that Conftantine was a better Emperor then Dolor whereas in this particular Theodoret affures us that the whole Synod did highly approve of this saying, nor did any of the Antients ever condemne him for it: And indeed the practice of the Synod fhewes their approbation of the Speech and confequently gives us another Argu ment for they determined the controverfie according to the Scriptures faith Ambrofe (a), and Athanafins too whofe words are thefe, The Bishops congregated at Nice, coll lecting together all things they could out of Scripture to de fend their opinion, they affirmed that the Son was confubftantiall to the Father (b). And Bellarmine himself confeffeth it: The Councell of Nice, when they defined the Son to be confubftantiall to the Father, they drew their Conclufion ent of the Scriptures (c). Notable is that place of Chryfo frome becaufer it acquaints us with his own judgment and the judgment of the Chriftians of that age, If any thing be afferted (faith he) without Scripture the minde of the bearer mavers But when Scripture comes, that confirmes the fpeakers words and fettles the bearers minde (d). Tertullian thus confutes the opinion of Hermegenes, that things were made of præexiftent matter wich, I never read it, let Hermogenes. hew where it is written, or elfe let him fear the woe denounced against thofe that adde to the Scripture (e). And againe, I do

ร

(a) De fide ad Gratianum lib. 1. cap. 8. (b) Nice congregati Epifcopi collectis in unum que ex facris literis ad fententiam fuam tuendam facerent. filium confubflantialem effe affeverant. In Epiftoli

ad Epictetum.

(c) Concilium Nicenum cum definivit filium Patri effe pororov conclufionem deduxit ex Scripturis. De Consiliis lib. 2.cap. 12.

"

(α) Εάν τι διαγραφον λέγη, ἡ διάνοια τῶν ἀκροατῶν σκάζει in Pfal.95.-nufquam adbuc legi. Scriptum effe doceat Hermoge nis officina. Si non eft fcriptum, timeat ve illud adjicicntibus, aut detrahentibus deftinatum, con. Hermogenem cap. 22.

not receive what thou bringeft of thy own without the Scripture (a). And againe,Take away from Hereticks the things they have in common with Heathens, that they may referre their questions to Scripture alone and they can never stand (b). But the Papifts are of another mind, for if you will believe them, if Scripture alone must judge Controverfies, Herefies will never fall. Theodoret profeffeth be was not fo bold as to affert any thing wherein the Scripture was filent (c). Thus Origen. It is neceffary that we call in the Teftimony of Scripture. for without this our expofitions have no credit (d). Auftin is most full and plaine, I will men. tion but one place, Whether they have the Church they cannot fhew but from the Canonicall Books of Scripture: And yet there is no queftion wherein Tradition feems more pertinent, and where the Papifts urge it with more vehe mency. I might adde a thousand pregnant places more, but either thefe or none will fuffice to prove that the Antients did judg Scripture-proof neceffary for the confir mation of any Doctrine in Religion, which the Romanists now judg not neceffary. The Fathers pretended Tradition for their opinion then, and the Papifts pretend it now: Either Tradition deceived the Fathers then, or it de ceives the Papists now: Either will serve our turn to fhew the Fallibility of Tradition. If it be faid there are no less expreffe Teltimonies alledged by the Papists on the behalfe of Tradition, and why should not they be received as well as those on the behalfe of the Scripture.

(u) Non vecinio quod extra Scripturam de tuo infers De carne Christi ca. 7. (b) Aufer Hereticis,quæ cum Ethnicis Japiunt,ut de fotis Scrip. turis quæftiones fuas fiftant, & flare non poffunt. De refurrectione 1 carnis cap.3. (c) ἐ γδ οντως ειμι θρασύς ώςε φάναι τι σεσιγημένου med Th Dila Hap Dialog. 2. (d) utrum ipfi Ecclefiam teneant non nifi Divinarum fcripturarum Canonicis libris oftendant. De unitate Ecclefiæ cap. 16.

I

I Answer, 1, If the Fathers do in some places afferr the fufficiency of proof from Tradition, and in other places the neceffity of Scripture proofe, these affertions being directly contrary one to another it invalidates their Authority in matters of religion: For fo fay the Lawyers molt justly and truly, Teftis pugnantia dicensfidem non facit.

2. But upon enquiry it will be found in the places cited for Tradition (efpecially if you compare them with thofe alledged for Scripture) that they do plead Tradition onely as a fecondary Argument to confirme that Faith which is grounded upon Scripture, but it is as clear as the Sunne that they ever made Tradition strike faile to the Scripture, and made no fcruple of deferting Tradition when the evidence of Scripture Arguments flood on the other fide.

Anfw. 6. The Romanifts themselves are undeniable inftances of the vanity of their own Argument: They tell us Tradition cannot deceive us: Why Tradition hath deceived them: There are diverfe contradictory opinions maintained in the Church of Rome, about 3 00 are reckoned out of Bellarmine: The diffenters, though never fo implacably divided amongst themselves,do agree in this, That they believe nothing but what hath come to them by Tradition from their Fathers, and fo from the Apostles; Then certainly either Tradition hath deceived fome of them.or both the parts of a contradiction may be true: I fhall not launch forth into the Sea of Romish contradictions, nor take notice of pettie differences a< mongst obscure Authors, but shall inftance in two materiall points, viz. The Doctrine of Gods grace, and mans will,and the appurtenances as they are controverted between the French and Italian Papifts: In both of them, it is as clear as the Sun that both parties pretend Tradition: Now the Trumpet of Tradition gives an uncer

taine found for Tradition tels the Jefuites this is truth, That the will is determined to good actions? not by Gods grace, but by its own inclination and agency: Tradition rels the Dominicans and Janfenifts that this is a groffe fallity: So for the Church if you inquire in whom Supreme Authority and Infallibility refides (for that is the great question.) Tradition tels the Jefuites, it is in the Pope, Tradition not long fince told the Councels of Bafil and Conftance that it was in a Councell, not in the Pope, and fo it tells many of the French Doctors at this day; And (I will tell you a thing in your eare) both these are Apoftolicall Traditions though you and I think they are directly contrary: It is true that St James faith, No Fountain can yield both Salt water and fresh, Cha. 3. 8. 12. But that is to be understood onely of the Foun taine of the Scripture, but the Fountaine of Tradition can yield both Salt and fresh, both bitter and fweet. You may well allow Tradition to be infallible, for you fee it can work wonders, and reconcile contradictions: If this feem ftrange to you, you may expect the proof of it in an Appendix to the next Edition of Mr Whites Apology for Tradition demonftrating that Contradictoria poffunt effe fimul vera, to be dedicated to the Defenders of Tran fubftantiation; but to returne: What fay our masters to this difficulty, why, I will faithfully acquaint you where their ftrength lies, and what their pretences are: I find three things which are or may with fome colour be faid for them to fafeguard the Infallibility of Tradition against this dreadfuil fhock.

2. They say these are onely Doctrines ventilated in Schooles, not of any great confequence to Chriftians: Thus the controverfies between the Jefuites and Domi nicars about Gods free grace and mans free will (they fay) are but Scholafticall niceties, wherein the fubftance of Religion is not at all concerned: So for that point of Supremacy

Supremacy and Infallibility it is no great matter, The diffenters onely feek out the decider of Points of Doctrine that is, by whofe mouth we are to know, which be our Articles of Faith, whether by the Popes or Councels or both, which is not much materiall (faith Rushworths fecond Edition Dial. 3. §. 9.) to our purpose what ever the truth be, fuppofing we acknowledge no Articles of Faith but fuch as have defcended to us from Chrift and his Apoftles,

For Answer, I would know whether a private Chriftian can infallibly know what are thofe Articles of Faith which came from Chrift and his Apoftles without the decifion of Pope or Councell,or not: If they fay he can know it, then it followes that private Chriftians may be in fallible of themselves, and confequently there is no neceffity of Pope or Councels, for what need any more then infallibility? If they fay he cannot, then an infallible guide, judge, and interpreter is neceffary to Tradition as well as to Scripture, and without this Tradition cannot make us infallible, and confequently, if it be doubtfull and difputable who this Judge is, it must be alfo doubtfull whe ther the Tradition be right, and therefore Tradition cannot make me infallible: It is an audacity beyond parallel that they who make it fo materiall as that they affert we have no certainty in our Faith for want of a decider of points of Doctrine, and make no fcruple of fending us to Hell for want of fuch a Decider, fhould fay this amongst themselves is not materiall, for (as to use and benefit it is all one to have no decider of controverfies, and not to be agreed who it is, according to that known maxime of the Lawyers, Idem eft non aparere & non effe: As for the other points between the Jefuites and Dominicans, how materiall they are we will take their own judgments: If we may believe either one or other of them, the points are of great moment: If you aske the Janfenifts or Dominicans their opinion of the Jefuiticall

Doctrine,