor tried every Mean to bring 
 Liberius to fign the Condemnation of yi- 
 thanafntSy but he remonftrating with all the 
 Liberty that became a catholick Bifhop, 
 and (at the fame Time) with all the Re- 
 fpe6l that is due from a Subject to his Prince, 
 and cojitinuing unmoved, either by the 
 Threats, Flatteries, or Prefents of Conjlan- 
 tins, is fent into Exile, to Bercea in Thrace^ 
 and one Felix was (by thcArian Party) pla- 
 ced in his Chair at Rome. 
 
 This will foon open to us a very melan- 
 choly Scene, a moft affecting Inftance of 
 human Frailty, enough to fend every 
 good Man often to his Prayers to God, for 
 Strength and Stcadinefs in the Day of Tri- 
 ^1. Liberies foon wearies of the Hardfhips 
 
 of 
 
 y Hilar, frag. 2. p. 42. 
 ' Ruffin. 1. I. c. 20. 
 
( 197 ) 
 of Exile, and forfakes the glorious Caure 
 he had of late maintained with fo much 
 Honour; and that he might again ingratiate 
 himfclf with the Emperor, and be allowed 
 to return to Rome^ <* he abandons his pcr- 
 " fecuted Brother, renounces the catholick 
 *' Faith, and folemnly promifcth to maintain 
 « inviolably the Doctrine of Sirmitim" He 
 writes (in a moft fubmifTive, cringing Stile) 
 to the Kajiern Bifhops, alluring them, " that 
 <' it was merely out of Refpe^ to his Pre- 
 *' deceffor Jtdius, that he had undertaken 
 *^ the Defence of ylthanaftus ; — that as foon 
 •' as it had pleafed God to open his Eyes, 
 " and difcover to him, how juftly he had 
 *' been condemned, he had feparated him- 
 '^ felf from his Communion, and joined 
 <' them; that all their Decrees concerning 
 ** him fhould be inviolably obferved by the 
 " Apollolick See, as indeed they ought to 
 *' be ; that he fincerely and willingly re- 
 ." ceived the true catholick and orthodox 
 '* Faith, as it had been expounded and dc- 
 *' fined by feveral of his Brethren and Col- 
 *' iegues at Sirmium^ and had been propo- 
 " fed to him by his Collegue Dcuiophilus ; 
 *' (N. B. this was the ylr'ian Bifhop of Be-^ 
 *' rn^a) that he received every Article of 
 "' that Symbol, and had nothing to object 
 «' againfl any." — Concluding thus : — '' And 
 
 " now 
 
( 198 ) . 
 « now that I agree with you in every Point, 
 « let me earneftly intreat your Hoiineffes, 
 << to employ your united intereft in my Be- 
 *< half, that I may be recalled from Banifh- 
 « ment, and fufFered to return to the See, 
 *< which God has been pleafed to commit 
 *' to my Care ^" 
 
 To the fame Purpofe he wrote to 17r^- 
 cius, Valens, Vincentius, and other (violent 
 yirian') Bifhops in the Weft, " acquainting 
 " them, that he had feparated himfelf from 
 «« the Communion of Athanafius late Blfloop 
 «' of Alexandria 'l' by which Expreffion he 
 acknowledges him to have been juftly and 
 lawfully depofed. 
 
 Thefe fcandalous Letters have been con- 
 veyed to us by the great Hilarius Bifhop of 
 ToiBiers yVjhOy not able to reftrain the juft Inr 
 di^nation they kindled in his Breaft, does fe-- 
 veral Times interrupt the Recital to anathe- 
 matize the Author of them, the prevarica- 
 
 tino' Liberius, as he calls him. ^And it is 
 
 to be remembered that the Genuinenefs of 
 thefe Letters is not difputed, as that of the 
 former was. 
 
 The EfFea of thefe humble fupplicating 
 Letters was, that Liberius was recalled from 
 Ber^a, the Place of his Exile, to Sirmium 
 
 in 
 
 * Hil. frag. I. p. 47- ^<:' I^u Pin. v. 2. p. ()Z. 
 
( ^99 ) 
 
 In Sclavoma, where Conjlvitius then was, 
 
 who being by this Time become Seminari- 
 an^ caufed Liberius fubfcribe to their Do- 
 ^rine at Sifv?iiu7?i, as he had done to that 
 of the Avians at Ber^a before. 
 
 Liberius having thus fully complied with 
 the Will of the Emperor, was fuffered to 
 return to Ro?ne, on Condition that he fiouhl 
 
 govern jointly with F^lix, And Sozomen 
 
 feems to infinuate % that they both govern- 
 ed thus for fome Time, though others fay, 
 (and, I think, with greater Probability) that 
 F£lix was driven out of the City, foon as 
 Liberius entered into it, which was on the 
 2d of Auguft 358 ^ 
 
 Be that as it will, one of them muft have 
 been an Intruder, an Ufurper, an Anti- 
 pope. — F^lix was (w^ithout Doubt) an A- 
 rian; St. Athanaftus calls him a " a Mon- 
 *' fter raifed to the See of Rome^ by the 
 " Malice of Anti-chrijl "" ;" and yet the 
 Church of Rome (ever liberal in her Cano- 
 nization, equally forward to favour her 
 Friends and damn her Adverfaries) has en- 
 rolled both thefe Competitors among the 
 Saints : The Feftival of F(slix being rtill 
 
 kept 
 
 • Soz. lib. 4. cap. ij. 
 
 *> Hier. Chron. Marcel. & Fauftin. p. 4. 
 
 ^ Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 37. Athan. ad Solit. p. 861 
 
( 200 ) 
 
 kept on the 29th of "July, and of the c- 
 ther on the 23d of September, 
 
 In the Times I have been treating of, 
 the Art an Herejy had (by the Influence 
 of the Emperor) prevailed fo much, and 
 fpread {o far, that the true Chriftian Faith 
 was fcarce to be found but in Defarts and 
 Mountains, in Dens and Caves of the Earth, 
 or fuch other obfcure Places, to which the 
 few fteady Confeflors of it had been ba- 
 nifhed, by Sentence or Neceflity ; in fo 
 much that it became proverbial, — ingemuH 
 
 mundus^ '* the World groaned under the 
 
 " Preffure of Herefy, and Blafphemy, and 
 " wondered to fee it itfelf become Arian. 
 
 " One Athanajius againft all the World, 
 
 " and the whole World againft Athanaft^ 
 
 if 
 us. 
 
 It is true Indeed, that Liberlus (after his 
 Return to Ro??2e) repented of what he had 
 done, reconciled himfelf to St. Athanafius^ 
 and endeavoured to reftore thcNicene Creed ; 
 but it is undeniable, that for fome Time be- 
 fore, he had been plunged as deep as any o- 
 ther in the general Apoftacy, had figned 
 Confeffions of Faith very different from 
 that of St. Teter, " that Jefus Chrift is the 
 " Son of the living God, (/. e, of the fame 
 ^' Subftance with the Father)" and had 
 thereby forfaken the Rock upon which the 
 
 Church 
 
( -or ) 
 Church was built: — And was he infallible 
 all the while? 
 
 The Advocates for this papal Privilege 
 have drudged long and hard to vindicate 
 Liberiiis ', but all in vain. In fpite of all 
 their unmeaning Difti nations, and eluding 
 Subterfuges, fink they muft, and their In^ 
 fallibility with ihcm.-'-" Be II a rmine "^ would 
 have us believe, " that the Pope may fign 
 " and receive heretical Opinions, (as Libc- 
 " rius did) provided he does not internally 
 " affentto them." This might perhaps have 
 been the Cafe with poor Liberius, that he 
 figned what he did not internally afTcnt to; 
 but by the Cardinal's good Leave, this con- 
 fines the Pope's Infallibility to himfelf alone, 
 and confequently difqualifics him for the 
 Office of a Teacher or Judge. 
 
 I own indeed that Infallibility even thus 
 curtailed and reftrained, would be a moil: 
 valuable Treafure to the Poffeffbr, but to 
 the reft of Mankind, of no more Value than a 
 rich Treafure hid under Ground. Sure, 
 Bellormtne himfelf cannot be fo unrcafon- 
 able, as to require us (in Virtue of fuch 
 Prerogative) to fubmit to the Decifions of 
 a Pope, 'till fuch Time at leaft, as we know 
 them to be the very Sentiments of his Heart ; 
 and this is what we never can know, lincc cve- 
 C c ry 
 
 ^ Pe Rom. Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 9. 
 
( 202 ) 
 
 ry Pope may (like Liberius) externally ad- 
 mit an Opinion, or Do6lrine, as true, and 
 at the fame Time, internally reje^l itasfalfe. 
 
 I have no Pleafure in difturbing the A- 
 flies of the Dead, and expofing their Fail- 
 ings, well knowing, that it is the fame God 
 " who makes one Star differ from another 
 " in Glory,'' who made the great Odds be- 
 tween St^Athanaftus and Libenus, and whofe 
 Grace alone it is that enables any Man " to 
 *' ftand in the evil Day, and having done all 
 *' to (land. " But thefe unwary MifHonaries 
 have forced me upon thisedifagreeable Of- 
 fice: I pray God may forgive them, and 
 bring them to a better Mind. 
 
 Perhaps I ought fooner to have acquaint- 
 ed the Reader, that this Book adv. Herejl 
 from which the Author of the Manufcript 
 brings this Authority, is fpurious, and tho' 
 printed with the Works of St. Athanaftusy 
 is acknowledged by Criticks (even of theif o- 
 7nan Communion) to be none of his. Du Tin 
 fays, " it is confiifed, and the Stile mean, 
 *' and oppofes in a few Words all Hereftes^ 
 ** contrary to the Cuftom of St. Athanafius^ 
 *' who refutes very largely all thofe he 
 
 " takes in hand ^" But I. might have 
 
 fpared to make this Remark, as the Gentle- 
 man is fo apt to flumble into thefe little 
 Miftakes. 
 
 Ufon 
 
 « Du Pin, vol. 2. p. 37. 
 
.( 203 ) 
 
 Upon a Review of this mournful Story, 
 3nd of thofe authentick Records from which 
 it is taken, I will leave to the Reader to judge 
 of the Sentiments of St. Atbanafius^ in this 
 Queftion, Whether he could think the Bi- 
 fhop and Church of Rome infallible, when 
 they renounced an eflential Article of the 
 Chriftian Faith, and condemned him for 
 maintaining it ? and whether the Author of 
 the Manufcript had not done as wifely to 
 have let this (uncommonly great and holy) 
 Man reft in Peace r 
 
 3. St. Tacianus is the laft of the three, 
 which, in this pregnant Paragraph, are 
 brought into the Field againft us. He was 
 Bifhop of Barcelona^ eminent for his San- 
 ctity and Eloquence, and died in the Reign 
 of Theodoftus, towards the Year 380. 
 
 Whether,when he calls theChurch" a fpot- 
 ** lels Virgin," he meant theuniverfal Church 
 of Chrift, or the Koman^ will appear from 
 the following Tranfcripts from his Works. 
 
 In the firft Part of his Letter to Sem- 
 
 pronianusy he argues againft the Novatiaus' 
 (as TertulUan had formerly done againft all 
 Herefies) from Prefcription. *' He oppo- 
 " fes to them the ancient Fathers of the 
 *' Church, who were Succeftors to the A- 
 " poftles: Why fhould not we (fays he) 
 ** have a Refpe(a to the Authority of thefc 
 C c 2 apo- 
 
C 204 ) 
 
 apoftollcal Men ? (what Occafion had he 
 for more than one of thefe apoftoHcal Men, 
 the infallible Judge at Ro?ne, if he thought 
 him fuch ? But inftead of that, he adds) 
 " Shall we pay no Deference to the Tefti- 
 << mony of St. Cyprian? Would he teach 
 ^' this Do6lrine I Are we wifer than he ? 
 ^' But, what fhall we fay of fo many 
 ^' Bifhops difperfed over all the World, 
 <' who are united with thefe Saints? What 
 ^' fhall we fay of fo many venerable old 
 ^' Men, of fo many Martyrs, and fo many 
 ^' Confelfors? Is it for us to reform them ? 
 ^•' Shall our Times, corrupted by Vice, ef- 
 ^' face the venerable Antiquity of our An- 
 " ceftors?'' 
 
 And in his laft Letter to the fame Per- 
 fon, wherein he treats of Penance againft 
 Novatian^ he fays, " that all the Dov5lrinc 
 ^^ of the Novatians explained by Sempro^ 
 *' nianus, is contained in this fingle Propo- 
 *' fition, That Tenance is not al lowed after 
 ^' Baptifniy becaufe the Church cannot for- 
 ^' give mortal Sin, and but deftroys herjelf 
 ^' by rece ving Sinners. Who is it (fays he) 
 ^' that propofcs this Do<5lrine ? Is it Mojes ? 
 <* Is it St. Taul? Is it Jefus Chrift? No, 
 ^' it is Novatian: And who is this iSfovati-* 
 ■^^ an ? Is he a Man pure and blamelefs, 
 ♦' 4^f, Did this Man follow the Prophets? 
 
 " W^§ 
 
( 205 ) 
 
 ** Was he a Prophet? DidheraifcthcDead ? 
 
 •' Did he work Miracles ? Did he fpeak all 
 
 *' Sorts of Languages? For at leafl: he 
 
 <' ought to have thefe Signs, for cftabhfh- 
 
 ^' ing a new Gofpel; and though he had, 
 
 *' yet the Apoftle affures us, that though an 
 
 *' ylngel fiould defcend from Heaven to teach 
 
 <' us a new Gofpel^ he jhould he acciirf- 
 
 " ed ^r 
 
 Here we have St. Tacian reafoning jull 
 HI the Way that Protefhnts do, appeahng 
 to Antiquity, Univerfahty, and Confent; 
 to the Dodrine of holy Scripture, of the 
 Prophets, Apoftles, and of JcfusChrift, but 
 not a Word of a living infallible Judge. 
 
 Perhaps my learned Adverfary may fay, 
 that my Argument from St. Tacians Way 
 of Reafoning is ftrained, and can conclude 
 nothing againft him ; becaufe he believes 
 a vifible infallible Judge; and yet he rea- 
 fons againft Proteftants, juft as St. Tactaii 
 did againft the Nov at i an s^ /. e, from Scri- 
 pture and Fathers. But, by his Fa- 
 vour, there is great and manifeft Odds 
 
 between them. He writes ex profefjb for 
 
 the Infallibility of the Roman Church, and 
 names it ; whereas St. Tac'ian never names 
 it, never eivcs the leaft Hint or Innuen- 
 
 do 
 
 f yide Du Pin. v, 2. p. 82; 83. 
 
( 206 ) 
 
 do that points that Way, but rather the 
 contrary. For why fhould he hzve had 
 Recourfe to Africa rather than Italy: Why 
 have named St. Cyprian^ rather than Stephen 
 or Liberius and Damafus, who were Popes 
 in his Time, but that he thought the Judg- 
 ment and Practice of the fir ft were of great- 
 er Authority, more decifive, and fater to 
 depend on, than thofe of the others ? Why 
 jQiould he have fent us to Carthage, and a 
 whole Century backward for Dire(5lion ? 
 Might he not have ftopt at Ro7?ie, (which 
 was nigher) had he known any thing of a 
 living, vifible, unerring Guide, a final Judge 
 of Controverfies ftill refiding there s ? 
 
 § V. St. Augufltne comes next in the 
 Order of the Manufcript, and the Author 
 of the Shortejl Way has produced the fame 
 Paffages with two more, all to the fame 
 Tune. They affirm indeed (what is not 
 denied) the Perpetuity of the Chriftian Faith, 
 and Indefec^ibility of the catholick Church, 
 which (in thofe very Places) he fays, is 
 fpread over all the World ; and he proves 
 
 the 
 
 % vide Hilar, frag. i. p. 36. 40. Id. frag. 2. p. 42. Ruf- 
 fin. 1. I. c. 20. Hilar, frag. i. p. 47, 48, 49. Du Pin, v. 2. 
 p. 63. Sozom. 1. 4. c. 1 5. Hier. Chron. Marcell. & Fauftin. 
 p. 4. Socrat. 1. 2. c. 37. Athan. ad Solit. p. 861. Bell, de 
 Rom. Pont. 1. 4. c. 9. Du Pin, v. 2. p. 37. & p. 82, 83. 
 
( ^07 ) 
 the Stability of this univerfal Church, from 
 thofe very Texts of holy Scripture, which 
 ^re explained in the former Chapter of this 
 Eilay, and fhewed to have no Relation to 
 Roman Infallibility, whereof this learned 
 Father fays not one Word. 
 
 In the 3d Section of this Chapter, I have 
 given a Hint of St. Augujline\ Sentiments 
 on the Subject in Queftion : His declaring 
 St. Cyprian not obliged to fubmit to the 
 Authority of the Bilhop of Kome^ till con- 
 vinced by Reafon, 6^c. and his commending 
 the other Bilhops of that Time, for difre- 
 garding the Cenfures of Stephen (the fame 
 Bifhop of Kome') thundered out againll: the 
 ylfrican and jlftatick Churches, fhew plain- 
 ly what Opinion he had of Roman Infalli- 
 bility, and univerfal JurIfdi6lion. 
 
 But, as this Father is highly honoured 
 by the Church of Rome^ as the Schoolmen, 
 ^eter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas, have 
 formed their Syftems of Theology, chiefly 
 out of his voluminous Writings, and as they 
 feldom fail of appealing to him in Matters 
 contraverted, it will be fit to explain his 
 Sentiments fomewhat more fully upon the 
 Point in difpute. 
 
 St. Augiiftine was born at Tagajla in 
 
 Numidia, the 13 th of November 354. 
 
 There he taught Grammar, and frequent- 
 ed 
 
( 2C8 ) 
 
 ed the Bar for fome Time. When he wss 
 twenty five Years old, he taught Rhetorick 
 at Carthage, with Applaufe, as he did after- 
 wards at Rome and Milan, where (by the 
 happy Miniftry of St. Amhrofe^ he w^as con- 
 verted and baptized, about the thirty fecond 
 Year of his Age. Returning to Africk, he 
 was by Valerius Bifhop of Hippo, ordained 
 a Vrled anno 391. — Four Years after, the 
 fame Valerius chofe him his Co-adjutor, and 
 he was confecrated Bifhop of Hippo, by 
 Megalius of Calama, then Primate of Nu- 
 midia. He died in the feventy fixth Year 
 of his Age, A. D. 430. with Grief to fee his 
 Country invaded by the Vandals, and the 
 City whereof he was Bifhop, befieged for 
 feveral Months. 
 
 To attain to a diflin^t and certain Know- 
 ledge of his Sentiments, with refpecl to the 
 Infallibility, and Catholicifm of the Church 
 of Rome, I will dire<5l the Reader to fomc 
 Paffages in his Writings, and fome in the 
 Hiftory of his Time ^. 
 
 In his Enarration on the 57th Pfalm (the 
 very Place to which our learned Authors 
 appeal) he fays, '' Let us fpeak the Things 
 •' which we have heard, namely, what God 
 " fays, not what Man fays, for it may hap- 
 
 <« pen 
 
 |» Aug. torn. 8. p. 567. & 41 3. edit. Bafilea. 
 
( 209 ) 
 
 pen that Man may lie. Let our Pa- 
 pers and Difputes (fays he) be laid afidc, 
 and let the Book of God be brought 
 forth; let us hear Truth fpeaking, let us 
 hear Ghrift faying, Go, and preach in his 
 Name, Repentance and Remijfwn of Sins, 
 throughout all Nations, beginning at Jeru- 
 falem." This fending us directly to the 
 infpired Writings, without any Mention of 
 a living infallible Judge, has a Protcfl-ant 
 Look: Had thefe Gentlemen read the whole 
 Chapter, and adverted to this, they would 
 probably have rowed to fome other Shore. 
 
 In his Commentaries on the TJabris, St. 
 jiuguftine never miifes an Opportunity of 
 confuting the Donatijls, who (as was before 
 obferved from Optatus Milevitanusyvapour- 
 ed not a little, on a Conceit of their Puri- 
 ty and Catholicifra. It had therefore been 
 much for his Purpofe to have directed them 
 to Rojne, had he thought the Head of the 
 catholick Church was there: But there is 
 never a Word of that, he only mentions 
 Ro7?iey as a Sifter Church, and not at all in 
 the Stile of Pope Tius IV. as the Mother 
 and Mijlrefs of all Churches. 
 
 Thus in his Enarration on the 45th Tfilm, 
 he fays, " Behold Rome, behold Carthjge, 
 <' behold feveral other Cities, thefe are Kings 
 <« Daughters, and have delighted the King 
 
 D d ** in 
 
( 210 ) 
 
 <' In his Honour, yet they all make np but 
 
 « one Queen." How incongruous, how 
 
 faulty had this Expreffion been deemed, had 
 St. Augujline lived in the Time of the Coun- 
 cil of Trent? There he would have been 
 taught to fpeak other Language, to have 
 faluted the Church of Ro?ne, as Queen of 
 all the reft, and other particular Churches, 
 only as her Daughters and Handmaids. 
 
 Writing againft the lame Donatijis ', he 
 fays, '' That canonical Scripture is to be 
 *' preferred before any other Writings, for 
 " they are to be believed without Examina- 
 " tion ; but the Writings of Bifhops are to 
 " be examined and corre6led by other Bi- 
 " fhops and Councils, if they fee Caufe, 
 " and the lefler Councils by greater, and 
 " the greateft Councils by fuch as come 
 *' after them, when Truth comes to be 
 " more fully difcovered." — It is fcarce pof- 
 fible to fpeak plainer than St. Augujtine here 
 does, againft a ftanding infallible Judge in 
 Controverfies, or more diftin^ly to ftate 
 the Difference of Church Guides and their 
 Authority, when compared with that of 
 holy Scripture. 
 
 Writing againft Max'nninus the ylrian ^^ 
 *' he defires all other Authorities may be laid 
 
 " afide, 
 
 » De Bapt. contra Donat. 1. 2. c. 5. 
 ^ Contra Maxim. Arian. i. 3. c. 14. 
 
( 211 ) 
 
 *f afide, and only thofe of Scripture and 
 •' Reafon ufed." This had been quite im- 
 pertinent, if he had not thought Scripture 
 and Reafon fufficicnt to end the Conrrovcrfy. 
 
 Writing againit JEaiiJlus the Manichean \ 
 he fays, " The Excellency of canonical Scrip- 
 V ture is fuch, as to be placed on a Throne, 
 " far above all other Writings, to which 
 " every faithful and pious Mind ought to 
 *' fubmit; all other Writings are to be tri- 
 ** ed by them, but there is no Doubt to be 
 ^* made of whatever we find in them." 
 
 Writing againft the Telagians "", he ad- 
 vifes them, " to yield to the Authority of 
 " Scripture, which can neither deceive, nor 
 
 " be deceived. This Controverfy (fays 
 
 " he) requires a Judge; letChrill be Judge, 
 " let us hear him fpeak. Let the ApolHe 
 ^' judge, for Chrift fpeaks in his ApoiUe ; 
 *' let St. John fit Judge between us."— And 
 in fliort, the Current of his Doe^rine is, 
 " That we ought to acquiefce in the Au- 
 " thority of Scripture, and when any Con- 
 " troverfy arifcs, it ought to be quietly 
 *' ended by Proofs brought from thence." 
 
 Had St. ylngujline lived a thoufand Years 
 
 later, he muft (by Authority of the Coun- 
 
 D d 2 cil 
 
 ' De Bapt. contra Fauft. 1. 1 1 . c. 5. 
 
 »" De peccat. merit. & reniif. 1. i. c. 23. dcnupt. & 1. 3. 
 e. 33. & degrat. ^ lib. arbit. c. 18. 
 
( 212 ) 
 
 eil of Trent^ Seffion 4th) have brought In 
 Tradition upon a Level in Authority with 
 the holy Scriptures, or he could not have 
 been in Communion with the Church of 
 Home ", 
 
 Here I cannot help calling to mind an 
 Expreflion of the Emperor Conjlantine, in 
 the great Council of Nice^ much to the 
 fame Purpofe *", viz, " That the Books of 
 ** Scripture do plainly inftru6l us what 
 ^' we are to believe concerning the Deity, 
 *' if we fearch them with peaceable Minds." 
 Bellarmines Anfwer to this is fmart, but 
 not very polite p, viz. ^' That Canjlantine 
 ^' w^as a great Emperor, but no great Do- 
 ^' 6lor.'^ To fuch Audacioufnefs were the 
 papal Champions arrived in the 1 6th Cen- 
 tury, that they paid little Refpe6l to any 
 crowned Head, except to the Pope, w^ho 
 (by this Time) had got a triple Crown. 
 
 The Author of the Shorteft Way. % has 
 given us another Paflage fvomSt, ^ugujline^ 
 which it may be fit to explain a little, as he 
 feems very fond of it, and it is fo often in 
 ^he Mouths of the liomifl Miflionaries, viz, 
 f' That he (St. Augnjline) would not have 
 
 ^< be. 
 
 ^ Con. Trident, fcflf. 4. 
 *^ Theod. 1. I. c. 6. 
 P De verb. Dei, 1. 4. c, 11. 
 1 Part I. p. 80. 
 
( 213 } 
 ^' believed the Gofpcls themfclves, nnlcfs 
 *^ the Authority of the Church had indu- 
 " ced him to it. — And fince (fays our Au- 
 " thor) he believed the Scriptures thcmfel- 
 " ves barely upon her Authority, it cannot 
 *" be doubted but he believed, (he might 
 ** likewife be fafely trufted with the Inter- 
 " pretation of their true Senfe and Mean- 
 
 er 
 
 ing. 
 
 Here it might be fufEcient to obfcrve, 
 17?, That Authority is one Thing, and In- 
 fallibility is another, and that the one may 
 well fubfift without the other ; and, 2dly^ 
 St. Augufl'me here fpeaks of the Authority, 
 or faithful Tradition of the whole catho- 
 lick or univerfal Church of Chrift, in pre- 
 ferving and delivering down this facrcd De^ 
 -pofit^ and not that of the Roman Church 
 only, for thefe are already fhewed to have 
 teen always difl:in(5l, and now (in many 
 Refpeds) different Societies. 
 
 But to make this Matter quite plain, it 
 is fit to obferve the Occafion, on which 
 this Exprefiion was ufcd. St. Augujlinc^ 
 in his younger Years, had been feduced by 
 the Authority of Manes (Father of the Ma- 
 nichsans^ to reje(fl: the Gofpcl: In his riper 
 Age, he is brought (by the Teftimony of 
 the cathohck Church) to rejc6t that Au- 
 Ifhority: He finds Manes to have been no 
 
 Apoftle 
 
Apoftle of Jefus Chrift's appointing, and 
 believes the catholick Church rather than 
 him. This does not make the Authority 
 of the Church greater than that of Scri- 
 pture, but only greater than that of Manes^ 
 and the Manichees ; nor would he have fol- 
 lowed any Church againft plain Scripture 
 handed down to him by that Church. 
 
 To illuftrate this, let us fuppofe a Jev/ 
 ^nd a Chriftian in a Difpute about the Di- 
 vinity of Jefus Chrift, and his being the 
 promifed Mejfmb. The Jew denies this ; 
 t^e Chriftian endeavours to convince him 
 pf it, by Teftimonies from the Prophets in 
 the Old Teftament. — Hold, fays the Jewy 
 I can allow of no fuch Argument, for the 
 fame '' Authority of the Jewifi Church," 
 which induced me to believe thefe Prophets, 
 doth alfo oblige me not to believe your Je^ 
 fits (whom fhe condemned as an Impoftor) 
 to be our Meffiah. 
 
 I hope no Chriftian will fay, the Jew's 
 Argument is good in this Cafe ; and as 
 little can the fame Argument be fuftained 
 in the other. For 
 
 In both Cafes the Argument proceeds 
 upon a very feeble, groundlefs Suppofition, 
 i/v'z. that no Church can deliver a Book jor 
 canonical^ but that Church muft at all Times 
 judge aright concerning all things contain- 
 ed 
 
td in that Book, or relating to it, and have 
 the cxclufive Privilege of explaining it; and 
 if this be admitted, it unavoidably makes 
 the Jew'jjh Church infallible^ at the fame 
 Time that (he condemned our Lord Jefu^ 
 Chrift: as a Deceiver, which is not only 
 trifling, and falfe, but too blafphemous to 
 be further infdl-ed on. 
 
 Having faid thus much of the Writings 
 of St. Augujiine^ to point out his real Sen- 
 timents on the Subje<51: in Qiieftion, and to 
 refcue him from the Afperfions of thcfe 
 Gentlemen, I will now make a few Re- 
 marks on hisCondufl, and the Part he a^t- 
 ed in fome of the remarkable Incidents in 
 his Time. 
 
 In the Year 312, a Council at Carthage 
 condemned Cdsleftius^ a Difciple of Tclagi- 
 tis, Cdeleflius appealed to Rome, at leafl: 
 Baroniiis fays fo \ But if he did, either 
 Innocent, then Bifliop of Rome, did not re- 
 ceive the Appeal, or the African Bifliops 
 had no Regard to it, for they went on in 
 their own Way, condemning him anew, 
 without waiting for the Judgment of In- 
 nocent. 
 
 This Innocent was (according to St. Je- 
 rome ^) both the Son and SuccefTor of yl^ 
 
 najlafuis 
 
 » Ad ann. 412. N. 2 J. 
 !» Hier. Ep. 8. 
 
( 2I6 ) 
 
 naftafius the preceeding Pope : He was 1 
 Man of Learning, Subtiky, and great Ad- 
 drefs, and feems to have been the firft of 
 the Roman Pontiffs, who laid Claim even 
 to the Trimacy, (for the Word Supremacy 
 was not known in thefe Days) as by di^ 
 vine Right belonging to his See. They 
 had indeed before this Time held the Pri-* 
 macy by Canons, as Biihops of the firft 
 City; hut Innocent^ not content with this, 
 would needs go higher, he muft hold by a 
 new Charter, and (changing the ancient 
 Foundations of the Primacy) claimed it, 
 as SucceJJor of St. Peter, the Trince of 
 the Apoftles^ Language not ufed by his 
 humbler Predeceflbrs, and (for ought ap- 
 pears) not heard in the World before the 
 the 5th Century. 
 
 In the 416, the Bifhops of (Proper) A- 
 frica, affembled in Council at Carthage^ 
 and thofe of Numidia^ at Milevum or Me- 
 la. By thefe Councils, the Herefy of Te- 
 lagius, and of his Difciple delejiius^ was 
 condemned, and Letters written to Innocent^ 
 acquainting him therewith, and defiring 
 him to add the Authority of the apoftolick 
 See to theirs. Thefe two Letters were accom- 
 panied by a third, figned by St. Augujline^ 
 and four other Bifhops, to inform Innocent 
 in a friendly Manner, " that he was fu- 
 
 fpedted 
 
( my^ ) 
 
 ** fpefled of countenancing thcfe Hcrcticks 
 " and favouring their Doctrine; and the more 
 ** to guard againft this Danger, they fcnt him 
 *^ at the fame Time St. y^ugu/lines Confuta- 
 *' tion of a Book of Telagius, and the Book 
 *' itfelf, with the Pallages marked in it that 
 *' gave moft Offence, and claimed a parti- 
 ** cular Attention, left he fhould overlook 
 *' them *"." — This vsras not treating him as 
 an unerring Judge^ for his Infallibility by 
 itfelf (had they known of it) muft have 
 prevented all Miftake and Overfight, with^ 
 out the Afliftance of their officious Care. 
 Thefe Letters brought Innocent into Dif- 
 ficulties, from which a Man of lefs Addrefs 
 could not fo eafily have extricated himfelf ; 
 he faw his high Claim was not yet ripe to 
 bear ati open Struggle for it, and yet he 
 was unwilling to give it up ; and therefore 
 he concurs in the Condemnation of Tela- 
 giuSj and writes Anfwers to thefe Letters, 
 in a fly, fmooth, cajoling Strain, compli- 
 menting thofe Bifhops upon the Rcfpcc^l 
 they had fhewed to his See, as if they had 
 asked his Leave, before they proceeded to 
 judge a Heretick. — " Ye have well obfervcd, 
 " fays he, the Ordinances of the ancient Fa* 
 E e *• thcrs, 
 
 * Aug. Ep. 90* 95. PofTid. vit. Aug. cap. 18. 
 
( -218 ) 
 " thers, and not trampled under Foot, 
 " what they not in human Wijdoin^ hut by 
 " divine Ordcy\ have ejlablifljed^ viz. that 
 " whatever is done, in Places however re* 
 " mote, fliould, for a final Conclufion, be 
 " referred to the apoftolick See/'— — Thi^ 
 indeed was a broad Hint, and carries an 
 Air of Sovereignty ; but how much, of 
 rather how little they minded it, we fhall 
 fee prefently. 
 
 Innocent dying foon after, that is, in the 
 Year 417, is fucceeded by 'Zofmius \ Cale- 
 Jiius renews to him his Appeal from the 
 Sentence of the African Bifhops, and pre- 
 f&nts a Confeffion of his Faith, which Zo- 
 fimus approves, and writes to Aurelius Bi- 
 fhop of Carthage^ and the other African 
 Bifhops, complaining of their Hafle and 
 Precipitancy in an Affair that required the 
 moft mature Deliberation : As for Heros 
 and Lazarus^ the two great Oppofers of 
 Telagius and C^lejlius^ he inveighs againft 
 them with Words of Bitternefs, letting the 
 African Bifhops know, that if the Accufers 
 of Cdelejiiiis did not appear at Rome, in two 
 Months, to make good their Charge againft 
 him, he would declare him innocent. — And 
 accordingly he afterwards proceeded to de- 
 pofe and excommunicate thefe two Bifhops, 
 /. e. Heros of Aries ^ and Lazarus of Aix m 
 
 TroVence ; 
 
Trovencc) notwithftanding St. Augufimc^ 
 and other Writers of that Time, give them 
 very good Charaders; and even Baronlus 
 confeiles, that the Crimes with which Zo- 
 fimus charged them, were only the Sug- 
 geftions of their Enemies ^. 
 
 The Cafe being thus brought to a Crifis, 
 I beg Leave to make a few obvious Remarks 
 upon it: 17?, Here are two Popes taking 
 contrary Sides in the fame Queltion, and 
 that a Queftion of Herefy ; Innocent con- 
 demning Telagitis and C^leflius^ and his 
 immediate SucceflTor in the Chair, condemn- 
 ing the Adverfaries of Telagius and delejti- 
 us : Which of thefe two Popes was infal- 
 lible ? for both could not. 
 
 idljy The other Bifhops of that Time 
 feem to have made no Account of the A- 
 nathemas of Zojimusj for they ftill conti- 
 nued to communicate with Heros and La- 
 zarus, and owned them for their Col- 
 legues % And we are told, that the Name 
 of Heros w^as inferted into the Diptychs of 
 the Church of yir/es, after his Death ; and 
 that Lazarus was reftored to his Sec ^. 
 E e 2 Where 
 
 d Aug. ad Bon. lib, 2. cap. 3. & dc pecc. oug. cap. 6. 
 M^c. comment, cap. i. Bar. ad ann. 417. N. 19- to N. 
 29. 
 
 « Merc, comment, cap. 3. 
 
 ^ Gallia Chrilliana, cap. i. p. 2. 
 
( 220 ) 
 
 Where was now the Bifhop of Romes Su- 
 premacy and univerfal Jurifdicllon ? 
 " 3^/>', The Bifhops of Ajrica (regardlefs 
 of the Pope's Authority) ftill adhered to 
 vhat they had done in this Matter ; a Counr 
 pi of 214 Bifhops allembled at Carthage^ 
 condemned again the Doctrine of T'elagi-- 
 -us and CaslefiiuSy and their Decrees (fays 
 ^rofper §) were received by all the World, 
 though in making thefe Decrees the Rornan^ 
 Pontiff had no Hand : So it was not Rome^ 
 but Africa^ it was not the Pope, but the 
 Bifhops of Africa^ or I may rather fay St. 
 Augujline, (for he entirely governed that 
 Council) who taught the Church, what 
 to believe, and what to rcje6i, concerning 
 Grace and original Sin. 
 
 /{thty. Not content to have done fo much, 
 they went further: In the following Year, 
 (that is, in 418) another Council of 225 
 Bllhops (from all the Provinces of Africa^ 
 and fome even from Spaing was aflembled 
 at Carthage^ where (the more eife^tually to 
 defeat any Attempts of Zoftmus in Favour 
 of Telagius and C(elejlius^ they condemned 
 their Do6lrine anew, and more dlfHn^lly 
 than they had hitherto done; and among 
 fhp pightep CariOns enadtecl by this Coun- 
 cil, 
 
 ^ Chron. Jib. i. cap. 2, 3, 
 
( "I ) 
 
 pil, there is one has a very ill Afpeft on the 
 Jurifdidtion (and confequcntly on the Infal- 
 libility) of the See o( Ro?ne, viz. ** Pricfts, 
 '' Deacons, and Clergymen, if they com- 
 '' plain of the Judgment paflcd on thcni 
 " by their own Bifhop, may (with his 
 " Confent) be heard by the ncighbour- 
 *« ing Bifhops, and if they think fit to ap- 
 ^' peal from them, let them appeal to the 
 " 'Tn?nates of their Provinces, — But let not 
 " him that thinks Jit to appeal to them beyond 
 .*' Sea^ be admitted to Cojmnunion by any in 
 ^' Africk '.'^ 
 
 This was a fmart Blow, dire6lly aimed 
 at the See of Rome-, one would think Car- 
 thage was the Place defigned by Providence 
 to check the exorbitant Growth of Power 
 in Chrifllan Romey as It had done in Hea- 
 then Rome about 500 Years before. 
 
 And it muft not be forgot, thatSt. ^//g-«- 
 
 Jline was prefent in this Council, and ifign- 
 
 ed this \yith the other Decrees. I had al- 
 
 moft faid, he was the Hannibal of Africk 
 
 at this Time. 
 
 Thefe African Decrees were approved 
 by the Emperor Honorius^ who ifllied a 
 penal Law againft the Telagians, dated at 
 ^avenna^ 30th o[ April ^18. — And at lalt 
 
 the 
 
 ' Afric. cod. can. 28. Gr. 31. Nor. hid. Pel. lib. j. 
 fap. 17. 
 
( 222 ) 
 
 the Bifliop oE Ro7ne^ (the fame Zoftmus^ 
 finding the Oppofition fo ftrong, thought 
 fit to lower his Top-fail, and tack about; 
 he now condemned the ConfefTion of Faith 
 he had approved before; he confirms the 
 Sentence of the Africans^ which he had fo 
 iharply cenfured, and excommunicates Te- 
 lagius and C^lejiius, " if they did not ab- 
 *' jure the poifonous Tenets of their impi- 
 
 " ous and abominable Se^ ^. Was Zoft- 
 
 vius infallible all the while? 
 
 The fame Zoftmus had a Squabble with 
 fonie of the Bifitiops of Gatil^ about a Mat- 
 ter of lefs Importance, in which he fuc- 
 ceeded no better; particularly wiihTrocu- 
 lus Bifhop of Marjeilles, who (not convin- 
 ced of the Bi/hop of Romes Infallibility, 
 or univerfal Jurifdi6tion). continued to the 
 laft to -^ifpute his ufurped Authority, and 
 defpife his random Cenfures ; for he per- 
 formed epifcopal Offices, and ordained a 
 Bifhop, even after the Pope had depofed and 
 
 excommunicated him ^ But as St. An- 
 
 gujline had no direct Concern in this Quar- 
 rel, I forbear to infift on it. 
 
 This fhort AhjiraB contains (fo far as 
 it goes) a true and well vouched Account 
 
 of 
 
 ^ Aug. pecc. orig. cap. 3. 4. Id. ad Bon. lib. 2. cap. 
 & in Jul. lib. I. cap. 4. 
 ' Du Pin, V. 3. p. 209. 
 
( -^3 ) 
 of the Sentiments, and Conduct of St. Au- 
 gujline^ as to the Point in Qucftion : And 
 upon a careful Review of this Section, and 
 of the Authorities referred to, I will fubmit 
 to the Judgment of the Reader, " Whether 
 *' this learned Biihop did believe, or ever 
 ** fubmitted to, or ever endeavoured to fup- 
 " port the Infallibility, or univerfal Jurif- 
 " diction of the Church of Rome ? 
 
 § VI. Having thus examined fo many of 
 our Author's chief Authorities, and found 
 none of them concluding any thing to the 
 Purpofe for which he brings them, I might 
 be excufed from taking any Trouble about 
 
 the remaining two. For it can fcarce be 
 
 thought that two Writers lo late as the 5th 
 Century, can have Weight and Authority 
 fufficient to eflablifh a Do(^rine of fuch Im- 
 portance, untaught in the Scriptures, and 
 unheard of in the early Ages of the Church. 
 But, as we are obliged to " cut off Occafi- 
 " on from them that feek Occafions againft 
 " us," that my learned Adverfaries may not 
 think themfelves neglected, or any Part of 
 their^Argument (induftrioufly) overlook- 
 ed, as if it contained fomething unanfwer- 
 able, 1 will very briefly confidcr thefc two 
 laft alfo. 
 
 It 
 
( 224 ) 
 
 It is /bmewhat alarming to find Vindentt-^ 
 us Lirinenfis brought into the Field againft 
 us : An unwary Reader may be apt to fu- 
 fpeft our Danger great, and out Caufe de- 
 fperatCj when he fees fo good an old Friend 
 brought to mufter on the Enemies Side. We 
 Proteftants have often appealed to Vincentius^ 
 offered to fubmit all Matters in Difpute be^ 
 tween the Church of Rome and us, to hi^ 
 Arbitration, and to have the Caufe judged 
 and finally determined by his Golden Rule 
 of Antiquity^ Univerfalitj^ andConfent; and 
 is he now turned againft us ? No, but our 
 Author, like a (Thunder Shower) comes 
 with Violence, fweeps all clean before him, 
 and would not leave remaining to us fo much 
 as one poor Monk at Lei'lns, to keep us in 
 Countenance. 
 
 But whzt does Vincenfius fay againft Prc^- 
 teftants ? He fays, " the Church oj Chrijl is 
 " a diligent and faithful Treferver of the 
 " Do8rines depojited with her^ never alter- 
 " ing, adding, or lofing any thing."-^— And 
 this (fays our Author) cannot be faid of 
 the Church, unlefs fhe be infallible--— No? 
 Pray'e may not a Man be honeft and vir- 
 tuous, unlefs it was impolTible for him to 
 be a Rogue? What then becomes of the 
 Doftrine of Merit ? May not a Man enjoy 
 good Health for many Years, though he 
 
 had 
 
( 225 ) 
 had the Seeds and Principles of Difeafes 
 and Death in him all the while? Or (to 
 fpeak in Scripture Stile) may not *' the 
 *' faithful City become an Harlot? Ifa. i. 
 
 But unluckily for our Author, Vincenti- 
 us fpeaks here only oi the Church ofChrift^ 
 or the whole catholick Church ; and this 
 is already fhewed to be a Society very dif- 
 ferent (in Point both of Extent and Au- 
 thority) from the Roman Catholick : So that 
 he might by the fame Logick conclude, that 
 the Powers and Privileges of a Sheriff arc 
 equal to thofe of King and Parliament, or 
 of a provincial Synod to thofe of an oecu- 
 menical Council. 
 
 But further, let it be fuppofed that F/';;- 
 centius had faid, " the Church of Rome is a 
 *' faithful Prefervcr of the Do6lrines depo- 
 ^* fited with her;" — this might vouch her 
 Fidelity, but not her Infallibility, in prefcr- 
 ving the Doctrines at firft depofited with her ; 
 but then, if the Doctrines of her Infallibi- 
 lity and univerfal Jurifdiaion, were not at 
 firft depofited with her, (which by this 
 Time is made pretty clear) Ihe is not obli- 
 ged to prelcrve thefe Do^rines, on the con- 
 trary, flie ought, for the Sake of Truth and 
 Peace, to give them up ; and as it is evi- 
 dent fhe has not thefe Powers and Privlle- 
 F f g^^s 
 
( 226 ) 
 
 gcs, flie ought to difclaim, and lay down 
 the faucy, mifchievous, bare Pretence to 
 them. 
 
 Had Vincenttus meant any thing in Fa- 
 vour of Romijh Infallibihty, it is quite in- 
 conceivable how he fhould not have once 
 mentioned it, when he had fo fair an Oppor- 
 tunity ; when he wrote a Book (and a very 
 wife good one it is) on Purpofe to give 
 plain, certain Rules, for the Detection and 
 Avoidance of Herefies and Errors, how na* 
 tural was it, how eafy had it been, to have 
 fcnt us to the living infallible Judge zt Rome ? 
 but there is never a Word of him in all that 
 elaborate Work; Inftead of that he fends 
 us far about to confult Antiquity, Univer- 
 fality, and Confent, and, if any Doubt re- 
 mainsjto be determined by the Opinion of the 
 greateft and wifeft Men, in different Times 
 
 and Places. But no Mention of Rome, or 
 
 of a vifihle unerrinor Decider of Controver- 
 
 fies, refiding there. A Proteftant would 
 
 have given the fame Advice he does. 
 
 As for St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, 
 I have already, in a former Part of this 
 Chapter, (Pages 158, 159) confidered the 
 Quotation brought from him, and found 
 it no more to the Purpofe for which it is 
 brought, than that from Vincentiits, or anv 
 
 of 
 
( ^-7 ) 
 of' the reft, and therefore fliall not weary 
 the Reader, or myfclf, on this Article. 
 
 Only, as I have on other Occafions ta- 
 ken the Liberty to reprove the Author of 
 the Short ejt Way for fome Inflances of un- 
 fair Dealing, I think it is a JufHce I owe 
 him in this Place, to commend his Virtue, 
 and Ingenuity, in not fuffering his Zeal to 
 miflead him to the copying another Paftagc 
 from the fame St. Cyril^ which (had it been 
 a true one) would have fpoke more home, 
 and to the Point, than all the eight hither- 
 to produced. 
 
 The Paffage I mean, is (in the 13th 
 Century) urged by St. Thomas Aquinas, in 
 his Catena upon St. Matthew, and on his 
 Credit, is alledged by Urban IV. for the 
 the fame Purpofe, viz. " We muft remain 
 *' as Members in our Head, in the apojio- 
 <« lick Throne of the Roman Bifhops, from 
 " whom we ought to requcft whatfoevcr is 
 '* neceflary to be believed and held, having 
 " a particular Rcfpe6l for him,- — to whom 
 *« all the Faithful are obliged (by divine 
 <' Right) to be fubjecir 
 
 This, if it were really St. Cyr/V's, would 
 bid as fair to prove the Infallibility and u- 
 niverfal Paftorftiip of the Bifhop of Rome, 
 as the Opinion of any one Author fo late 
 as the 5th Century ; but, unfortunately for 
 Ff2 tlic 
 
( 228 ) 
 
 the Caufe, the moft accurate Criticks, even 
 of the Roman Communion, acknowledge 
 It to be falfe, feigned, and forged. — The 
 celebrated Du Tin ^ fays, '' That St. Tho- 
 " mas quotes the Works of the Fathers 
 *' with great Careleflnefs and little Judg- 
 " ment -—-that it appears he had never feen 
 <' St. Cyril's ThefauruSy becaufe he quotes 
 (for this very PafTage) the fecond Book of 
 " that Work, which was never divided in^ 
 ^' to Books." — That it could not pofTibly 
 *' enter into the Thefaurus of St. Cyril, which 
 *' is nothing but a Contexture of Texts 
 ^^ and Arguments upon the Trinity; that 
 ^' none of all the Greek or Latin Fathers 
 '*' ever fpoke thus, or ever flattered the BI- 
 ^' fhop of Rome at this Rate.'' — And upon 
 the whole, he pronounces the Quotation 
 fuppofititious, — And as fuch I leave it. 
 
 Having thus proved (by the cleareft and 
 (trongeft Evidence) that the holy Fathers 
 of the Chriflian Church, in the early Ages, 
 and down even to the jth Century, neither 
 taught, believed, or fancied any Infallibili' 
 />', or univerfal JurifdiBion, to be lodged in 
 the Church of Rome, I muft flop here, as 
 my Author's Argument goes no farther; o- 
 
 thcrwife 
 
 ^ Du Pin, vol. 4, p. 29, 
 
( 229 ) 
 
 therwife it had not been difRcult to have 
 carried on the Evidence to later Ages. 
 
 In thePeriod I have been treating of, even 
 theBifhops of jff o;;/f themfelves, feem not to 
 have known any thing (for ought appears) 
 of this high Privilege of abfolute Immunity 
 from Error, claimed by their Succeflbrs in 
 later Times. It is true, that in the Begin- 
 ning of the 5th Century, Pope Innocent I. 
 begun to claim a moreextenfive Jurifdi6lion, 
 and to talk in a higher Strain, (not of his In- 
 fallibility indeed, but) '* of the Privileges of 
 " the aportolickSee of St. Teter, the Prince 
 *' of the Apoftles," than his humbler Prcde- 
 ceffors had done ; and fome of his Succef- 
 fors in that See followed his Example ; 
 but with how little Succefs they dealt at 
 firft, we have already fcen, and that their 
 Fellow Bifhops of thofe Times oppofed 
 their bold Pretenflons, and depifed their 
 blunt Cenfures. 
 
 It muft indeed be owned, that In the 
 later and darker Ages, their Jurifdi6tion be- 
 came more extended, and their high Claims 
 farther fubmitted to, not for any Evidence 
 of Truth, and Right, or any Weight of 
 Argument brought to fupport them, but by 
 Force of Power, and Fetches of Policy : 
 Yet even in thofe word Ages, there was 
 ftill an Oppofition made to their Encroach- 
 ments 
 
( 230 ) 
 ments and Ufurpations, in fome one Part 
 or other of the catholick Church of Chrift. 
 
 If I was not fore-clofed by thefe G entle- 
 mens" {hutting up their Argument at the 
 5th Century, or, if it would not run this 
 little Effay to undue Length, it wereeafyto 
 fhew this by a Variety of Inftances. E.G. 
 
 That in the 6th Age, Vigilius^ Bifhop of 
 Rome, changed his Opinion of the Books of 
 Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, (well known 
 by the Name of the three Chapters^ relat- 
 ing to the Neftorian Herejy, no lefs than 
 three or four Times, and was as often op- 
 pofed and excommunicated by the Eaftern 
 and Weftern Churches in their Turns, 
 which was not ufing him as Head of the 
 whole Church, or as infallible ^ 
 
 That in the 7th Age, Tdonorius then Bi- 
 ITiop of Rome, was condemned by the 6th 
 general Council, (and that Sentence ratified 
 by the 7th and 8th Councils) " for contra- 
 " dieting the apoftolical Doftrine, and the 
 <« Definitions of Councils, and for follow- 
 
 " ino- the falfe Doctrines of Hcreticks." 
 
 Nay his own SuccefTor Leo II. anathema- 
 tizes him as a Betrayer of the catholick Faith, 
 
 That in the 8th Age, Adrian, Bifliop of 
 Rome, approved the 2d Council of Nice, 
 
 which 
 
 b facund. lib. 4. cap. 3. & nov. colled, cone. p. 155 1. 
 Du Pin, vol. 6. & Id. hiit. of 8th Gent. 
 
( 231 ) 
 which enabled the Worfliip of Images, hut 
 
 was therein oppofed by the Weltern Bi- 
 
 fhops, as being contrary to Faith , which 
 
 they could not have done, had they confi- 
 
 4<9red him as the Head and Center of ea- 
 
 tnolick Communion. 
 
 That in the ^^thAge, happened the great 
 Breach (never yet made up) between the 
 Patriarchs of Rome and Conjlantlfiople: This 
 Difference turned chiefly upon two Points, 
 viz. Jurildi(5lion, and the Addition to the 
 Greed made by the Wcftern Church. By 
 this unhappy Difpute, the whole Church 
 was fplit, four Patriarchs againll: one, fo 
 that the Balance ftill lies againfl: Rome, 
 Pope Nicolas I. employed the bed: Pens 
 they had, to defend the Latins againft the 
 Greeks : One of thefe was Bertram Ra- 
 tramnusy a very learned Monk of Corbj, 
 and it is obfervable in him, that " he fup- 
 " pofes both Churches (Eaftern and Welt- 
 " llern) to be ftill Parts of the cathollck 
 *' Church ; and he often diftingulflics the 
 " Latin Church, or the whole Roman Com- 
 " munion, from the catholick Church, which 
 " (he fays) was extended from the Eaft to 
 " the Weft, from the North to the South. 
 
 That in the nth Age, this Qiiarrel was 
 carried on with great Heat and Violence, 
 in the Time of Leo IX. of Ro?nCj and Mi- 
 chael 
 
( 232 ) 
 
 chaelCeruldrius of Con/iantindple.-'''''^Thty 
 excommunicated one another, and their re- 
 
 fpedive Churches hinc inde, And yet, 
 
 in the Bifliop of Romes Anathema againft 
 the Greeks^ one of the Reafons afligned ^ 
 *' that the Greeks^ like the Donatijis^ con- 
 *^ fined the catholick Church to them- 
 felves." 
 
 That in the 13 th Age, Innocent 111. 
 (the Pope to whom King John of England 
 made his Kingdom feudatory) wrote to the 
 Greek Emperor, to bring the Greeks hack 
 to the Unity of the catholick Church : To 
 which the Patriarch of Conjlantinople re- 
 turns an Anfwer, defiring " to know what 
 " he meant by it, and how he could call 
 '' the Roman Church, the whole catholick 
 " Church, fince Chriftians made but one 
 " Flock under their Jeveral Tajiors^ Chrijl 
 " himfelf being Head over all,'* • ^ 
 
 That in the 15th Age, -the Cardincrl 
 Beffariony (in the Council of Florence) 
 difputing about the Authority of the li^?nan 
 Church, in making an Addition to the 
 Creed, fays, " that how great foever the 
 *< Power of the Roman Church be, he 
 *' grants it is lefs than that of a general 
 *< Council, or of the catholick Church ^" 
 
 In 
 
 c Con. Florent. SefT. 9, 
 
^ ( 233 ) 
 
 In the fame Age, the Coitncil of Coif- 
 Jlance charged Pope ^ohn XXII. " with 
 " frequent pertinacious Denials of the Jm- 
 
 " mortaHty of the Soul." It is true, 
 
 Bellarmine fays this was not proved againft 
 him, but only fufpe6led, becaufc of the 
 Diflblutenefs of his Life. — This does not 
 mend the Matter much, for it plainly ac- 
 knowledges a miftakcn Council, and a very 
 vicious Pope. 
 
 The fame Council of ConflancCy in their 
 fourth SelTion, declare, " That a general 
 " Council reprefents the catholick Church, 
 " and hath its Power immediately from 
 " Chrifl, and that in Matters of Faith, 
 " Unity of the Church, and Reformation, 
 " all Perfons, even Popes themfclves, arc 
 " bound to fubmit to it." 
 
 This Narrative might be brought a little 
 farther down, but I avoid liere to tread up- 
 on the Toes of the Council of Trent, tho' 
 I may poffibly take a View of it afterwards. 
 At prefent I fliall only obferve, that this 
 Do(5trine of the Council of Conjlance was 
 confirmed by the Council of Bujdy and is 
 ftill maintained by the Clergy of France^ 
 as appears by their Declaration in 1682. 
 
 I beg the Reader's Pardon for having 
 
 gone.fo far beyond my Line; I had feme 
 
 G g Rcafon 
 
( ^34 ) 
 
 •Reafon for it. The witty Author oi the 
 
 ShorteftWay ^ crows over poorProteftants, 
 as being utterly deftltute of Foundation, or 
 the leaft Countenance from Antiquity: " It 
 *' was for this Reafon (fays he, with his 
 " wonted Modefty and Veracity) that L«- 
 *^ ther no fboner began his pretended Re- 
 *' formation, but he declared open War a- 
 
 " gainft the Fathers. For he could not 
 
 " but be againft Antiquity^ when Antiqiii^ 
 ^^ ty was againft him/' And I have long 
 known it a Calumny very common in the 
 Mouths of Popifh Miffionaries, " that we 
 '* have no Antiquity on our Side in thi^ 
 *' Queftion, nor any Author of Learning 
 *' or Chara(5ler, but fihce the Time of L«- 
 •' therT 1 thought therefore it was in- 
 cumbent on me, and not at all from the Pur- 
 pofs of my Argument, thus briefly to de- 
 duce the Senfe of the Chriftian Churchy 
 from the apoftolick Age downward, almoft 
 to our own, and that colle6led not merely 
 from the Writings, or uncertain Sayings of 
 particular Men, but from the publick, fo- 
 Icmn and undoubted A6ls of the Church. 
 
 I will now clofe tHs Chapter (which hasi 
 run to more Length than I intended) with 
 the Words of one of our learned Adver- 
 
 faries, 
 
 » p. 40. 39. 
 
C -35 ) 
 
 vemries, the Author of the Shortcfl Wry^ 
 
 &c. " And now (fays he ^) I leave it to 
 " the Judgment of any impartial Reader, 
 ** whether the Fathers I have quoted were 
 *' Tt^otejiants or Tapijls in their Principle, 
 
 ^' relating to the Matter under Debate; 
 
 " and, whether the primitive Church did 
 *' not underftand the Promifes of Chrift, 
 *' which are the fole Foundation of her In- 
 *' fallibility, in the fame Senfe as Roiiian 
 " Catholicksdo now?"— So fay I too; and 
 do very chearfully make the fame Refe- 
 rence to the Judgment of the candid, un- 
 biaffed Reader, when (with Attention, and 
 without Prejudice) he has read what this 
 Gentleman and I have written on the Sub- 
 jeft ; earneftly begging of God to guide 
 him (by his holy Spirit) into the Know- 
 ledge and Confeffion of the Truth, on 
 which Side foever of the Queftion he finds 
 It''. 
 
 Gg2 CHAP. 
 
 b Part I. p. 49- . , ^ . ... 
 
 c Ifa. i. 21. Du Pin, vol.4, p. 29. Facund. lib. 4. 
 cap. 3. Nov. collea. cone. p. 1551. Du Pin, vol. 6. ani 
 Hid. of the 8th Cent. Con. Yet. & Florcni. fcir. 9. Short. 
 
 Way^ Part i. p. 40. 39. 
 
( 236 ) 
 C H A P. V. 
 
 In which our Author s Argument from 
 Councils^ iind the conjlcint TPraclice of 
 the Churchy in condemning and anathe- 
 7natizing Herefies^ at their frjl Rife^ 
 is examined', and his Parallel between 
 ^ rot eft ants and ancient Hereticksy is 
 Jhewed to be equally fcilfi^ illogical^ and 
 ?nalicious. 
 
 TT IS common with Men, who are re- 
 -■• folved not to be convinced, to multiply 
 Words without Knowledge ^^ jufl as they 
 that are finking Jay hold on the firfl: Twig 
 that comes in their Way. Our Author, 
 fenfible (I fuppofe) that neither Scriptures 
 nor Fathers would uphold his Caftle in the 
 Air, his chimerical Fabriek of Roman In- 
 fallibility, mufl: needs try what Councils, 
 and the conitant Tractice of the Church may 
 do ; jult as a Hare, long run, comes back to 
 where fhe firft ftartcd, and is killed there. 
 
 Thus in the 15th Paragraph of the Ma- 
 nufcript, our Author fays, '' Befides the 
 ^' particular TefHmonies of the Fathers, 
 ^* fhe Sentiments of all Antiquity about the 
 
 '^ unerring 
 
 ^ Job, XXXV. i^, 
 
( -37 ;) 
 
 *' tinernng Authority of the Churchy appears 
 " by the continual TraBice of the Churchy 
 <* in condemning the different Hcrefics 
 ^* and Errors that arofe in every Age ; 
 " for they were ail condemned at their firft 
 *^ Appearance by the Church, and her 
 " Pallors, either afTembled in Coiincilsy or 
 *' without calling Councilsy they all concur- 
 " ring in their Judgment on the Matters 
 " controverted. And the Pallors inviolably 
 " maintained the Definitions which they 
 " had once made, anathematizing all thefe 
 ** who dilTented from them, without al- 
 *' low^ing them any Appeal to the Scriptures 
 *' interpreted by their own private Judg- 
 *' ment, and inferring their Decifions into 
 ** the very Creeds, or ProfefFions of Faith, 
 ** as the firfl four general Councils did. Now 
 *^ this perpetual Pra^lice of the Church, e- 
 ^' ven in all her purejl Ages^ evidently 
 *'' fpeaks the Senfe of the Church with re- 
 ** gard to her own Infallibility ; how could 
 *^ fhe otherwife oblige all to affent to her 
 *^ Dfccrees, and anathematize all Didentcrs? 
 *^ There are not wanting fpecious Pretexts 
 *' upon many Occafions to the new Here- 
 *' ticks (as in the Cafe of the ^r^;//, Mace- 
 *^ doniansy &c.) from Scripture, Fathers, and 
 *' Reafon, which, abftrading from the Au- 
 *« thoritj) of the living Tajlors of the Church, 
 
 << rendered 
 
( 238 ) 
 
 «« rendered the Controverfy obfcure and dlf- 
 « ficult." 
 
 The Drift of this whole Argument, is 
 to convince us of the abfolute Neceffity of 
 a conftant, livings infallible Judge in every 
 Age, to decide Controverfies as foon as 
 they arife, whofe Decifions fhall be impli- 
 citely fubmitted to ; confequently that we 
 owe the fame profound Refpe^l, and im- 
 plicite Submiffion to the Decrees of the 
 Council of Trent ^ confirmed by the Pope, 
 (which was the living infallible Judge in 
 the 1 6th Century) that is due to the four 
 firft general Councils, or any Council what- 
 t:ver, not excepting that at Jerufalem^ {^AHs 
 15.) for it was but infallible, and Pope 5P/- 
 «/, with his Trent Council^ claim no lower. 
 And therefore, that we Proteftants, for re- 
 fufing that implicite Submiflion to the 
 Decrees oi Trent ^ confirmed by the Pope, 
 are obftinate, incorrigible Hereticks, juflly 
 anathematized, and cut off from all the 
 Means and Hope of Salvation, unlefs we 
 fubmit to that unerring Authority. 
 
 The more diftin^lly to clear our felves 
 of the dreadful Charge brought againff us, 
 in this and the following Paragraphs of the 
 Manufcript, 1 will divide this Chapter (as 
 I have done the preceeding) into Secti- 
 ons. 
 
 §1. 
 
( ?39 ) 
 § I. Any one, looking upon this Paragraph, 
 
 and going no deeper than the Surface, would 
 expcS: our Author was to lodge the Irtfallibi- 
 lit}' hi Councils ; and if he had done that plain- 
 ly and peremptorily at firft, this Eflay had 
 been much fliorter; bccaufe he might have 
 been referred to thofe of his own Commu- 
 nion, who have appeared againft that Opi- 
 nion, by reftri^ling that Privilege to the 
 Pope, (as the Jefuits do) and yet (as they 
 are wont to fpeak) are good Catholicks 
 ftill. 
 
 The great Authority of Councils truly gene- 
 neral and free ^ is acknowledged^ that they are 
 the fupreme Court in the Church on Earth, 
 the laft Refort of ecclefiaftical Authority. 
 And if there could be no Authority without 
 Infallibility too, this Author had faid fome- 
 thing very ftrong ; but if thefe two can be 
 dilHn<n:, fo as the one may be without the 
 other, if an Authority may be fupreme, 
 without being infallible, then he has faid 
 nothing to the Purpofe: And yet it will 
 be found this is the Cafe, that every fove- 
 reign Prince in his own Dominions, and e- 
 very Bifhop in his own Diocefe, has Au- 
 thority, nay, divine and fupreme Authority, 
 and yet neither of them is infallible. 
 
 But let it be fuppofed for once, that 
 a general Council ^ is infallible^ even that 
 
 would 
 
(240) 
 
 would not ferve the Purpofe for which 
 RomanJjis claim it, as neceffary in their 
 Church, that is, as a perpetual living Judge, 
 or Decider of Controverfies. It is now 
 many hundreds of Years fince there was 
 any fuch thing in the Church, as could 
 challenge that venerable Name, any Coun- 
 cil that could be called either general or 
 free-, for the Aflembly at Trent was nei- 
 ther^ (as I may come to fhew afterwards) 
 but compofed of only a few Bifhops, fome 
 of them but titular, (without any Portion 
 of the Flock of Chrift committed to their 
 Care) and all of them the Pope's Crea* 
 tures ; fome of the greateft Bodies, even in 
 the Roman Communion, flood aloof from 
 ir, as expelling no Good to the Church 
 from that packed Synod, while the Influ- 
 ence and Pra<^ices of the Court of Ko?ne 
 upon the few Members of which it was 
 compofed, were at once too bafe to be ju-» 
 ftified, and too open to be denied ; fo that 
 it will never bear the Teft of Day Light. 
 
 And as there has been no general Coun- 
 cil thefe many Centuries paft, fo it is like- 
 ly there never will be any, unlefs the Church 
 of Rome would abate of her Pride and Pre- 
 tcnfions, and let them a(5t with Freedom, and 
 without Corruption, which is rather to be 
 wifhed than expe(5led: So that if we fhould 
 
 fuppofe 
 
( H^ ) 
 fuppofe this Infallibility to be lodged In 
 Councils, general and free, yet the Church 
 may juftly apprehend llie has in a great 
 Meafure loft It. 
 
 But ic is worthy of Notice, that the 
 Church was conftituted, the holy Scri- 
 ptures were received, many Hercfics were 
 rejected, and the Pcrfecutlons were gone 
 through, in a Courfe of three hundred 
 Years; in all which Time, there was no- 
 thing that could pretend to be called a ge- 
 neral Council, unlefs it was that one at Je- 
 riiJalem\AB:s 15.) mentioned before. 
 
 And when the Ages came. In which 
 Councils were frequent, though great E- 
 fteem and Reverence is due to the four ge- 
 neral Councils^ yet it mufl: be acknowledged, 
 that their Decifions did not extingulfh the 
 Herefies they condemned ; fo far \Vere Con- 
 troverfies from being ended by them, that 
 they broke out with Violence after them; 
 as the Ar'ian Controverfy after the Council 
 of Nice, the Neftorian after that of Ephefiis ; 
 and the Eutjchian Controverfy gave greater 
 Difturbance after the Council of Chalcedon^ 
 than before, and continued fo to do, for Ages. 
 
 I do not mean by this to infinuate that 
 general Councils have been of no Value or 
 Ufefulnefs, that is very remote from my 
 Intention ; as their Authority is great, fo 
 
 H h their 
 
( 24i ) 
 
 their Proceedings have had a powerful and 
 
 good, though not a fudden, EfFeifi:. 
 
 But then it is fit to obferve, that neither 
 the Councils themfelves, (who may be fup- 
 pofed to have beft underftood the Extent 
 of their own Author} ty^ nor they who wrote 
 in Defence of their Decrees^ (who may be 
 fuppofed well enough inclined to magnify 
 that Authority) neither of thefe, 1 fay, e- 
 ver pretended to argue for their Opinions, 
 from the Lifallibility of thofe Councils that 
 paft Decrees in Favour of them, and con- 
 demned the contrary. They do indeed 
 
 fpeak of them with jufl: Regard, as Bodies 
 of Men that were guided or aflifted by the 
 Spirit of God ; and fo do we think, not 
 only of them, but of feveral others that 
 were eminently holy and good, even of fome 
 of the Reformers^ however much defpifed, 
 and often damned they have been, by the 
 Roman Pontifs. A very grand AfTembly 
 once declared, that the Compilers of the 
 Englifh Liturgy were " guided or aflifted by 
 *' the Spirit of God /' — but we do not a- 
 fcribe Infallibility to them, and no more 
 did they. They reverenced and fubmitted 
 to thcfc Councils (as we ftill do) for the 
 Sake of their Doctrine, and its Conformi- 
 ty to the Scriptures of Truth ; but they 
 
 did 
 
( ^43 ) 
 did not believe the Dodlrinc merely for the 
 Authority of Councils. 
 
 This was evidently the Judgment of St. 
 Augujline in this Matter, as appears from 
 a Letter of his, addrcflcd '' to his holy 
 
 " Brother and Co-presbyter Jerome ': 
 
 «' I have learned (fays he) to give this Ho- 
 " nour and Reverence to the Books of fa- 
 *' cred Scripture, (which we call canonical) 
 " to believe there is no Error in them ; but 
 " as for others, (how learned or godly fo- 
 " ever they be) I fo read them, that I do 
 *' not believe any thing to be true, bccaufe 
 " they thought fo, but becaufc (by the 
 " Scriptures, or by good Reafon and Ar- 
 " gument) they proved it to be fo." 
 
 But, to give our Author's Argument its 
 utmofl Scope, let it be fuppofcd once more, 
 that general Councils were infallible^ and that 
 their Decrees were to be received folely up- 
 on Account of their Authority, and with- 
 out any other Voucher, yet, mufl we not 
 examine what thefe Decrees arc? Mull we 
 not examine, whether the Councils, which 
 formed thefe Definitions and Decrees, were 
 general or not? If this Privilege is denied 
 us, then we muft fuftain the Councils at 
 Sirmiunh at Rimini, and the fecond of 
 H h 2 Ephcjus ; 
 
 « Aug. ad Hieron. Ep. 19. torn. :, 
 
Uphefus ; and by this Means, Arianijm:, or 
 Semi-arianifm^ and Eiitychianljm^ muft be 
 implicitely received. But if this Privilege 
 is granted us, then (I am afraid) there is 
 more Work found, (and more Authority 
 too) for that condemned Faculty oi private 
 Judgment, than this Gentleman would in- 
 cline to allow. 
 
 Our learned Author, no Doubt, forefaw 
 thefe Difficulties in his Way, and that they 
 were unconquerable, had he ftuck by the 
 Councils {imply ; and therefore he wifely 
 provides a 'Salvo, and keeps the Key of 
 "a Back-door to get out at, by faying " the 
 ^' Herefies were all condemned by the 
 *' Church and her Paftors, either ajfembled 
 ^' in Councils, or without callin'z Councils,'^- 
 So here we are juft where we were be- 
 fore. Infallibility he mull: have, but where, 
 he is loth to tell us. Somewhere it muft be, 
 if it be at all, either in Councils, or out 
 of Councils, either in the Church col- 
 lecS:Ive, or diftributive ; and if he would be- 
 lieve fome of his own Communion, (who 
 think themfelves as wife, learned, and ortho- 
 dox as he is) it is in none of all thefe, but 
 
 in the Pope This fhuiHing backward 
 
 and forward, is really turning the Argu- 
 ment into a Farce, fomewhat like Chil- 
 dren s Play at Bo-peep, 
 
 But 
 
But I am at a lofs to find out the Mean- 
 ing of this, without calling of Councils. If 
 he intends to lodge this Privilege in the 
 Church difufive, fo as to make the Paftors 
 infallible in their fingle Capacities, this is 
 more than was ever yet contended for, un- 
 lefs it be by ^takers, or fuch Pretenders to 
 immediate Impulfes of the Spirit. 1 fup- 
 pofe therefore, that he means only the u- 
 nited Judgment of the whole Body of the 
 Paftors, for fo he feems to explain it, they 
 all concurring in their Judgment on the Mat^ 
 ters controverted. 
 
 Thus, after hard Labour, the Mountain 
 has brought forth a Moufc. Thus our Au- 
 thor has with much Pains placed Things 
 at lafl:, where we always chofc to have them, 
 and have endeavoured to keep them, that 
 is, in the conftant cathohck Pra(^icc, and 
 Doctrine of the Church in all Ages and 
 Places, which is Vincentius's Rule mention- 
 ed before. 
 
 To this excellent Rule ^'c hold, and are 
 content to be tried by it, in all Matters con- 
 troverted between the Church of Rome and 
 us: But if that Church had not been fenfi- 
 ble, that her new Articles would never ibnd 
 this Teft, it is probable fo much Noife 
 had not been made about her In fallibility^ 
 'jvhich was only dcvifcd in later Times, to 
 
 fupport 
 
( H6 ) _ 
 fupport a crazy tottering Fabrick, not to be 
 
 kept up by other Means.- Had Scripture, 
 
 Antiquity or Reafon, furnifhed Supports to 
 their new Dodrines, they wanted not Men 
 of Learning, Induftry and Zeal to have found 
 
 out and applied them. But deftitute of 
 
 other Props, they devifed this' weighty But- 
 trefs, (as is done for other Buildings upon 
 Sand, where they dare not go to the Foun- 
 dation) and when it fails (as it feems decli- 
 ning faft) it will add to the Rubbifh, and 
 great will the Ruin be. 
 
 Our Author goes on to acquaint us, that 
 " this was the perpetual Practice of the 
 ^' Church, even in all the purejl Jlges'' — 
 Pureft Ages! I am afraid the Gentleman 
 has been flumbcring, or this Expreffion had 
 been more guarded.-;; — Hcvier himfelf nods 
 
 fometimes. For if his Church is equally 
 
 infallible in ail Ages, fhe mufl- be equally 
 pure in all Ages too. 
 
 However he goes on to tell his Catechu- 
 men^ that " this perpetual Practice evident- 
 '' ly fpeaks the Scnfe of the Church, with 
 
 " regard to her own Infallibility^' No 
 
 fuch Thing; it only fpeaks her Senfe, with 
 regard to her own Authority ; and it is al- 
 ready fhevved, that thefeare diftin^l Things: 
 For if InfaUibility and Authority are con- 
 vertible Terms, and mean the fame Thing, 
 
 then 
 
( 247 
 
 then every Church upon fiarth Is as infal- 
 lible as the Roman^ becaufc every Church 
 has Authority ; and it is the perpetual Pra- 
 61:ice of all Churches, to exclude from their 
 Communion, fuch as v^ill not come up to 
 their Terms. 
 
 Well, but (fays our Author) ^< If the 
 " Church was not infallible, how could flie 
 " otherwife oblige all to aflent to her Dc- 
 *' crees, and anathematize all Di fj enter s.''— 
 Here indeed he has hit the Mark, and drove 
 the Nail to the Head ; for it muft be owned 
 that if a Church's Infallibility was to be 
 found out by the Number of her Anathe- 
 mas, the Church of Rome would have ftrong- 
 er Pretenfions to it, than any other Church 
 upon Earth has, or ever had. She is fo li- 
 beral of her CiirfingSy and difpenfes them 
 with fo open and undiftinguifhing a Hand, 
 that very often, (once a Year at lealt) her 
 own Sons come in for a Share of her Ma- 
 ledictions, with thofe that arc without; and 
 if this Gentleman would but confider feri- 
 oufly the bulla cosn^s Domini^ (which is with 
 much Ceremony pronounced from St. y^- 
 ter% Church every Muunday Thur/hy) he 
 might poffibly find himfclf, as well as the 
 great Body of the Gallican Church, (thofc 
 hceretici tolerati^ comprehended in it. 
 
 ]t would not be unufcful to flicw, how 
 
 much 
 
( 248 ) 
 
 much the Church of Rome has improved in 
 curfing, by dating a Comparifon between 
 th.cAnathe?nas of the primitive Church, and 
 their many diftincl, particular Curfes, and 
 direful Imprecations, in later Times ^. 
 But as this would afford no Entertainment 
 to the good natured Chriftian Reader, and 
 as this Paper runs into Length, I forbear 
 it. 
 
 I fliall only obferve, that this Argument 
 from the Church's Anathemas^ proceeds in 
 the fame Manner with the reft, that is, by 
 jumbling Authority and Infallibility together. 
 Let thefe be kept diftinft, (as they ought) 
 and the Cafe is quite clear. 
 
 Every Bifhop, nay any Prieft (by the 
 Authority of his Bifhop) excommunicates 
 the obftinate and incorrigible ; but is every 
 Bifhop therefore infallible \ They are in the 
 right indeed, when they infli6l this higheft 
 of the Church's Cenfures juftly; but there 
 is an Odds between being ailiially rights and 
 infallibly Jo, 
 
 Heretical Councils (whereof fome are al- 
 ready mentioned) obtruded their Definitions 
 and Decrees upon the World, they profcri- 
 
 bed and anathematized all Diffenters. -I 
 
 hope our Author will not fay, they were 
 
 there- 
 
 *> Vid. text. Ro,ffenf.apudSpelman,mglofraria. verb. tfxf^/«- 
 mumcatio. 
 
( H9 ) 
 therefore infallible; and if they were not, 
 
 it is plain that Infallibility is not to be in- 
 ferred from Anathemas ; nor need we ftand 
 in awe of the Trent Council on that Ac- 
 count. 
 
 , § II. Having by this Analyfis of our 
 Author's Argument from Councils, and the 
 general Pra6tice of the Church, fhewed plain- 
 ly, that there is no Solidity, or Strength in 
 it, I might Hop here; but as I have taken 
 the Liberty to affirm of the Trentine Cottn- 
 aly that it was neither general, nor free, nor 
 has the fmallefl: Claim to the Refpedl and 
 Submiliion due to the early Councils, it is 
 fit I give fome Account of the Grounds and 
 Reafons of fo bold a Charge, which (1 fore- 
 fee) will give Offence to them who are un- 
 acquainted with its Hiftory, and yet have 
 been long accuftomed to think of it with 
 great Reverence. 
 
 This I intend to do, by ftating a Com- 
 parifon (where indeed there is no Parallel) 
 between it and the four general Councils, to 
 which mod of Proteftants fubmit, and that 
 in the following Particulars, for the Truth 
 whereof I appeal to the ancient ccclcfiaftical 
 Hiftorians, Eu/ebius, Socrates, Theocl.rct, £- 
 vagrius, Rujfiniis, Zonaras, and to the A(51s 
 of the Councils themfelves, fo far as the 
 1 i four 
 
( ^5^ ) 
 four general Ones arc. concerned; and for 
 
 that of Trent^ to Dr. Du Tins Account, 
 
 Father Taitlo^ Hiftory, and William Ran- 
 
 chin (a learned Lawyer at Montpelier^ his 
 
 Review of it; two of them French^ the o- 
 
 ther an Italian^ and all three of the Roman 
 
 Communion ; fo that their Evidence cannot 
 
 well be controverted by our Advcrfaries. 
 
 i/?, The general Councils were called by 
 the Edicts of them who had (and who alone 
 had) Authority to convocate to one Place 
 ecclefiaftical Perfons from all Parts of the 
 Chriftian Church, at leaft from all Parts of 
 It within the Bounds of xh^ Roman Empire, 
 which was then of very great Extent, that 
 IS, by the Authority of the Roman Emperors. ' 
 Thus the firft great Council at Nice in Bi- 
 thynia, met in virtue of an Edi61: of the Em-^ 
 peror Conflantiiie ; the fecond at Conjlanti" 
 nople by Order of Theodofius) the third at 
 Ephejiis was called by Theodofius the young- 
 er, and Valentinian ; and the fcferth at Chal- 
 cedon in Bithynia by Valentinian and Mar- 
 cian, . 
 
 Belkrmine, and other Advocates for the 
 papal Supremacy, would have us believe, 
 that thefe Councils were called at the De- 
 Jire, or with the Confent of the Bijhops of 
 Rome: If by Defire they mean no more 
 than Intreaties, or humble Requefts to the 
 
 EmperorSj 
 
( 251 ) 
 
 Emperors, to convocatc thcfc Councils, it 
 may be true, for fcvcral other Bifhops re- 
 quefted, or defired the fame Thing; but if 
 by Dcfire^ they would infinuate Authority^ 
 it is not fo. Thus it is alfo with refpefl to 
 their Confcnt-, if by Conjent they mean on- 
 ly their Obedience to the Imperial Ediv.^, 
 every Bifliop, who in Perfon or by Proxy 
 affifted in the Council, may be faid to have 
 confented ; but if they mean fuch a Confent 
 of the ^ope as was necejfary to the calling or 
 holding of theje Councils, for this there is 
 no Foundation, or Shadow of Proof. 
 
 Bellartnine and others who have wTittcn 
 on that Side, have taken great Pains to find 
 Evidence of this, and have not fcrupled to 
 go the Lengths, even of Interpolation, and 
 Forgery, for that Purpofe ^ But all their 
 Induftry and Art will not do: The ancient 
 Hiftprians, and the A(5ls of thofe Councils 
 themfelves, aflure us of the contrary, and 
 we confidoi: them as the beO Vouchers. 
 
 Thus Eufebius '^ fays, " That the Empc- 
 " ror feeing fome Troubles in the Church, 
 " called an Oecumenical Council of Bifhops 
 " from all Parts to meet at Nice^ a City 
 " in Bithynia ; and that they did haften thi- 
 ^' ther with all imaginable Alacrity, accord- 
 I i 2 ing 
 
 c Vld. Ranchln's Review,!. 3. c. I. p. 1 39 ^v. 
 d Eufeb. d€ viu Conlbiu. 1. 3. c. 6. 
 
<( 
 
 ( 252 ) 
 *^ ing to the Emperor s Order'' Thus 
 T^heodoret ^, fpeaking oiTbeodoJius^ fays " that 
 <« being come to the Empire, he refolved 
 " (above all Things) to provide for the U- 
 nity of the Church, and to that End com- 
 manded all Bifhops, of what Diocefs fuver^ 
 ^^ to repair to Conftantinople.'- This is con- 
 firmed by a Letter from that Council to the 
 fame Emperor, wherein they lay, " fince the 
 " Time bf our allembling at Confianiinople^ 
 f^ by your Command ^." 
 
 Thus Evagrius 8 tells us, " That the 
 " third general Council was conveened at 
 <« Ephejhs, by the Authority of Theodofius 
 " the younger, who at that Time govern- 
 *' ed the Eaftern Empire." Socrates fays fo 
 too; and the Council itfelf fays no Icfs, on- 
 ly they join Valentinian (who then govern- 
 ed in the Weft) with Theodofius^ as appears 
 by a Letter of theirs to the Synod of "Tarn- 
 p hy I i a, y^hcr cm they fay ^^ they were alTem- 
 ^' bled in Council at Ephefus, by the Grace 
 " of God, and by virtue of the Edi6l of 
 *' their moft d'evout Kings ^ Lovers of Chrift, 
 *' <^c. -■ • • • • 
 
 And as for thq fourth general Council, 
 it appears from the Adls of it, that it was 
 
 con- 
 
 e Theodor. I. 5. c. 16. 
 ^ Socrat. I. 7. c. 34. 
 g Evag. J. I. c. 3. 
 
( -53 ) 
 convocated by Imperial Authority ^ ; and 
 that *^ they had met at Cbalcedon the Mc- 
 *^ tropolis of Bithyfiia, by the Decree of the 
 " moft devout and faithful Emperors, Va- 
 " lejitinian and Marciany 
 
 Thus it is evident, that the four general 
 Councils were conveened by Authority of 
 the Emperors ; and yet Pope Gregory the 
 Great did not look upon this as any Nullity 
 in them, when he faid *' he reverenced ihcrci 
 
 ^' as he did the four Gofpels/' But fincc 
 
 his Time, they have learned to fpeak other 
 
 Language, telling us, " That Councils 
 
 ** not called by the Pope are illegitimate, 
 *' baftard, void, and of no Effect. " — Not- 
 withftanding this Objeftion will ly againfl 
 fome Councils in later Ages, and fuch as 
 have by themfelves been acknowledged to 
 have been general ; even that of Con fiance 
 (in the Year 1415) was called by the Em- 
 peror Sigijmund^ not only without the Pope's 
 Confent, but againfl: his Will. 
 
 On the other hand, the Council of Trent 
 was called and held by the Jingle Authori- 
 ty of Tope Paul III. though there are fc- 
 veral good Reafons for doubting if he was 
 duly qualified, and furnifhcd with Powers 
 fufEcicnt for that Purpofe. 
 
 It 
 
 ^ A<51. 1, con. Chal. torn. x. con* 
 
It has already been fhewed in this Effay, 
 that, according to ancient Canons, the Bi- 
 fhops of Rome could claim no higher than 
 to the firft Seat amongft their Equals ; they 
 were indeed Bifhops of the Imperial City, 
 and Patriarchs of the Weft; and, allowing 
 that this Dignity gave them Title to prefide 
 in general Councils of the whole Church, (if 
 any fuch ever was) yet the Prefident had 
 no Power to afTemble a Council, nor any 
 negative Voice in it, after it was affembled ; 
 nor had any one Patriarch Jurifdiflion over 
 the reft. 
 
 Suppofing therefore that the Archbifhop 
 of Ro7ne, as Patriarch of the Weft, had 
 Power to fummon the Clergy of his own 
 ^atnarchatCy without the Concurrence of 
 the Civil Powers, to meet in Council, (which 
 is far from being certain) yet he had no 
 Authority to fummon the other Patriarchs 
 and their Clergy to attend. 
 
 Some amongft themfelves were fo fenfiblc 
 of this, that at the Beginning of the Tre?2t 
 Council, Staniflaus Orecbovius^ a zealous 
 Romaniji^ wrote to Hofius the Cardinal Le- 
 gate, and firft Prefident of the Council, 
 *' That it would greatly conduce to their 
 " Reputation andlntereft, if the Patriarchs 
 *' of Conjlantinople and Antioch were called 
 " to the Council, becaufe the Greeks and 
 
 '* Armenians 
 
( --55 ) 
 " Armenians depended upon them : And 
 *' that he could not undcrftand how the ca- 
 '* tholtck Church could be reprefented, or the 
 <« Council could be called (ecu?nenical -without 
 
 " them.'* To which the Prefidcnt an- 
 
 fwered, " That the Pope being oecumcni- 
 « cal Patriarch, a Council called by him 
 " was an oecumenical Council '^•" 
 
 A few Lines above, I infinuated fomc 
 Doubtfulnefs if ever there was a Council 
 which could truly and properly be ftilcd 
 general or (Tcumenical, as reprefenting the //;;/- 
 verfalChurch ; and the Reafon of my doubt- 
 ing was this, that a general Reprefentation 
 of the w^hole Church could never happen, 
 without firfl: fummoning provincial Coun- 
 cils in all Parts of Chriftendom, and a De- 
 legation from them of fuch Perfons as were 
 to deliver theSenfeof tJieir Conftitucnts (as 
 to Matters of Faith) in the general Coun- 
 cil ; and there is fome Reafon to quelHon 
 if this was ever done. 
 
 But, not to infift upon this, (which is, 
 I confefs, fomewhat foreign to my Argu- 
 ment) there is a very great Diifcrcncc be- 
 tween the antient Councils and the mo- 
 dern, as to this Toint of reprefenting. For 
 in the general Councils there was a Con- 
 
 Jhit 
 
 ?.Hof. opcr. p. 373» 
 
( 256 ) 
 
 fent of all the Patriarchs, and a general E-* 
 di^t or Summons for the Bifhops from all 
 Parts to meet; but, in this of Trent, four 
 ^Patriarchs, and the Bifliops under them, 
 were overlooked, and thereby excluded, and 
 the ffth fummoned the Bifhops, 6^^. un- 
 der him, to meet together, and then had 
 the Confidence to call this an holy oecume- 
 nical Council, which " (fays an accurate 
 " Writer) is juft as if, in the Time of the 
 " Heptarchy in England, the King of Mer- 
 " cia fhould call together all the States un- 
 " der him, and then ftile this Convention 
 " of them the Parliament of England^' 
 
 Thus it was in the Council of Trent; 
 the Pope cites the Weftern Bifhops, ^yc. 
 to meet at an improper Place, not all of 
 them either, but fuch as he might have 
 Confidence in, fuch as owned his Supre- 
 macy, and had taken Oaths to him; and 
 they, when met, though but in fmall Num- 
 bers, at firft not exceeding forty or fifty, 
 modeftly call themfelves an oecumenical 
 Council. And this (I fay) is extremely 
 different from the oecumenical Councils of 
 the primitive Church, and overthrows the 
 Rights of the other Patriarchs, and their 
 Clergy, as they were fettled by the general 
 Councils. So that the Cafe of being con- 
 demned as Hcrcticks by the general Coun- 
 cils, 
 
( ^57 ) 
 tils is (in this Refpca) very different from 
 that of being condemned by the little pro- 
 vincial Synod at Trent, 
 
 But there is another good Rcafon why 
 the Pope ought not to have claimed or 
 taken the Privilege of calling this Council 
 to Trent, or of prefiding in it by his Le- 
 gates when affembled, viz. " that he was a 
 " Party. 
 
 If a Caufe is brought before our Court 
 of Seflion in Scotland, wherein the Prefi- 
 dent, or any other of the Senators, is pcr- 
 fonally, or by the Intereft of his Family 
 or Relations, dirc(n:ly concerned, he imme- 
 diately leaves the Bench, and declines to 
 judge in it. And in the Glofs upon the 
 Canon Law it is faid in exprcfs Terms, 
 " that the Pope cannot be Judge and Par- 
 " ty in any Cafe whatfoever, but ought to 
 " choofe Arbitrators ^" 
 
 Now, that this was the Cafe of the Bi- 
 fhop of Ro?ne at the Time of the Council 
 of Trent, might be made appear from fe- 
 veral Confiderations. It had been the com- 
 mon Demand of Princes, and the Defirc 
 of Chriltendom for more than two hun- 
 dred Years before, to have a Reformation in 
 K k ' capite, 
 
 <" Can. 23. qujeft. 3. inter querehs. c. ne quls in propria 
 caufa, in rubro, & in nigro. CloU'. in can. couiuctuJ. 16. 
 quad. 6. 
 
( ^JS ) 
 
 capltCy ^ in membris ; and accordingly the 
 
 Cound\<:)i Con fiance^ after the Depofition of 
 Pope John XXIIL made this very wife good 
 Decree (SefT. 40.) *' That the new Pope 
 " to be next chofen, together with the Coun- 
 *' cii, before he departed from thence, /Z?^//W 
 " reform the Head of the Churchy and tl?e 
 *' Court of Rome, hi fuch Articles as had 
 '* been exhibited by the Teople and 'Nations'' 
 
 It is alfo to be remembred, that though 
 this Council was called upon a Pretence of 
 '' reftoring the Peace of the Church, and 
 «' the Extirpation of Herefles ;'* yet thefe 
 Herefies were condemned, before the Coun- 
 cil was called, by the Bull of Pope Leo X. 
 (8th of June 1520.) and by that of Pope 
 Taul ll\.{zz^o( Augujliszs-) Sothatthe 
 Cafe of Luther and otliers was already de- 
 termined, and their Fate too, had they been 
 foolifh enough to appear, as John Hus, and 
 Jerom of Trague had done at Con/lance^ a- 
 bout 150 Years before. 
 
 No V/onder then, that the Proteftants 
 (by their Declaration nSmalcald anno 1537) 
 did refufe to be concluded by this Council *, 
 *' becaufe (fay they) the Pope is not only 
 " a Party, but has already condemned our 
 «' Doclrine long before, and is thereby grown 
 
 '^ more 
 
 ' Sleidan. I. ir. 
 
( -59 ) 
 " more liable to Sufpicion ; for who cart 
 •^ doubt, what Judgment will be pafled up- 
 " on our Doctrine, in his Council, 6'r;." 
 
 But there is another Confidcration, which 
 ftill further difqualifies the Pope for calling 
 or prefiding in this Council, viz, that yip- 
 peals were entered from him^ and any Coun- 
 cil under his Influence or Direction. I will 
 not infill on thofe of Luther and other Pro- 
 teliants, 'tecaufe they may be objected to, 
 as Parties, Criminals and Hereticks ; but I 
 beg leave to mention two not liable to the 
 fame Exception. 
 
 The firfl: is that of the Archbifliop of 
 C ologne, who, {dijs 'John S lei dan, (who was at 
 the Council of Trent ^^ " refufcd the Pope 
 " for his Judge, becaufe of a long Time 
 " he had been accufed of Herefy and Ido- 
 " latry; wherefore he appealed from his 
 *< Sentence to a laivfui Council of Germany, 
 *' wherein he proteffed, that as foon as it 
 " fhould be opened, he would implead the 
 '' Pope, and profccute him accordingly." 
 
 The other is that of the Univerfity of 
 Taris, in their A^: of May 27th, 15 1?-— 
 Thefe ftrong Words are inferted, in defence 
 of their pragmatick Sanction, then attacked 
 by Pope Leo X. '' We the Redor and the 
 K k 2 \' Uni' 
 
 t johan. Sleidan. comment. 1. i3. 
 
( 26o ) 
 f« Univerfity, finding ourfelves grieved, 
 *' wronged and opprefled,— — as well for 
 ^* ourfelves, as for all others fubjc^l to our 
 ^' Univerfity, and all fuch as will take Part 
 ?* with it, do appeal from our holy Father 
 ^* the Tope ill advijed^ to a future Council 
 ^' lawfully aj/embled, in a fafe Ttace^ to 
 ^^ which we may freely and boldly go ^J^ 
 
 Notwithftanding all this, the Pope was 
 fet over the Council of Trent by the Mem- 
 bers affembled there ; though it is a Thing 
 unheard of before, that he from whom an 
 Appeal is made, fliould be Judge in the ver 
 ry Cafe of Appeal. Fpr the Do6lors of 
 the Canon, as well as of the Civil Law, 
 
 tell us, f' That the Judge from whom 
 
 ?' an Appeal is made, may be refufed in all 
 ** other Gaufes that concern the Appellant, 
 ?* till the Appeal be void '/' And this fliall 
 fufEce for the firft Argument, by which I 
 meant to fhew the Difference between an- 
 cient and modern Councils, and that this at 
 Trent was neither general nor competent. 
 
 "idly^ Another Difparity between ancient 
 and modern Councils, is the Manner of 
 proceeding in them, when afembled. I men- 
 tion this the rather, becaufe the Author of 
 
 the 
 
 ^ Fofcicul. rerura expetendarum, p. 36. 
 » yid. Ran. Review, 1. j. p. 3. p. 21, 
 
( ^6i ) 
 the Manufcript has told us In a very grave 
 folemn Way ^y " That if 1 hings be through- 
 " ly and impartially confidcrcd in this Mat- 
 ^' ter, the Proteftants have no other Plea 
 *' againft the Church, than what the ancient 
 ** Seftaries* had ; nor is it poffible for Tro- 
 ^' tcfiants to Jhew a material Difference be- 
 *' tivixt their Way of arguing againft Author 
 -*^ 7'ityy and that of ancient Sectaries , And in- 
 " deed (continues he) if the Method of Pro- 
 *< tcftants were good, it would (kreen all 
 ^' the ancient Hereticks from the Sentcn- 
 ^* ces and Anathemas of the Church pro- 
 ^« nounced againft them. This Method of 
 " Proteftants (fays he) is to fet up their 
 *« Reafon, or private Judgement, above the 
 " Authority of the whole Church of God, 
 *' contrary to what the Scriptures and Fa- 
 ^' thers clearly teach, as has been fhevved 
 
 << above, (/s^c^ 'Whether this has been 
 
 fhewed above or not, I fubmit to the pri- 
 vate Judgment of the Reader ; but I hope 
 it may be of fome Service to him, to point 
 out the Difference in way of proceeding be- 
 jtween ancient Councils, and fome modern 
 Ones. 
 
 The Strength of our Author's Argument 
 lies in this, That the ancient Hereticks 
 
 were 
 
 * 3^S. parag. id. 
 
C ^^2 ) 
 
 were deemed obftinate, for not fubmitting 
 to the Decifions of general Councils ; there- 
 fore Proteftants are obftinate Hereticks too, 
 for not fubmitting to the Decifions of the 
 Council of Trent. 
 
 To clear up this Matter, let it be confi- 
 dered, that the ancient Hereticks were con- 
 demned by that Rule of Faith ^ which the 
 Church then received, and which we Tro- 
 iejiants acknowledge , viz. the holy Scriptures, 
 But the Council of Trent (in its 4th SefTion) 
 fet up a nezu Rule of Faith, on Purpofe to 
 find fome Pretence to condemn us tor He- 
 reticks, viz. Tradition, which they declared to 
 be of equal Authority with the Scriptures, 
 dire6t;ly contrary to the Doctrine of the pri- 
 mitive Church, as, I hope, is already fhewcd. 
 And this (I humbly conceive) is one materi- 
 al Difference between the Cafe of Pro- 
 teftants, and that of ancient Hereticks, tho' 
 our learned Author thought it not poffiblc 
 to find any. 
 
 The Method of ancient general Coun- 
 cils, was to have the Books of Scripture pla- 
 ced in the middle of them upon a Table, 
 as the Rule they wcvq to judge by. Even 
 Bellarmine acknowledges, that the Council 
 of Nice drew its Conclufions out o^ Scrip- 
 ture ^ ; and Richerius a Doctor of the Sor- 
 
 bony 
 
 ^ Bellar. de concil. 1. 2. c. 12* 
 
( 26., ) 
 bon^ not only affirms this to have been their 
 •Cuftom, but tells us the Reafon of it, viz. 
 *' That the Fathers in the Councils might be 
 " admonifhed, that all Things ivere to be ex-- 
 *' amined by the Standart of the Gofpel '"." 
 
 To this let me add, that thefe ancient 
 Councils met upon very important Points, 
 the Divinity and Incarnation of our blefled 
 Saviour, and fuch eflential Articles of Faith ; 
 and for declaring and cftablifhing thcfe, they 
 needed no other Guide or Vouchers but the 
 infpired Writings. But the Cafe of Coun- 
 cils in after Ages came to be very different; 
 for when they took upon them to define 
 •other Matters, for v^hich they had no Foun- 
 dation, no Colour in Scripture, they begun 
 to go by other Rules, and then the ChrilHan 
 Church did not ihew the fame Refpefl to 
 them. 
 
 Let me give but one Inftance of this. 
 The fecond Council of Nice^ {an}io ySy\ 
 enaded the Worjhi-p of Images^ and (for 
 ought appears) was the fir ft that -went upon 
 Tradition^ which was like fetting up Dagon 
 befidc the Ark of God, which contained 
 the Teftimony : This Council, I fay, was uni- 
 verfally reje6led in the VVcftern Parts, (Rome 
 excepted^ as appears from the Council of 
 
 Franc- 
 
 « Hifl.concil. torn. I. p. 49^. 
 
( ^64 ) 
 Francfort^ from the Oppofitiori made to it 
 
 by Charles the Great, King of France^ and 
 afterwards Emperor of Germany^ and from 
 -the unexceptionable Teftimonies of Al^ 
 cuin, Hincjmrus, and others. Ahd in the 
 Eaft, Leo (firnamed the ylrmenian) Em- 
 peror there, (who was excommunicated by 
 Pope Tafchal I. and about two Years there- 
 after, that is, in 820, was murdered on 
 Chrifimas Eve) made a vigorous Oppofition 
 to the Dodtrine and Decrees of this fecond 
 Council of Nice, 
 
 This fhews evidently, that neither heo 
 In the Eaft, nor Charles the Great in the 
 Weft, nor thefe learned Men who wrote 
 on their Side of the Queftion, nor thofc 
 great Churches of France and Germany^ <^c. 
 did think themfelves fo tied up by the De- 
 finitions of Councils proceeding in fuch a 
 Manner, but that they were at full Liberty 
 to examine, and, if they found Caufe, to re- 
 je6l fuch Definitions; and accordingly they 
 all did, without any Scruple, reject that ft* 
 cond Council of Nice^ as being contrary to 
 Scripture^ at the fame Time that they paid 
 due Regard to the firft Council of Nice^ as 
 we Protcftants do. 
 
 Now, 1 beg the Favour of our learned 
 Author to fhew a material Difference be- 
 tween the Cafe of Proteftants, and that of 
 
 thefc 
 
( 26^ ) 
 ttiefe two great Emperors, and of the HU 
 Ihops which joined them in oppofing that 
 Authority, which would have impokd I- 
 mage Wortiip upon them. They rcjedcd 
 the Decrees of a Council which(thcy though t 
 in their private Judgment) had departed 
 from the true Rule, that of Scripture, and 
 this notwithftanding the Bifhop of Kof?ie 
 had declared for that Council, or (if you 
 
 will) confirmed its Decrees. ^Wc Pro- 
 
 teftants have done no more; yet they arc 
 allowed to have been good Catholicks, while 
 we are pronounced Hercticks and Sectaries. 
 This (I humbly think) feems not quite fair. 
 
 The plain Truth or this Matter is, that 
 while Councils did declare, that they in- 
 tended to make ufe of no other Rule, but 
 Scripture, and to deliver only the Senfc of 
 the catholick Church, from the Beginning, 
 a great Regard was due, and was fliewed to 
 them, and their Definitions; but when they 
 kt up another Rule, the Chriftan Church 
 had jud Reafon not to fubmit to their De- 
 crees, and therefore did it not. 
 
 And it is in vain for our Author to bring 
 his Wit, in place of Argument, or to fan- 
 cy that we are to be profelyted by only a 
 fmart Phrafe; for him to fay no more, but 
 only with a Sneer to tell us, T/mf this is 
 the Tlea of all Hercticks, is juft as if an in- 
 1^ 1 noccni 
 
( 266 ) 
 nocentPerfoh might not be allowed to plead 
 not guilty i becaufe the greateft Malefactors 
 have done the fame. 
 
 There muft be fome certain Rules, where- 
 by to judge in this Matter, and this (I think) 
 is one good Rule to fix upon, viz, that mo- 
 dern Councils proceed as the ancient ones did, 
 according to Scripture. Had the Fathers of 
 Trent proceeded upon the Plan of the gene- 
 ral Councils ; had they taken the holy Scrip- 
 tures for their Rule, and reformed what 
 was amifs in their Do^rine, Worfhip, Po- 
 lity, Difcipline and Practice by that Standard^ 
 I dare fay, we fhould have feen more of 
 real Religion, and lefs Divifion in the Chrifti- 
 an World, than (woes me) is to be feen 
 at this Day. 
 
 3^/)', Another Difparity between the ge- 
 neral Councils, and that of Trent, is in the 
 Numbers of which they were compofed, I 
 have already obferved, that thefe ancient * 
 Councils came much nearer to a Reprefen- 
 tdtion of the whole Church of Chrift, than 
 this modern one can pretend to do ; becaufe 
 to them, the Bifliops were duly called, and 
 did come from all Parts of Chriftendom, 
 and all the Patriarchs concurred: Whereas 
 in this o^ Trent there was but one Patriarch 
 concerned, and the Members of which it 
 was made up, were picked out of fuch as 
 
 were 
 
(■ ^.67 ) 
 "Were likely to be moil: obfequions to the 
 Dictates of that One; (o that it may truly 
 be faid, that though the Pope was not per- 
 fonally in the Council, yet the Council was 
 in the Pope. 
 
 But not to infill: here on the Characters, 
 Connexions and Dependencies oi' the Trent 
 Fathers, even ;;/ point of Numbers^ they were 
 too few to reprefent but the Wedern Church ; 
 and confequently they could never be faid 
 to reprefent the whole catholick Church, 
 nor be (tiled an oecumenical Council. 
 
 In their firft Se-ffion, there were but four 
 Archbifhops, twenty three Bifliops, the Am- 
 baffador of the King of the Romans, the 
 Captain of the City of Trent, five Generals 
 of Orders, and a few Doftors: In the next 
 there were five Bifliops, and three Abbots 
 more; and fo they grew in Number by De- 
 grees, but not very faft ; for in their eighth 
 Sefllon, nth March 154,7, (which was two 
 full Years, two Months, and twenty two 
 Days from its Commencement) there were 
 but forty three Bifhops, and eight Archbi- 
 fhops. And Father 'Paulo fays, '' that in 
 <' the Year 1551, (which was fix Years af- 
 ^^ ter opening the Council) for eight Months 
 ^ together that the Council laftcd, the Prc- 
 ^- ^ L 1 :i '' fidcnts 
 
( 268 ) 
 ^^ fidents and Princes being reckoned, the 
 ^' Number did not exceed lixty four "/* 
 
 'Tis true indeed, that in the 25th (which 
 vas its laft) Seflion, the 3d and 4th of De- 
 cember 1563, (about eighteen Years, all but 
 nine Days fince its firft Meeting) their Num- 
 ber was much greater, and a great deal of 
 Management was wanted, and was ufed to 
 bring it to that ; though this will never com- 
 penfate the Defedl of Numbers in the ear- 
 lier Seffions, wherein moft of their Decrees 
 were formed. 
 
 But what is all this in comparifon of the 
 general Councils ? In the firll: of Nice there 
 were three hundred and eighteen Bifhops, 
 in that of Ephejks two hundred, and in that 
 of Chalcedon fix hundred. The firft at Con- 
 ftantinople was indeed the thinned:, there be^ 
 ing but one hundred and fifty Bifhops in 
 it ; the Reafon whereof was, that there was 
 another Council afTembled in Rome at the 
 fame Tinie. 
 
 But befides the Paucity of their Numbers, 
 there is another Thing which difqualiiies 
 them for reprejenting^ viz. That even the 
 few there, were not brought from all Parts 
 of the Church, not even of the Weftcrr? 
 Church, From the very Afts of the Coun^ 
 
 f PauJ. hifl, I. 4. p. 3 1 7f 
 
( ^(>9 ) 
 cil it appears, that the greateft Part of the 
 
 Members were either Italians or Spaniards ; 
 fo that however it might be called a Congtr^ 
 gation, a Convention, or a national Council, it 
 had not the fmalleft Pretenfion to be called 
 general^ or (what they arrogantly called it 
 themfelves) oectunenicaL Thus it feems to 
 have been confidered by the King of France^ 
 Henry II. For his Letter to the Council was 
 directed, SanHijfimis in Chrijlo Tatribits con^ 
 ventiis Tridentini, which was taken much 
 amifs by the Fathers ; the Bifhop of Orange^ 
 and the Spanip Prelates faying, that Letter 
 could not be to them, for* they were a ge- 
 neral Council, and not a Convention **. 
 
 In all the ten Seffions, under Pope Taut 
 III. (whether at Trent, or Bolognia, to which 
 Place it was tranflated) there were but two 
 of the French Nation that aflifkd, and in 
 fome of them none at all. After its Redu- 
 aion to Trent, and tJie Death of Taullll. 
 the Council broke up, from the 14th of 
 September 1547, to the ift of May 1551, 
 when it was fet on foot again, not as a new 
 Council, (though that was dcfircd) but as 
 a Continuation of the old, by the Bull of 
 Pope Julius III. under whom were holden 
 fix Seffions, and not one French Divine af- 
 
 fifting 
 
 9 Paul. hill. p. 318* 
 
( 270 ) 
 lifting in any one of them : Indeed they could 
 not be there, becaufe the King of France 
 had protefted againft the Council, and pro- 
 hibited the Ecclefiafticks of his Kingdom to 
 go thither. 
 
 In that Proteftatlon which bears Date in 
 Aiigufl 1551, he fays, " That being enga- 
 " ged in Wars, he was not bound to fend 
 *' the Bilhops of his Kingdom to the Coun- 
 «« cil of Trent, forafmuch as they could 
 << not h^iVQ, free and Jafe Accejs thither; and 
 «< becaufe the Council itfelf, from which 
 «« he was excluded againft his Will, is Jiich 
 <« as was never -reputed a general one, but 
 « rather accounted a Trlvy Council, invent- 
 « ed not out of any Defire of reforming 
 " Difcipline, and reftoring it, but for coun- 
 <« tenancing and favouring of fome Body; 
 <« and in fhort, it was fuch (he fays) that 
 << there was greater Re(pe6t had in it to pri- 
 « vateinterefts, than to publick Utility p." 
 
 And as to the later Seffions of it under 
 Pope Tius IV. the King of France, Charles 
 IX, by his Letters to his AmbalTadors, Fer- 
 riers and Tihrac, commanded them to re- 
 tire from the Council, and to caufe the Bi- 
 fhops of France to retire alfo ; and accord- 
 ingly they did retire to Venice, as appears 
 
 fron^ 
 
 p Vy . libellum de ftatu ecclef. Gallicaa. vn fchifmatc, 
 
( ^71 ) 
 from their Letter to the King, bearing Date 
 
 at Venice, 25th November 1563. So that 
 we need not wonder that all the Decrees of 
 this Council have never as yet been recei- 
 ved in France. 
 
 If I was not afraid of running this Paper 
 to undue Length, it would not be amifs to 
 tranfcribe fome of the Speeches which this 
 ylrnold Ferriers (firft Prefident of the Par- 
 liament of Taris^ made in the Council of 
 Trent, in September 1563. In one of them 
 he complains, " That the Council did not 
 *' fet about the Reformation of the Churchy 
 ^' as they ought to do. That it was not the 
 " Reformation of the Dead, orof thofe who 
 *' were to come after this, that was demand- 
 " ed: Of whom then? I will not tell you, 
 *' (fays he) but it is eafy to collc6]: it by E- 
 '' numeration. If any will reply, that there 
 «' have been certain Decrees made concern- 
 <« ing Reformation, and that by them Satif- 
 '' fa6lion is given to fuch Things as were 
 
 <« demanded. We anfwer, that they might 
 
 «' indeed afford SatisfaiHrion, if one Thing 
 " might be paid for another without Confnt of 
 <« the Creditor. That there has been a 
 *^ Buftle made about r^/c/r;/^/;/^ thofe 7'/6//7^j 
 
 " that needed not." But that Kings and 
 
 " Princes were hereby deprived of their 
 
 " Rights. That Ccnfurcs and Excom- 
 
 *' municatious 
 
( -^- ) 
 
 « munications have been denounced againft 
 « them. — That the Liberties of the GaUican 
 ^< Church have been invaded, <6^^. and there- 
 ^ fore according to the Commands which 
 " they had received from their Prince, they 
 « wereconftrained to oppofethefe Mealures 
 « in the Way they did." 
 
 And in another Oration of his, tovrards 
 the End of the fame Month, he tells them 
 plainly *' that the French Nation would nor 
 " acknowledge Tius W , for Pope, and that 
 *< according to the Command which they 
 " had received, they charged the Bifhops, 
 " and other Ecclefiafticks of France^ to re- 
 " tire themfelves, and depart from the Coun- 
 " cil: Which they did accordingly *5." 
 
 4//;/^', It is certain, that in the Inftances 
 above mentioned, there is no Refemblance 
 between the four general Councils, and the 
 Convention at Trent^ and I am unwilling to 
 carry on the Comparifon further; becaufe 
 It would be an Indignity, and great Injury 
 to the Memory of thofe holy Men, which 
 afTifted in the ancient Councils, to think 
 there were any fuch bafe Artifices, and grofs 
 Enormities amongft them, as may (with 
 Truth) be charged upon the Popes and Fa- 
 thers of Trent, 
 
 This 
 
 1 Ran. rev. 1. 1. c. 11. p. 53. & Paul. hill. 1. 7. p. 667. 
 
This lalT: Article 1 choofc to touch very 
 foftly: For, however the bringing; to LigJic 
 Works of Darknefs, and Diflionclly, or con- 
 tinuing the Remembrance of them, may be 
 the Bufinefs of an Hiftorian ; yet I am of 
 Opinion, that (unneceffarily) cxpofing to 
 Viev7 the grofTer Faults of Churchmen, of 
 what Order or Communion foever they be, 
 can do no real Service to Religion, which 
 is my great Aim. — But if any one will read 
 over the many Accounts of that Council, 
 or but the three already referred to, as given 
 by thofe of their own Communion, he will 
 find a Detection of Frauds, Artifices, Cor- 
 ruptions, and vile Things, which I forbear 
 to bring forth : I will only take the Liber- 
 ty to mention two Particulars, which ought 
 to be confidered as Nullities in that Couucil^ 
 and yet in neither of them was Satisfaction 
 obtained. 
 
 i/?, That the Privilege of propoftng any 
 Thing to the Cognizance of the Council, 
 was confined to the Pope's Legates who pre- 
 fided in it, direaly contrary to ancient Cu- 
 {tom, and to common Juftice. This Rcfo- 
 lution of theirs, that nothing (hould be mo- 
 •ved in Council, hwiproponenttbus Icgatis, was 
 
 M m 
 
( 274 ) 
 in a Letter to the Queen Mother, fays, 
 " That My Lords the Legates^ together 
 " with the Italian Bijbops which came from 
 '' Rome, made a kind of Decree, that no- 
 thing (hotild be propojed for the Fathers to 
 confult of, but by the Legates only, or 
 at lead nothing but what pleafed them ; 
 This we have feen obferved, even to the 
 /hutting up of the Council \'' 
 And if in any Debate the Majority feem- 
 cd to be of an Opinion contrary to that of 
 the Pope, and his Conclave, further Pro- 
 ceedings in that Queftion were ftopt, till the 
 Legates got Auxiliaries or Infl'ru6lions from 
 Ro7ne, how to bring a Majority on their 
 Side ; nor were their Decrees ratified, till/ 
 firft reviewed at Rome^ and returned with 
 Approbation to Trent ^ which gave Occafion 
 for a fmart Saying, common at that Time, 
 but fuch as I forbear to repeat, as it borders 
 upon Blafphemy. 
 
 Various Methods were taken to obtain 
 and preferve a Majority in the Council, in 
 the Pope's Intereft: The Bifhop of Venti- 
 miglia had fccret Orders from his Holinefs, 
 to threaten fome of the Members, and to 
 make large Promifcs to others ; and from 
 the Beginning to the End of the Council, 
 
 there 
 
 ' Paul. hid. p. 840. 
 
, ( ^75 ) 
 there were (befidcs all other Promotions) 
 about fixty Cardinals created to ftrengthcn 
 the papal Intercit, notwithOanding fome of 
 the Popes (particularly Taiil IV.) had bound 
 themfelves by an Oath (taken when ele^lcd) 
 
 not to do fo. And we are told, that when 
 
 the Article of the Kefnkucy of Bifhops was 
 likely to be carried in the Council, the Pope 
 ordered the Legates to put off that Queftion 
 for fix Months, in which Time he muftered 
 up, or created in ylpulia and Sicily^ forty 
 Bifhops^ which were hurried away to Trent ^ 
 to caft the Balance to his Side\ 
 
 Indeed if we confider the Oath enjoined 
 to be taken by all thefe who are to be pro- 
 moted to Bifhopricks, or other Cures of 
 Souls in that Communion % ^'/2. " That 
 " they acknowledge the holy catholick, a- 
 " poflolick Church, under one B'ljbop of 
 "" Rome, Vicar ofCbriJi, and fliall condant- 
 " ly hold the Faith, and Doclrinc thereof, 
 «« in regard that heing dire'clcd by the Holy 
 '' Gho/i, Jhe cannot err; and that they fhall 
 *< have in Veneration the Authority of Conn- 
 " cils^ as certain and undoubted, and fhall 
 *' not doubt of the Things once determi- 
 *' ned by them, 6^r."-~AVhen this (I fay) 
 M m 2 is 
 
 s Paul. hid. p. 74. 272. 361. 396. 4<^4- 515- 660. and 
 $25. 
 ! Id. p. 733' 
 
. ( =^76 ) 
 is confidcred, it cannot be imagined, cither 
 that the Trent Council was, or that any fu- 
 ture Council of that Kind, ever can be free, 
 unlefs Churchmen, who are Members of it, 
 were releafed from fuch Obhgation, and fet 
 loofe from fuch fcandalous Fetters. 
 
 This- being the difmal, flavifh Condition 
 of the Trent Fathers, we fliall wonder the 
 lefs at the other Nullity of that Sjnod, which 
 X promifed to mention, viz. An obftinate, 
 though very artful Denial of Jufice, by 
 which Means, the chief End for which a 
 Council was defired, was not obtained. 
 
 In mofl: Places of Europe^ or rather I 
 jiiay fay in all Parts of it, except liojne, it 
 had of a long Time been wiflied, that a 
 Council might be affembled, fuch as might 
 reform the Abufes which had crept into the 
 Church: For this Purpofe two Things were 
 chiefly infifted upon, viz. i//. That it might 
 beaflembled in a proper Place, where the De- 
 bates might be unawed and free, and the 
 Members have fafc Accefs and Regrefs ; and 
 '^.dly, Th^t they fhould begin with a Refor- 
 viation of the Head and Members^ i.e. of 
 the Pope and Court of Rome, 
 
 For the i//, — .^Henry VIIL of Eng- 
 land^ who had written againft Luther, and 
 whom the Pope Leo X. had complimented 
 with the Title of Defender of the Faith ^ 
 
 the 
 
( -77 ) 
 the Princes of Germany met at Smalcahi^ 
 in the Year 1537, the Kings of France and 
 Emperors of Germany, at fcvcral 7 imcs Jiad 
 all infirted, that the Council ihoiild not be 
 held in Itafj>, nor in any Place where the 
 Pope had the chief Command. 
 
 They remembrcd that the Fathers in the 
 2d Council of jPZ/J, had abfolutcly rcfufcd 
 to obey the Command of Pope Julius II. 
 for allcmbling them at Rome, or any City 
 fo much under his Jurifdi(5tion, where he 
 had Forts, Guards, Garrifons, 6r. and that 
 there wanted not AfTafTins which might be 
 employed by the Way, telling his Holinefs 
 in plain Terms, " That they looked upon 
 '' the Lateran and fuch Places, as very dan- 
 " gerons for thetn to meet in, and that they 
 " could not rely upon his Tromifes of J life 
 '' ConduB,'^ 
 
 Thcfe Princes and States had not forgot 
 the hard Fate of John Hus, and Jcro?n of 
 Trague, and that the Decree of the Coun- 
 cil of Conftance was ftill in Force, viz, " that 
 '' bad Promifes muft be broken, and a 
 <' Courfe taken with Hereticks, notwith- 
 •< ftanding the fafe Condu61: granted by the 
 " Emperor and other Kings, and that fome 
 ^' Means might alfo be found to wave that 
 '« which had been promifed by the Coun- 
 ^* cil, fi^c." Upon thefe and other Accounts, 
 
 they 
 
( 278 ) 
 ,thcy all protefted that the Council fliould 
 not be aflembled in any Place of Italy. 
 
 Q.dly^ As for the other Particular, the Re- 
 formation of the Tope and Court of Rome, I 
 liave already given fome Hints, how much 
 that was wanted, and how often and earneft- 
 ly it was defired; but that feems never to have 
 been intended by the Court of Rome. Du Tin 
 fays ", " That when the Council, in its (e- 
 *' cond Seflion, had refolved to handle the 
 «' Points of Do6lrine and Reformation both 
 *' at the fame Time, the Pope wrote to the 
 ** Legates, that he was not pleafed with their 
 ** confenting to treat of the Reformation^ and 
 *' ordered them to defer the Titblication of 
 «' that Decree!' 
 
 But if the Reader inclines to be further 
 fatisfied, let him read the lnftru6lions gi- 
 ven to the Imperial and French Ambaffadors, 
 by Ferdinand I. and Charles IX. and the 
 Attempts which (in Virtue of thefe Inftru- 
 6tions) were made in the Council for regu- 
 lating the Number of Cardinals, and of re- 
 ligious Orders, Houfes and Holidays, and 
 for reforming Abufes in the Matter of Dlf- 
 penfations, Indulgences, Exemptions, Re- 
 fervations, Interdictions, Excommunications, 
 ^Y. and for reftoring the Cup in the Eu- 
 
 charill, 
 
 o Compend. hid. vol. 4. p. 75< 
 
( '^79 ) 
 charlft, Marriage of Priefts, Worfhip in 
 
 a known Tongue, with many other De- 
 mands of Reformation, he will fee (with 
 Regret) how little was granted, of a great 
 deal that was defired and wanted. 
 
 And as for the firft and principal Thing 
 wanted, the Reformation of the Head, the 
 Trent Fathers were fo far from attempting 
 it, that they did the direct contrary: Their 
 Refpev5l for his Holinefs was fiich, that in- 
 ftead of touching the Hem of his Garment 
 by any Retrenchment, they fet him higher 
 than other Councils had done; nay they (in 
 efFe<5l) fet him above Councils^ by referring 
 to him not only the Ratification of their 
 Decrees, but the Explanation and fupplying 
 the Defeds of them "", And accordingly, 
 when Pope Tins IV. confirmed thefe De- 
 crees, he thanked the Prelates for the Re- 
 fpe6t and Tendernefs they had for him, fay- 
 ing, " That if he had been to make Rules 
 " for reforming himfelf, he would have been 
 " more fevere than they had becn>." And 
 yet, if we may believe their own Hiftorians, 
 he needed Reformation as much as any o- 
 ther Churchman could do: For they give us 
 to underftand, that he was fu(jped:cd of Si- 
 mony, 
 
 X SefT. ult. i. e. 25. & Paul. hid. p. 8i7- 
 y Ran. rev. p. 6$, 
 
C 280 ) 
 
 mony, in his Advancement to St. Teter'^ 
 Chair, and that he had put to death in Pri- 
 fon the Cardinal Caraffa, and his Brother the 
 Prince de Galliano (Nephews of Pope "Taut 
 IV.) to prevent the Detection of that Si- 
 mony 2. 
 
 It was this holy Father, who brought to 
 a Conclufion this/^wo/zj- Council, which had 
 been thrice conveened, and had had twenty 
 five Seflions in the Space of eighteen Years, (a 
 large Time for Management) being conti- 
 nued from 1545 to 1563, under the Ponti- 
 ficate of five Popes, viz, Taul III. Julius 
 III. Marcellus II. Taul IV. and Tius IV. 
 
 I have avoided to infift upon the Squab- 
 bles about Precedency which happened at 
 Trent, not only among fecular Perfons 
 (Princes and AmbaiTadors) but even a- 
 mong the Prelates (a Thing very indecent, 
 repugnant to the Spirit of the Gofpel, and 
 the Humility of true Churchmen) with 
 many other Incidents there, all tending 
 to difcredit the A<5]:s, and lefTen the Au- 
 thority of that Council ; of which I fhall 
 give no Character, but only tranfcribe a 
 very fhort one, given by a learned Writer, 
 and Lawyer of the Roman Communion, 
 viz. ^' The Iniquity and Injujiice of this 
 
 " Council^ 
 
 I Vid. Morcr. did. & Paul.hlft. p. 628. 
 
( ^8I ) 
 
 '^* Council, IS fuch that even good Catholicks 
 ^* themfelves do abhor it\" 
 
 But that the Reader may judge of tlie O- 
 puiion which Men had of the Roman Pon- 
 tiffs about that Time, I beg leave to lay 
 before him a Parallel, or rather an Antithe-- 
 (is between our Lord Jefus Chriji, the true 
 Head of his univerfal Church, and his pre^ 
 tended Vicar General upon Earth, which I 
 have tranfcribed from the fame learned 
 Gentleman. 
 
 1. Chrift rejefted the Kingdom of this 
 World. His Vicar grafps at it. 
 
 2. Chrift refufed a Kingdom when offer- 
 ed to him. His Vicar will needs have 
 
 one, which is denied him. 
 
 3. Chrift refufed to be made a fccular 
 
 Judge. His Vicar takes upon him to 
 
 judge the Emperor. 
 
 4. Chrift fubmitted himfelf to the Em- 
 peror's Deputy. His Vicar prefers him- 
 felf to the Emperor himfelf, and to all the 
 
 World. ^ .13. 
 
 5. Chrift reproved thofe who dcfircd rri- 
 
 j^ac'y. His Vicar contends for it, againft 
 
 the whole Church. 
 
 6 Chrift upon "T aim-Sunday was mount- 
 ed on an Afs. His Vicar is not content 
 
 N n -^vuh 
 
 • Ran. review, p. 388, 
 
( 282 y 
 
 with a (lately Cavalry, unlefs the Emperor 
 hold his right Stirrup. 
 
 7. Chrift united the difagreeing Jews^ 
 and all other Nations into one fpiritual 
 
 Kingdom. ^His Vicar has often raifed 
 
 Wars, and Seditions amongft the Germans^ 
 and other Nations, when they were at U- 
 nity. 
 
 8. Chrift though innocent, endured In- 
 juries patiently. His Vicar though no- 
 cent, ceafeth not to do Injuries to the Church, 
 and ta the Rights of Kings ^ 
 
 This fhort Account I have given of the 
 Council of Trent^ (however imperfedt, yet) 
 being certainly true and properly vouched, 
 I will leave the Reader to judge which is 
 moft in the wrong, our Author or I? whe- 
 ther I am more to be blamed, for faying it 
 was neither general nor free? or he for 
 pronouncing all them Hereticks^ that do not 
 implicitly fubmit to its Decifions ? 
 
 Indeed our Author's Argument from Coun- 
 cilsy is brought forth with fuch an Air of 
 Authorityand Percmptorinels,as if there was 
 no Room left for the Faithful to reject, or 
 even to examine their Decrees; and Pope 
 Tins IV. infinuates no lefs in his Confir- 
 mation of thofe of Trent. But I am furpri- 
 
 fed 
 
 t Id. 1. 2. c. 13. p. 131. & Greg. Heymburgen. In confutat. 
 primat. Papae, part. 2. versus finem. 
 
( ^S3 ) 
 fed that thefe Gentlemen do not confidcr, 
 that in fome Cafes it is ncceflary to rejc^ 
 (and therefore in all Cafes it muft be law- 
 ful to examine^ their Decifions, 1 mean, where 
 their Decrees have been evidently wrong, or 
 when they are dire<5lly contrary to thofe of 
 other Councils. 
 
 The Prophet David foretold, " That the 
 *' Rulers would take Counlel together againft 
 " the Lord, and againfl: his Anointed." 
 And fo they did, in that Council of the Jews 
 which delivered the Son of God, Chrift Je- 
 fus, into the Hands of the Heathen, who 
 condemned him to the Crofs. 
 
 The fecond Council of Ephefiis openly 
 took the Part oi Euty chins ^ who affirmed that 
 the human Nature in Chrirt was turned 
 into his Divinity, fo that after the Union, 
 there remained but one Nature in him. The 
 fecond Council of Nice decreed flat Idola- 
 try, about the Adoration of Images: Not 
 to mention again the Councils ot Arimi- 
 num^ Smyrna^ Seleiicia and Sirmium, all of 
 them Ari an, and decreeing (more or lefs) 
 againft the Divinity of our bleffcd Saviour. 
 Were thefe Councils to be fubmitted to, and 
 their Definitions implicitly received, in Op- 
 pofition to the catholick Do^lrinei' 
 
 Thus again the Councils oi Elibcris, (or 
 
 flhira) Canon 361, and of Conjhvitinoplc, 
 
 N n 2 (ifif*^ 
 
( 2g4 ) 
 
 finHo 754, compofed of 338 BIfhops, called 
 by Conftantine Compronimus Emperor of the 
 Eaft, decreed that Images were not to be 
 fuffered in Chriftian Churches ; but the fe- 
 cond Council of Nice anno 787, decreed the 
 contrary, and fomething more, viz. that they 
 ought to be v/orfhipped. The Council of 
 Bafti under Pope Julius II. determined that 
 a Council of Bifhops was above the Pope; 
 but the Lateran Council under Leo X. de- 
 creed that the Pope was above the Council. 
 I hope they will not find Confidence enough 
 to affirm, that the fovereign Authority of 
 Councils can determine both Sides of a Con- 
 tradi(5ti6n to be true, and that we are bound 
 implicitly to fubmit to their Decrees, when 
 they do fo. 
 
 But one would think, that lefs Noife 
 ought to have been made about reje6ting the 
 Decrees of Trent, at leaft until they are a- 
 greed among themfelves, what Councils are 
 to be received, and what to be rejected. 
 Themfelves allow, that fbme Councils may 
 be, and ought to be reje(51:ed, and therefore 
 all our Bufinefs at prefent is to enquire, 
 whether we may not (with as much Reafon) 
 ^eje^ fome Councils, as they do others? 
 
 They reje6t the Council of Rimini, (or 
 ytriminum) which together with that of 
 Seleuciay (which fat at the fame Time) make 
 
. ( 285 ) 
 up the moft general Council we read of in 
 Church Hillory. For Bcllarmine "" owns, 
 that there were 600 Bifliopsin the Weftern 
 Part of it. And yet the Authority of this 
 Council is rejecHied by them, (and jufUy too) 
 becaufe it was too much influenced by Co/;- 
 jlantius and his Agents, to eltablifh ylria-^ 
 nifm\ though it is to be remembrcd that the 
 Doctrine of this Council probably was fign- 
 ed by the Pope LiberiiiSy and fumething like 
 it by him at Sirmhim. 
 
 Thefecond Council oi Epbcfus wanted no 
 proper Summons, no Prefence of Patriarchs, 
 or Number of Bifhops ; yet this is rejected, 
 on Account of its Eiitycbianijm^ and becaufe 
 its "^Proceedings ivere too violent. And the 
 Councils of Conftantinople again fl: Images, 
 are rejefted by them too, becaufe but cue 
 Patriarch was prefent in either of them. 
 Now I defire to know, whether it be not 
 as lawful to obje6i: again (t other Councils, 
 as againft thefe, fuppofing the Rcafons to 
 be the fame, or as good, and equally well 
 vouched. 
 
 Befides, we find they are divided in the 
 Church of Rome^ even concerning their la- 
 ter Councils, Some fay the Councils of Ti- 
 fa, Conjtance and Bajil^ were true general 
 
 Councils^ 
 
 f 3el. de concU. L i. c. 6. 
 
t ^S6 ) 
 Councils, and that that of Lateran, under 
 Pope Leo X. was not fo : Others fay that 
 the former three have not the Authority of 
 general Councils, but the other one has ; 
 fome fay there have been eighteen general 
 Councils y others of them will allow of no 
 more than eight of the Number, viz, thofe 
 -wherein the Eaftern and Weftern Bifhops 
 met, and fo the Councils of Lateran and 
 Trent, befides others, are cut off. What be- 
 comes then of Tius I V/s Creed ? What be- 
 comes of the Articles of Faith defined by 
 thofe Councils? For they cannot be recei- 
 ved on Account of their Authority, and 
 probably it will be difficult to find any o- 
 ther Foundation, on which toeftablilh them. 
 So that in the Iflue, the Gentleman's Ar- 
 gument will conclude as flrong againft Ta- 
 fijis, as againft Troteftants, For do not 
 both thefe differing Parties in the Church of 
 Rome, fide with the ancient Hereticks, as 
 much as we Proteftants do, in fo far as they 
 in their Turns objeft againft the fupreme Ju- 
 dicature in the Church, and decline the Judg- 
 ment of thofe Councils which they rejcdl, 
 as much as the ancient Hereticks did the 
 Councils of their own Times. Had our 
 learned Author confidered all this with more 
 Attention, and due Temper, before he fat 
 down to write, it is probable he would not 
 
 have - 
 
( 287. ) 
 
 have been fo ill advifed, in comparing us 
 ^rotejlants to the ancient ScBaries and He- 
 reticks, merely for our reje^ling the Authori- 
 ty, and defpifing the Judgment of Trent. 
 
 § III. There is but little more in this or 
 the following Paragraphs of the Manufcript, 
 that challenges Notice, or deferves an An- 
 fwer. 
 
 As for the Co?npany he is pleafed to clafs 
 us with, and the hard Names he fo often 
 gives us, either dire6tly or obliquely, viz. 
 Hereticksy Sectaries and fuch Terms of Re- 
 proach: We Proteftants are not afliamed 
 to own, with one much greater and better 
 
 than we are, " That after the Way 
 
 *' which they call Herejyy fo worfhip wc 
 *' the God of our Fathers; believing all 
 *' Things which are written in the Law, 
 *' and the Prophets; and have Hope towards 
 
 *' God,— 6^^. '." 
 
 If I were inclined to it, there would be 
 no Difficulty in finding hard Names, and 
 very ill Charafters, fully as applicable to 
 the Roman Church and her chief Pontiffs ; 
 but foft Words and hard Arguments will 
 do better. St. Teter forbids us to "• return 
 <* railing for railing;" and wc have learned 
 
 from 
 
( ^88 ) 
 
 from Si. Michael^ " not to bring a railing 
 " Accufation againfl: our Adveriaries, but 
 " to pray that God would abate their Pride, 
 " affwage their Malice, and defeat their 
 
 «' Devices." And there is R<jafon to hope, 
 
 that our Imitation of the Archangel's Ex- 
 ample may be fully as acceptable to him, 
 as their Worfhip S 
 
 As for the Stroke he repeats at private 
 Judgment, the Edge of it is already taken off 
 in feveral preceeding Parts of this Treatife^ 
 which need not be repeated. — But he has in- 
 jured us fo grofly, in faying " that w^ argue a- 
 *' gainft Authority^ juft as the ancient Se- 
 ** diaries did," that he would deferve fome 
 fevere Reproof, if I was not refolved not to 
 be put out of Temper. If he meant that 
 we argue againfl cathollck Authority^ (and he 
 could mean nothing elfe, to give Weight to 
 his Argument) it is not true in Fa6t ; for 
 we fubmit to catholick Authority, and are 
 content to be determined by it: But he 
 ought to have remembred, that there is 
 a wide Difference between the Authority 
 of the univerfal Church of Chrift, in all A- 
 ges and Places, and the Infallibility of a 
 particular Church now, which was the Sub- 
 ject of Queftion, and not have attempted 
 thus dexteroufly to fhift the Scene. 
 
 " The 
 
 « I Pet. iii. 9. & epift. Jud. ver. 9. Revel, xix. 10. & xxii. 9» 
 
( ^S9 ) 
 ** The anctcnt Hercticks (fays lie ^) no 
 " lefs appealed to Scripture, moft of thcm^ 
 «* than Trotejlants do now, and were as 
 " willing to have their Caufe tried by Scrip- 
 <« ture, provided ftill that themfclves might 
 <* be Judges and Interpreters of the Scrip- 
 " ture; but this Provifo, the ancient Church 
 ** would never hear of, but anathematized 
 <« them by the Scripture as fhe underflood 
 " it, declaring thereby that fhe looked upon 
 "'herfelf as the authenrick Interpreter of 
 " the Scripture, to whofe Judgment and 
 «' Interpretation all were obliged to fubmit. 
 <' If Things be throughly and impartially 
 " confidered in this Matter, the Proteftants 
 <« have no other Plea againft the Church, 
 *' than what the ancient Hercticks had, 
 «' nor is It poflible for Proteftants to fliew 
 « a material Difference betwixt their Way 
 " of arguing againft Authority, and that of 
 « ancient Seilaries \ And indeed if the Mc- 
 " thod of Proteftants were good, It would 
 « fkreen all the ancient Hercticks from the 
 " Sentences and Anathemas of the Church 
 << pronounced againft them. 1 his Method 
 " o[Trotef}ants, is to fct up their ii^^///; or 
 « private Jnrlgment, above the yltithoritj of 
 « the -whole Church of Goci^ contr^iry to what 
 bo " the 
 
 f MS. rarag. i6, 17. 
 
( ^9^ ) 
 ^« the Scriptures and Fathers clearly teach. 
 
 The Lord forgive this Author fo many 
 grofs Mijreprejentations 2ind fa IJe Colour ingi^ 
 as are here crowded together. I muft do 
 the Jullice to fome of his Communion I 
 have been acquainted with, and whom I 
 highly efteemed and loved, on Account of 
 their great Piety and Moderation, Worth 
 and Probity, that I am fully convinced, 
 they would not have fpoken the Language 
 of this Gentleman, nor have had Recourfe 
 to fo many Falfhoods and Fallacies, no not 
 to have brought all the World into the Ro- 
 man Commitnion. 
 
 Though the Frauds and Faultinefs of our 
 Author's Reafonings are already detefted, 
 in the two preceeding Sections, yet I will 
 beg leave to refolve this Difcourfe (to which 
 the Gentleman has given fo plaufiblc a Turn) 
 into its proper Heads, and put his Argu- 
 ments into Form, in all the feveral Shapes 
 into which they can be put, that the Rea- 
 der may the fooner difcover the Nature and 
 Tendency of them, and how true, how 
 ftrong and concluding they are, or the di- 
 re(5t contrary. 
 
 The ancient Heret'tcks appealed to Scrip- 
 ture as interpreted by themfelves; but Tro- 
 tejlants appeal to Scripture as interpreted by 
 
 the 
 
( 291 ) 
 the whole Church of Chrifl: from the Bc> 
 ginning, and particularly by thofe very Coun- 
 cils which condemned thcfe ancient Here- 
 ticks .Therefore our Method is the fame, 
 
 and we are as heretical as they were, finee 
 there is only this little Difcrcncc (which is 
 not materiaJ) between our Method and theirs. 
 
 The primitive Church, and her Paflors, 
 either in Councils^ or without calling Coiincilsy 
 did condemn the ancient Hercticks and Se- 
 8arieSy not for reading the Scriptures, nor 
 yet for appealing to them, but for pervert- 
 ing and mifreprefenting the Senfe of them. 
 Therefore Trotejiants who interpret and ap- 
 ply the Scriptures, juft as the primitive 
 Church and her Paftors, either in Councils, 
 or without calling of Councils did, are li- 
 able to the fame Cenfure, and as heretical as 
 the ancient Sectaries were. 
 
 ThcgeneralCouncilsv^Kich condemned an- 
 cient Hercticks, reprcfented the whole Churchy 
 Eajlcrn and Wejlern ; but the Council of 
 Trent which condemned Protcftants, rcpre- 
 fented but a Tart (and that a fmall Part) of 
 the Weftern Church only\ therefore it was e- 
 qually cBCumenicaU and its Authority equally 
 extenfive and great, as that of the four ge- 
 neral Councils was. 
 
 The primitive Church anathematized {j^ci- 
 
 baps it had been as proper to have faid coiv 
 
 O o 2 dcmncd^ 
 
C -9^ ) 
 demned) Hereticks by Scripture.- — But the 
 
 Church ofKomc anathematized or condemn- 
 ed Proteftants by Tr adit ion, -'■--^There fore 
 there is no material Difference in the Rule 
 of Proceeding, or in the Authority of the 
 Decrees. 
 
 The ancient Councils condemned thofe for 
 Hereticks %vho denied the Divinity of our Sa- 
 viour: But the Synod of Trent condemns 
 Proteftants, luho deny the Tope's Supremacy 
 and Infallibility^ and that the Church of Rome 
 is the Mother and Mijlrefs of all Churches. 
 Therefore they are as much Hereticks, as 
 thefe ancient One§ were, they are anathe- 
 niatized with equal JulHce, and there was 
 equal Reafon and Neceffity for condemn- 
 ing them. 
 
 The ancient Hereticks mifunderftood and 
 
 perverted the Scriptures. Therefore we 
 
 ^nuft not read the Scriptures at all, or at moft 
 we muft read them only in Latin, which 
 (for the Generality) is to read them with- 
 out Underftanding. 
 
 The ancient Hereticks made an HI Ufe of 
 their Reajony or private Judgment, — "^There- 
 fore we mujl make no UJe of it ; that is to 
 fay, a Man in the Jaundice fees Things dif- 
 coloured ; therefore Men that have not the 
 Jaundice, muft pull out their Eyes for fear 
 pf mifreprefenting Objefts; and becaufe 
 
 fome 
 
fomehave died of Surfeits and Drunkcnncfs, 
 therefore no Man henceforth Jiiuft cat or 
 drink at all, left he run the fame Hazard. 
 
 The ancient Hereticks, Brians and AU'- 
 cedonians^ (^'C. who denied the Divinity of 
 Jefus Chrift and of the Holy Ghoft, were 
 condemned by the whole catholick Churchy 
 which declared the Faith of the whole Church 
 and Meaning of the Scriptures, inferted thcfc 
 Declarations into their Creeds^ and anathe- 
 matized all who did not approve and receive 
 
 them Therefore we Trolejlauts who 
 
 receive and hold that Faith whole and en- 
 tire, without adding to, or taking from it, 
 we who retain and ufe thofc very Creeds 
 and Profeifions, in our moft facred Officer, 
 and folemn Afl'emblies, and thereby approve 
 the Deeds of the whole Church againft thofc 
 Hereticks, we muft be Hereticks too, and 
 eome under the Church's Anathemas^ as thefc 
 
 ancient Diflenters and Sed:arics did. -AnJ 
 
 finally, the -primitive catholick Church, by 
 her declaring the catholick Faith, and ex- 
 communicating Hereticks, exercifed her jufi 
 
 Authority, Therefore the prejent parti- 
 
 cular Church of Rome, by her condemning 
 and anathematizing Proteftants, proves her 
 Jnfallibility, ^ E. D, 
 
 This is all the Logick found in the Gen- 
 tleman's Reafoning, and if there is any Con- 
 nexion 
 
( 294 ) 
 nexion between his Antecedent and Confe* 
 quence, or between his PremifTes and Con- 
 clufion, 1 will leave the Reader to find it 
 out, for I cannot. 
 
 And thus the Sum and Refult of the 
 whole Matter plainly is, That if there be a 
 material Difference betzueen the real and jujl 
 Authority of the whole catholick Church of 
 Chrlft^ to -which Troteftants Jubmity and a 
 bare Tretence of Infallibility in the particular 
 Church of Rome, which they rejeEl^ there is 
 neither "Truths nor Strength^ nor Connexion^ 
 nor common Honefly^ nor common Senfe^ in 
 Qur Author s whole Argument. 
 
 § IV. Our Author begins his i8th Para- 
 graph in a very lofty Stile, with a Number 
 of big Words, proclaiming a Triumph before 
 ViBory, " This great Truth of the Infal- 
 " libility of the Church (fays he) being pro- 
 " ved, it evidently follows, that the catho- 
 ^^ lick Church in Communion with the Bifbop 
 '* of Rome, is the true Church of Chrift^ 
 *' from which the Proteftants fhould never 
 *' have feparated, and to which confequent- 
 ** ly they are obliged to reunite themfelves, 
 f* (/yc.'' The proper Anfwer to this is on- 
 ly to read it right, viz, '' This darling and 
 *' peculiar Doctrine of Infallibility in the 
 *' Roman Church being difproved^ and her 
 " " bold, 
 
<c 
 
 C( 
 
 ( ^95 ) 
 " bold, faucy Pretences to it found vain 
 " and groundlcfs ; it evidently follo-ivs that 
 fhe is 7wt the true Church of Chrijt^ but 
 only a Part of his catholick Church, and 
 that a very difeafed, corrupt Part ; fo cor- 
 " rupt, that Protcftants were obHgcd in Con- 
 " fcience and Duty, to feparatc themfelvcs 
 " from her dangerous Communion, and 
 " cannot with Safety reunite to it, till (lie 
 ^* reforms (as by the Grace of God we have 
 " done) from thcfc grofs Errors and Cor- 
 " ruptions flie had fuperinduced into the 
 " Faith, Worfhip, and Polity of the catlio- 
 " lick Church." — Which I pray God flic 
 may. 
 
 As for the Gentleman's Remark^ " That 
 " Proteftants preferred no other Commu- 
 " nion, nor joined with any after fcpara- 
 *' ting from the Roman.'' It fliall (at pre- 
 fent) fuffice to ask him, " What other Com- 
 *' munion than their own did Romanijls join 
 " with, after they made a Sort of Rcforma- 
 " tion (foon after ours) efpecially in their 
 " Breviary? 
 
 He has indeed a very hardy Affirmation, 
 in the End of this Paragraph, where after ha- 
 ving mentioned the Greek and other great ori- 
 ental Communions, he fays, " In all other 
 " Points, in which the Protcftants condemn 
 
 *' our 
 
. , ( 296 ) 
 «< our Church, all the Orientals agree in 
 <^ Faith with us." 
 
 Had this Gentleman known, that we un- 
 derftand the Reaibns for which the Eaftern 
 Churches feparated from the Roman Com- 
 munion, and are not ignorant of the Pra- 
 ctices ufed to reunite them, both before and 
 at the Council affembled at Ferrara^ and 
 tranflated to Florence in the Years 1438-9, 
 when fo much Advantage was taken of thofe 
 unhappy Straits to which John ^aleologus 
 (the laft Chriftian Emperor of the Eaft but 
 one) was reduced by the Mahumetans^ he 
 would have avoided to mention a Subjeft, 
 wdiich did fo little Honour to his Church. 
 
 However as to this great Agreement he 
 boafts of between the Orientals and tbe7nj 
 in Matters of Faith; I am content to put 
 the Iflue of all that is here advanced, on 
 this fingle Point, viz. That if the Greek 
 and other great oriental Communions have 
 agreed to acknowledge the Church of Roine, 
 to be the Mother and Milfrefs of all Church- 
 es, (which fhe has made an Article of Faith, 
 without the Belief whereof, fhe will have 
 none to be faved) or if they have but agreed 
 in thofe two Points, upon which ,our Au- 
 thor's Paper turns, viz, the InfallibiUtj and 
 Supremacy of the Roman Churcli, then I 
 Ihall be his Profely te ; but if they have not, 
 
 he 
 
he fhould be mine, or at leaft fliould acknow- 
 ledge that he has fpoke without Book, and 
 affirmed without Evidence. 
 
 His 19th Paragraph is filled with his ma- 
 ny Marks or Properties of the true Churchy 
 fonie of which I have noticed before, anj 
 fliall not reconfider them now, fince if they 
 were all applicable to the Church of Rome^ 
 and to no other Church upon Earth, (which 
 is not the Cafe) they would only prove her 
 to be a true or real Churchy but not to be in- 
 fallible. 
 
 It would be equally tedious and unncccf- 
 fary, to examine what this learned Author 
 has faid (towards the End of his Paper) of 
 the Topes Supremacy^ as it does not come 
 within the Bounds of my Undertaking in 
 this Treatife : Befides he has eibblifhed ic 
 upon the firm Foundation of the hjallibili- 
 ty of his Church, which he fays he has* aU 
 ready proved) but if he has not already pro- 
 ved it, (as I humbly think it is by this Time 
 evident that he has not) the other falls of 
 Courfe, as being fet upon a fandy Bottom. 
 And as for the other Authorities he has 
 brought to prop it, the molt learned and 
 accurate Dr. Ifaac Barrow has fet them ail 
 in a clear Light, and quite exhaufted that 
 SubjeiH:. His Treatife of the Supremacy is 
 fo full, and ftrong, and decifive againil them, 
 that (thoucrh they have had almoU fourfeore 
 P P Years 
 
( 298 ) 
 
 Y)sars to think of it) they have never yet 
 t)een able to anfwer if, and probably never 
 ivill. 
 
 Upon the whole, when the Reader has 
 fummed up, afid united the Strength of 
 what is (not with Art and Flourifh, but 
 with Plainnefs and Perfpicuity) laid before 
 him in the feveral Sections of this Treatife, 
 I hope he will (by the Bleffing of Heaven) 
 find "the Satisfaction defired ; and his Mind 
 will be more confirmed in the Belief and 
 Profeflion of the Truth, by being thus 
 guarded againft thpfe " Sleights of Men, 
 *' thofe cunning Craftineffes wherel3y Ro^ 
 ^' 7na}i Mijfwnaries ly in wait to deceive." 
 
 I pray God this may be the happy Ef- 
 fect of niy poor Labour, and that they for 
 
 w^hofe Service it is intended, " being 
 
 V*' ftedfaft in Faifh, and fincere in Love, 
 
 ^* may grow up upto him in all Things, 
 
 ^' which is the Head, even Chrifl, from 
 
 ?' whom the whole Body fitly joined toge- 
 
 ?' ther, and compacted by that which every 
 
 ^' Joint fuppljeth, according to the effeftual 
 
 ' working in the Meafure of every Part, 
 
 * maketh Increafe of the Body, unto the 
 
 ' edifying of its felf in Love s/* 
 
 When the impartial attentive Reader re- 
 
 flefts, 
 
 % Eph. iy. I /J. ^c. 
 
, ( ^99 ) 
 jBccls, that mt Roman Catholick Divines arc 
 not agreed among thcmfclvcs, what Sort of 
 
 InfallibHity it is tliat they contend for, • 
 
 fior how they come by it, nor where it 
 
 is lodged, nor to what Purpofc it would 
 
 ferve, if they had found it. 
 
 That thQ holy Scriptures arc fo filcnt in 
 this Matter, and arc far from afccrtaining 
 this Privilege to the Roman Church, after 
 all the Pains taken to rack and flrain them, 
 jthat they might feem to fpeak it out. 
 
 1 hat the venerable Fathers of the Church, 
 in her firft and pureft Ages (taken either 
 jointly or feparately) knew nothing of Roman 
 Infallibility, nor ever appealed or fubmit- 
 ted to that Church or her Bifhop, on ac- 
 count of their unerring Direction, and ab- 
 folute Immunity from Error ; but in feveral 
 Inilances rejedied the Decrees, and dcfplfcd 
 the Cenfures of the Ro?nan Pontiffs. 
 
 When he reflects that our Reajon or Fa- 
 culty of judging^ is the Gift of God, and gi- 
 ven that it may be ufed with Difcretion, 
 Humihty, Thankfulnefs, and a conftant Re- 
 gard to the Honour of the bountiful Bc- 
 ftower of it. 
 
 When he refle(^s that there is no Com- 
 
 parifon, no Likenefs between the ancient 
 
 general Councils and the little packed yiffcm- 
 
 "blj at Trent, cither in Point of Numbers 
 
 P P 2 and 
 
( 300 ) 
 and Reprefentation, or of Freedom andUn- 
 
 corruptednefs, or of the Rule by which they 
 proceeded, and the Ends they had in View. 
 In fhort, when he rcflefts coolly and fe- 
 rioufly on the great DifFerence there is be- 
 tween the real Authority of the -whole catho- 
 lick Church, and the alledged Infallibility of 
 
 but one Tart of that -whole. That the u- 
 
 niverfal Church of Chrift in all Ages and 
 Places, and the particular Church otRome 
 (I mean all the Churches in the Roman 
 Communion) are very different Things ; and 
 A that the Tromijes made to the luhole are not 
 
 ^ to be confined and limited to any one Tart, 
 
 nor the yr/w^e/ granted totheiJo^, made 
 the peculiar Property of any one Member \ 
 
 When the intelligent Reader (I fay) has 
 recoUefted all this, he will fee through the 
 Thinners of the Reafonings of thefe two 
 learned Gentlemen, whofe Arguments I 
 have been examining; and be fully convin- 
 ced that the Infallibility of their Church 
 (which they would fo fain perfuade us to 
 believe) is an Impofition upon the common 
 Reafon and Underflanding of Mankind, a 
 vain Boaft, a bare Pretence, without Foun- 
 dation or Support, either in Scripture or 
 
 Antiquity 
 , *> I Cor. xii. 12 — 21 
 
 F IJ^ I S. 
 
TJ 
 
 
 :^ 
 
 ''-'t 
 
 <-/* 
 
 & 
 
 c^-^ 
 
 n <r; 
 
 CiJt- 
 
 4 C^J 
 
 ^ ^ZT 
 
 ^J^zt:*^ <^. 
 
 y/L^A^Od^ ^-^ 
 
 J. 
 
 1 
 

 /v ' 7 ■"-"-<- ^-^-^-^^vx.-*- ^^Zif^ 
 
 
 /-s-o^-c*. 
 
 |U^.^ ^ ,^,^ ^ ^ ^>_,^ ^ 
 
 / 
 
m^ 
 
 i^x. 
 
 \i 
 
 I