was frequently pretended by feverall Hereticks) and this propofition not contradicted by confiderable perfons, (which in fome Ages were few and thofe eafily byaffed) or the contradiction being fpeedily fuppreffed, (which is very poffible and hath been usually it could not probably fall out otherwife, but that their opinion should be tranfmitted to their Succeffors for the Faith of their Age. Rome was not built in a day, neither in a civil, nor in a Spiritual notion. And de facto,that corruptions did creep into the Church of Rome by degrees, hath been fo fully demonftrated,that I need onely point the Reader to thofe Authors who have done this work, especially to Morneys myftery of iniquity, and the excellent defence of it in French by Rivet against the cavils of Coffetean.

2. I anfwer particularly, and in oppofition to the firft branch, I lay down this pofition: That the following Age, or the Major part of thofe called Chriftians, might eafily mistake the minde of the foregoing Age, of which many rationall accounts may be given. 1. There was no certain way, whereby (for example) the particular Chriftians of the third Age, might Infallibly know the Doctrines which were delivered by the whole Church of the fecond Age. Remember the queftion is not how probably they might believe, but how infallibly they might know it,for nothing will ferve the Romanifts turn, fhort of Infallibility: It is true, the Chriftians of Antioch might know what their Fathers delivered to them there, and they of Ephesus what was there delivered, but no Chriftian could without miracles infallibly know, what were the Doctrines delivered to the Chriftians in thofe innumerable places where the Gofpell had got footing. Hence then I offer this Argument: Either this is fufficient for the Infallibility of Tradition, that the Chriftians in feverall Cities and places did understand what their Ancestours taught in fuch places,and would not-de

ceive their posterity in it, or it is not fufficient, but it is neceflary that Traditions fhould be compared, and the Truth difcovered in a generall Councell: If they fay the former, then they affert the Infallibility, not onely of the Church or Bishop of Rome, or of a generall Councell, or of the Catholick Church, but of every particular City: And to fay Truch, Either this, plea of Tradition is fallacious and abfurd, or every particular Church is Infallible: For (to use their own words) if the Chriftians (suppose of Ephefus) could be deceived, then either they did not understand the Doctrine of their Ancestors there delivered, or they did willingly deceive their posterity; but neither of these were poffible: Ergo, the Church. of Eph fus was Infallible: If they will eat their own words, (as they will do any thing fooner then retract their errors and returne to the Truth) and fay the Church of Ephefus might misunderstand their Ancestors or deceive their Pofterity, then fo might the Church of Antioch and that of Alexandria,and fo the reft,and whats then becomes of Infallibility? If they say the latter, viz. That there is a neceffity of a generall Councell to compare Traditions and declare the Truth, then they are defired to remember,that as yet there had been no generall Councell,and confequently no Infallibility,and there. fore in that Age there might be a misunderstanding, yea many mistakes What elfe will they fay? Will they fay that a Chriftian might Infallibly know the Truth by travelling to all places and companies of Chriftians, and hearing it from their own mouths? This, though it might give fatisfaction to fuch a Chriftian, yet it could not fatisfy others who had no fuch evidence. Or will they fay the Chriftians knew it by Teftimonies received from every Church and particular recitals of their Traditions? Why luch Teftimonials are not fo much as pretended to have been required, or given, and if they had been M 4

given

given, yet that could fatisfy none, but thofe few eyewit neffes of them. It remaines therefore that there was no way whereby the Chriftians of the third Age might be affured of the genuine Traditions of the fecond. (which was the thing to be proved) And the folidity and fatiffactoriness of this one Anfwer, (if there were no more) appeares plainly from hence, that the great Architects of this devife make it effentiall to fuch a Tradition that it come from all the Apoftles, fo Mr White informes us, fince all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately&ex-, actly,define it to be aDoctrine univerfally taught by the ApoAles we may fafely conclude, where two Apoftles teach diffe rently, neither is Tradition. Apol for Tradit: Encount.6. And elsewhere his reply to our inftance of the Tradition of communicating Infants is this, That it was a Tradition begun by fome Apostles, not all, in-some countries not all. Encounter. 2. Hence then I thus argue, The following Chriftians could have no affurance what Doctrine was taught by all the Apoftles without a generall Councelf of all the Churches, feverally taught by the feverall Apo ftles; but fuch generall Councell there was none in the third Age Therefore the third Age could not Infallibly understand the Apoftolicall Traditions delivered in the fecond, which was the thing to be proved.

S. 14. 2. There are many inftances which may be gi ven of mens misunderstanding the Doctrines of the preceding age: We have one inftance among our felves,concerning the judgment of the Church of England of the next preceding Age in the Quinquarticular points, The favourers of Arminius his Doctrines tell us, that the maintained their Doctrines: Their Adverfaries tell us, The beld the contrary: and there are Books writt en, and Arguments urged on both fides, he that doubts of this, let him look into Mr Prin on the one fide, and D Heylin on the other: And why night it not be thus

in former ages? And feeing there are great mistakes daily committed, and fresh difputes managed, about the optnions of thofe Authors, who have left us their mind. (as plainly as words can make it) in books, which are alwaies prefent to our perufal; how can it be sense for a man to fay,that one may infallibly know their mind by a tran fient hearing of them? what tedious controverfiés are there about the judgment of S. Auguftine, and others of the Fathers, in fundry points of great moment, wherein they have as fully explained themselves as any Preacher can do, or ufeth to do? Suppofe now the Fathers preach the fame things and words which they have left us in writings, (and diverse of their works were no other then their Sermons) can any man without nonfence fay, that the diligent Reader may be mistaken, and the attentive Hearer is infallible? We all know the five Propofitions of Fanfenius condemned lately at Rome. The Janfenifts deny that to be the fenfe of fanfenius his words, which the Pope and the Jefuites affix to them both parties are agreed in his words, (which feldome happens in Orall Traditions,and confequently makes the argument stron ger) yet they differ in the fense, which one fide faith is Heretical, the other aver it is innocent. Why might not in like manner several parties,though it be fuppofed they perfectly remembred the words delivered by Peter in a Sermon 20 years before, (which I would not grant but that it is a work of charity to help the weak.) what hin ders but that they may understand them in contrary fenfes, and fo derive from them contrary conclufions, and yet both pretend to affert nothing but the doctrine delivered from S.Peter's mouth? Are there not fharp contefts among Popish Authors about the opinion of the Councel of Trent in diverfe points, and that too among those who were prefent upon the place, and heard their debates? And will thefe men ftill undertake to prove that

Snow

Snow is black,or(which is equivalent to it) that it was im poffible to do that which is usually done, viz. to mistake the doctrines of the former age?Let us confider one Scrip gure instance. S.Paul tels us,a man is justified by faith with out the works of the law, and that Abraham was thus juftified: the Papifts remember the words, but mistake the fence.Now put cafe S. Paul had preached the fame words (as he did unquestionably the fame thing)which he wrot, who can fay (that hath any care what he faith) that they that mistook the fenfe of those words when they read them in a Book, could not as eafily have miftaken them, when they heard them from his mouth?Efpecially if it be confidered, that S.7ames preached and wrot a Doctrine in words feemingly contrary to thefe. My Question now is, what should hinder, that the feverall bearers of thofe Apoftles,perfectly remembring their various expreffions, might not derive contrary Traditions from them? why might not the one fide have apprehended Paul as exclu ding all works in the Proteftant fenfe from Juftification, and the other have understood James (as the Papifts at this day do) as conjoyning faith and works in juftificati. on? And if this cannot be denied, then it followes unavoidably, that errors may come into the Church under pretence of Tradition, which was the thing to be proved. Another inftance we have in the Sadduces, whose error is reported to have come into the world under the colour of Tradition: for when Antigonus Socheus a Master in Ifrael, was teaching, that if there was no future reward no immortality of the Soul, no refurrection of the body, yet we ought to ferve God: his Scholar Sadok fo mif-urderstood him, that he broached a new doctrine, and turned his Hypothetical Propofition into a Categorical, and afferted, that there was no refurrection of the body,nor immortality of the foul, &c. And will thefe, men pawn their fouls on it, that it was impoffible for the Apoltles

hea