CHAP. I. Of two sorts of Men, with whom it is in vain to dispute.

THere is no Labour that is undertaken with greater Wearisomness and les [...] Profit, than a dispute undertaken with those men, who either will not be taught better; or as it were, being willing to learn bet­ter, and breathing after the best and clearest Truth, dispute of no other things but those, which after they have been fully disputed, leave the Disputants at as great an uncertainty as they were before, whether the certain and ne­cessary truth be found or no. The first are willing to remain in Ignorance: The second, though they would not seem on purpose and deliberately to love their Ignorance, yet do they waver to and fro with uncertainty concer­ning the Truth; yea and that oftentimes then too when after many and difficult Labours su­stained, [Page 2]they shall seem to have obtained the Victory in Dispute. To desire to dispute with either of these two sorts of Men, is all one, as if one should plow the Sea-shore, or beat the Air. To desire indeed to deal with those men with Reasons, who will not recede so much as a fingers breadth from the Opinion they have undertaken to maintain, is all one as by Ar­guments to perswade him the Sun shines, who shuts his eyes against the Light thereof, and refuseth to see its Light. Indeed for their sakes (who continually fasten on such kind of Questions, as when they be fully discust, do yet nevertheless not convince Consciences of the principal Truth) to spend much pains, and to weary ones self with continual dispu­ting, is nothing else, but to draw water with a sieve, which if one take up out of the water, im­mediately it appeareth empty and void of that Humour or Moysture which it abundantly drew.

CHAP. II. Of that kind of Papists who will not be taught better.

Amongst the most of Christians, especially the Papists, or by which title they love to [Page 3]be called, the Catholicks, when any Dispute is had with them, we ordinarily meet with these two sorts of Men. The first Sort is twofold: Some fear not roundly and with full mouth to affirme, that they will not be taught better, but that they will tooth and nayl and obsti­nately stick to their own Opinion; Insomuch that though they should see with their eyes that the Wall is white, yet nevertheless they would believe, their Church so believing and judging, that it is black; because being forced by necessity, they find that they must so speak. Whereupon although they find by all their Senses, that is, see, smell, taste, feel, hear, that the bread in the Eucharist is nothing but bread, yet notwithstanding they ought to be willing to believe that it is not bread; but only the accident of Bread, which cannot be tasted, touch'd, or smelt: Not considering that them­selves do by this means give very many cause to doubt of every thing, and so to call in que­stion the chief Foundation of the whole Chri­stian Religion, that is, the Truth of the Re­surrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is built on this Foundation, that the Apostles and Disciples of Jesus Christ, and amongst these Thomas, otherwise not over-credulous, perceived Jesus Christ with all their senses, saw, handled, heard, and veiwed him near to them; judging that that very thing ought to be an [Page 4]irrefragable Argument to themselves and to the whole world, for to believe that Christ rose from the dead not in shew and appearance, but really in his proper body. And they in­deed call this very thing mens believing those things which they do not see; who yet do quite contrary here, whilest they do not believe that very thing, which they see, touch, smell, hear and taste. He that seeth not that this is a great Efficacy of errour, he seeth nothing at all: and if Thomas had followed this Rule, he might by the same Parity of Right have be­lieved that it was not Christ himself whom he beheld before him, into whose side he thrust his Hand, and his Finger into the Prints of the Nails.

CHAP. III Of some Papists that cleave so stifly to their own Opinion, that they will not give place to any Reason.

THere are others who seem not on set pur­pose to be willing, or to dare roundly and openly to profess, that they will not be taught better; yea who protest to the contrary, dee­ming that too gross and rustick a Saying, and yet nevertheless they do not obscurely declare, [Page 5]when they see their Forces reduced to Straits, that they neither can nor ought to yield to a bet­ter Opinion; much less receive any Informati­on from those whom their Church counts He­reticks; and although they perceive themselves in such sort wrapped in, that they can give no reason of their Belief or Opinion, neither from the Sacred Scriptures, nor Councils, nor Fathers, and that their own Reasons are so solidly and strongly refuted, that they may, as it were, feel with their hands, that their Ex­ceptions to the contrary are of no Weight or Force at all; yet they defend or maintain their own so obstinately, that they will rather perswade themselves, that those Arguments, though they seem solid, and altogether Achil­lean, are more brittle than Glass, and do onely deceive under a shew of Reason, which others, more skilful than themselves, would easily and with no trouble solve or answer, and so being blinded with a prejudicate Opinion, and also led with a Love and Reverence of their Mother the Church, they count them meer So­phisms; by this means indeed confessing on the one hand their own weakness, and on the o­ther hand, shewing their singular Constancy, or Obstinacy in the Faith of their Church; contrary Arguments notwithstanding, which press their minds, and force them to doubt of their fore-going Belief, yea to believe to [Page 6]the contrary. We may easily observe that these two Sorts of Men do not seek the Truth with a pious and honest Mind; but that they onely hunt after vain Glory, and the Praise of Victory gotten by any means whatsoever; deeming they have alwayes sufficient Causes of glorying, whilest they dare affirm they are not satisfied. That the case so stands, daily Ex­perience sheweth. Nor is it to be wondred at: The first and chiefest Article of the Papists is this, That their Church cannot err; conse­quently that of all other Churches, that differ from their Church, we are to conclude that they err, and that as long as they persist in their Errour, are liable to eternal destruction & dam­nation. With whom this foundation doth not remain wholly fixt and unshaken, he cannot be a true Papist: but if any hold it tooth and nail, he openly professeth that he is not willing to be taught better, although he shall be con­vinced of his Errour; or if he make shew of some desire to learn, yet doth he with his whole Strength and Might maintain his Opinion; although the Truth be proposed to him as clear­ly and resplendently, as the Sun-beams are wont to be, when the weather is fair and clear. This Foundation being laid, it necessarily fol­lows, that to dispute with a true Papist is fruit­less and endless; and that it cannot be hoped, that such an one should be taken off from his [Page 7]resolution, or by Arguments be reduced into the right Way. Furthermore, a true Papist, as he renders himself unmeet to embrace the Truth, and to acknowledge his own Errour, so doth he unadvisedly cast himself into a La­byrinth or Maze of inextricable absurdities, out of which he is utterly unable to extri­cate or free himself, as it frequently useth to befal them, who receive not the Love of the Truth, that they might be saved, as Paul shews, 2 Thes. 2.10. And this appears more clear than the Noon-dayes Light, when any Dispute is undertaken with them, even concerning any Point whatsoever of the Christian Religion, nor is it necessary in many words to prove it.

CHAP. IIII. That the Papists cannot show, which is that true Church, which cannot err.

THis chief and fundamental Point, which they have alwayes in their mouth, and on which they chiefly build, That the Church of Rome cannot err, is a Labyrinth, out of which they cannot rid themselves. For first, they cannot tell, nor intelligibly declare, which is that Church which they believe cannot err. Secondly, it is impossible for them to bring any [Page 8]Demonstrative Argument, whereby to perswade themselves, or any other impartial man (I do not say the Roman, but) that the Church cannot err. I evince these two: As to the first Member, I thus query with a Papist; When you say the Church or the Church of Rome cannot err, what do you mean by the Church? Do you mean all Christians in general, who take Jesus Christ for their Saviour, and sub­mit to all his holy Commands, so that not so much as one of them can err? Doubtless he will deny it. For every one of them considered singly apart, yea and all conjunctly together, may err; For all are Members of one Body, which ought to have a visible Head, from whom they ought to receive Spiritual Life, Senses and holy Affections. Grant it be so, what then? Do you think that the Cardinals, Archbishops, Presbyters and Doctors are the Church? He will deny it again: Since all and every one singly may err, for the same Reason which we have shewn already. Do you there­fore by the Church understand a general Coun­cil, consisting of all the Cardinals, Bishops and Doctors, as representing the whole multitude of Christians, whose Head this Council is? He will affirm it. But granting this, although it be grounded on no Reason; I will ask fur­ther, Do you believe then that this Council, as it is the Head of the Church, cannot err, [Page 9]howsoever assembled, and whatsoever shall be decreed therein? In no wise, he will say; it ought to be lawfully convocated. By whom, say I? he will say, by the Pope of Rome. Grant this, though it be void of Reason, and with­out Ground, yea and they determine or judge contrary to the Practice of the first General Councils. Is this Council, so convocated, that Church, which cannot err in its Decrees and Determinations? Or, is there that Head of the Church, to which no Errour is incident? Here he will stick or demur somewhat. For I will go on to query, thus. Put the case that this Coun­cil decree any thing without the Consent, yea contrary to the Judgment and Dignity of the Pope of Rome, whether or no can it err therein? Here he must of necessity be wholly at a Loss. For it is known, that not only diverse Ancient Councils, both particular, and General, have past Decrees against his mind, and which did diminish the Pope of Rome's Dignity, as ap­pears by many Councils in Africa, and also in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon, and many others. But further also it is evident, that the General Council of Constance (held in the Year 1414. and called by the Pope of Rome John the 23. or as others the 24. At which were present more than a Thousand Fathers deputed or appointed by the Church of Rome, and among these above three hundred Bishops) decreed with unaminous Consent, that the [Page 10]Council was above the Pope; and therefore that it was in the power of the Council to ex­punge Popes out of the Register of the Church, and to degrade them; even as by the same Council were degraded three Popes, who then exercised the Office of the Popedom, and a­mong these even Pope John himself, who had called this Council, and that for four and fiftie, or according to others, seventie one nefarious Crimes, among which were these two; First, that he had openly denyed the Immortality of Souls, supposing that Men dyed like Beasts; to which he also added this Second, That he affir­med that there was neither Paradise, nor Hell, as is manifest by the 11th Session. Here the Pa­pist must say one of these two: Either that such a general Council, is the Church that can­not err, no not even then, when it determi­neth any thing against the Pope, and to the prejudice of his Highness; as was done in this Council: Or, that such a Council is not the true Church, and therefore is capable of Er­rour. If he say the Former, he will find him­self entangled in a Gordian Knot; and besides he will oppose the greatest Part of the Popish Doctors, especially the Jesuits, who not only affirm that the Pope is above a Council, but also determine that that Council of Constance is in this respect to be blamed, wherein they de­creed that the Pope was inferiour to a Council; [Page 11]as is clear out of Cardinal Bellarmin and others: yea further, he will be forc't expresly to confess that the Pope of Rome, who hath suceeeded to Peters Right and Power, is not the chief or su­pream Head of all Churches; and by Conse­quence that the Pope of Rome may err in Faith, and swerve from the Truth. If he say the lat­ter, he falls into a new Labyrinth; For then he doth not only contradict Councils, but also many and diverse both Churches, and Popish Doctors; And namely the most ancient School of the Sorbon in France, which by some is cal­led the first Daughter of the Church; which with the greatest part of the French Churches, defends and approves of that decree of the Council of Constance. Howbeit suppose that he find no dif­ficulty in this matter, yet there he will stick, that even then he knoweth not, and cannot tell or shew that Church, which affirms that it can­not err. For if a General Council be not the Church, or if it may err, and doth err, when it determines any thing against the Pope, or with­out his approbation, I pray what is that which makes the Church not lyable to Errour? Haply he will say the Council is the Church, when it agrees with the Pope, and is confirmed by Him. Here again is a new Labyrinth, for it may fall out, and it very often hath, that the greatest Part of the Council may not vote with the Pope. I­magine therefore that the greatest Part of the Council do judge and decree something, that the [Page 12]Pope disallows of; Or that the Pope agree with the lesser Part: Which Part in this Case makes the Church? Not the greatest; For that is con­trary to the Pope. Doth then the least Part make the Church? What Reason? What shew of Truth? What only, because the Pope favours it? Then the Pope is the Church; For if these few make the Church, because the Pope is on their Side; then if they were only two, who should judge against a thousand others? those two with the Pope would make the Church? and what speak I of two? Although there were only one, yea none, yet the matter would come to the same Issue, the Pope alone at length would be the Fore-castle and Poop, and the whole Church, which cannot err; Although he be even the veryest Knave in the World; Yea further, not only a Heretick but also an Atheist, who denies the Immortality of the Soul, Heaven and Hell; As Pope John the 23, of whom we have lately spoken of, did: For which Cause he was degra­ded by the Council of Constance, with so se­vere a Sentence; that he was never after to be so much as counted for a Pope: as appears by the 11. and 12. Session.

CHAP. V. That none can lawfully decide this Que­stion.

LO in what an intricate and inextricable Labyrinth the Papist sticks, as to the first and chief Foundation of his Religion, to wit, that even to this day he cannot tell what that Church is that cannot err, or which is that Head of the Church that is not subject to er­rour, but he must contradict many and divers Catholick Churches and Doctors; Nor can the Mind of Man devise any means, whereby to bring Him out of this Maze of Errors into the way. For who shall determine and decide this without Errour? For either the Pope or a Coun­cil shall determine this Question, disjunctly or conjunctly, (that is, apart or together.) Dis­junctly it is impossible, because neither of them can remove the Controversie. For as long as it doth not appear, or it is not agreed, whether is the true Church which cannot err, neither can decide this Question by a Peremptory and infallible Judgment: And if either should as­sume this right to himself, it would justly be suspected by the other Party: And he would in very, deed make himself a Judge in his own Cause. For if either deliver his Right unto o­ther, [Page 14]he will not only commit an unworthy Deed (For to deliver the Right of supream Authority in the Church is a wicked and un­lawful Act: To whom that Right appertain­eth, he must of necessity maintain the same.) but he will also thwart or go against all the Decrees of other Councils, wherein either a Council is defined to be above the Pope, or the Pope above a Council. And supposing this were done, yet will it follow from thence, that the Church of Rome hath for so great a space of Time, either erred in so fundamental a Point; or stuck in Uncertainty and Doubt, not knowing what to determine concerning this Question. It is a Deep without Bottom, into which hitherto the Church of Rome hath been plung'd, together with all those who think her the only Church wherein alone Salvation may and ought to be had. Let any one shew himself, that can free himself from thence with shew of Truth, and solid Reasons.

CHAP. VI. That a Papist cannot demonstrate from the Sacred Scripture, that the Head of his Church cannot err.

BUt suppose we indeed, that a Papist could tell the Head of his Church, (which yet, [Page 15]as hath been prov'd already, he cannot) by what Argument, I pray, will he assure both himself, and others that this Head cannot err? What way soever he takes to demonstrate this, he will see that he falls into another far more intricate Labyrinth. For, that he may be cer­tain, That this Head cannot err, it is necessa­ry, that either he will believe it simply, and without Reason, or that he labour to prove it from the Sacred Scripture, or from the Fathers, or by Reasons. If he will believe and perswade himself thereof simply, and have others believe the same; all Dispute will be forthwith super­fluous and void: and if another on the contrary, will not believe the same, they will then be both alike, and both continue to stick in the Laby­rinth of their own carnal Will. However it be, his Faith is not a Faith that cannot err; and consequently, he cannot with Certainty rely thereon. If he endeavour to prove it from Scrip­ture, he entangles himself much more. For first, it cannot be known, according to his Opinion, that the Scripture is the Word of God, except the true Church first certifie us thereof. If this be true as he believeth it is, and according to the Rules of his Church he is bound to believe, he cannot take Arguments from the Scripture, whereby to maintain that the true Church can­not err; Or whereby to prove, that his Church is the true Church that knows not how to err. Secondly, suppose that it be even granted to [Page 16]him, to fetch his Reasons from the Scripture, he will then find himself much more entangled. For presently the Question will be concerning the true meaning of the Scripture. And the Question that is raised, to wit, whether it be contained in the Scripture, that the Church cannot err, who shall by an infallible Judge­ment decide it? Shall his Church? This is no wayes possible, because the Question is concer­ning the meaning of the Scripture, to wit, whe­ther the Scripture gives to the Church this right or Priviledge of judging authoritatively, and in­fallibly. But Thirdly: granting also that the Scripture doth give this Power to the true Church (which it doth not) yet the Question will remain, which is that Church, which is the true Church, and to whom this Priviledge in Scripture is given. And in the Power of what Church shall the Power of deciding infallibly this Question be? In the Power of the Roman? But the Question is moved no less concerning it then others; besides it cannot pass Judgment in its own concern, more than another Church concerning its. If he go about to prove it by Reasons, he will rove without the bounds, be­cause those Reasons are not Scriptural, and we here treat or plead about the Scripture. But sup­posing, that Reasons be opposed against Rea­ons; There will now straightway result from thence a new Question, Which Reasons are strongest and infallible, whereby we may be cer­tain? [Page 17]That the Reason taken from Succession doth not belong to this Place, we shall demon­strate hereafter. That a Papist should emerge from hence, is impossible.

CHAP. VII. That He cannot demonstrate this very thing from the Fathers.

IF he will prove this from the Fathers their Writings, he falls into the same, and indeed into a more intricate Labyrinth. Into the same, I say: For immediately the Question will be, whence doth it appear certainly that this Right or Power doth belong to the Writings of the Fa­thers, that the decision of this and other Con­troversies in the business of Religion ought to be fetcht from them? I say also into a more in­tricate. For first, it will be demanded, what Fathers, and what Writings do they mean? If they say these or those, it will secondly be ask­ed, Why those rather than other, and why not all? For whoso puts this Difference between the Writings of the Fathers, he does by that ve­ry Deed of his make the decision. And to whom shall it belong to make this Decision? Further­more, suppose that there be no Controversie raised concerning some, yet thirdly the Que­stion will remain still, Whether those writings, [Page 18]which be attributed to the Fathers, be their Writings whose Names they bear? or whether they might not in Tract of Time through neg­ligence, through Deceit and Fraud be corrupted, and depraved? or whether they might not be patcht up with the supposititious Changling or forged Books of other Writers, as we see indeed done at this Day by the Writings of Tertullian, Justin, Hierome, Augustine, Chrysostome, &c? Who shall judge between the genuine or true, and the supposititious or adulterate and false? For that there is required a skill in Tongues, conti­nual or diligent reading, an acute Judgment and an accurate Examination of the Words and Phrasiologie or manner of expression of the Fa­thers. But supposing also, that there is no Con­troversie touching these Things; Then Fourth­ly the Question will be, whether all those Things, which the Fathers believed and wrote, are to be believed and received as true. If you deny it; I will query in the Fifth Place, why one more than another? If you say, because they are all agreed in that or the one, then these Questions will forthwith arise. First, wherefore should all those Things, wherein they are agreed amongst themselves, be ac­counted or held by the Church of Rome for undoubted and certain. The Second is, what are those things concerning which they are a­greed, and which are to be embraced. To know this, you must attentively turn over the Wri­tings [Page 19]of all the Fathers, Greek and Latine, from Head to Foot, for the which some Years space is requisite. And Thirdly, if any Doubt happen ei­ther touching the Sense of their Writings, as there is doubt made of the Scripture, or of their Phrases and forms of Expression, which they at that Time used, and now are both used and understood far otherwise, what end will there be? But passing this, seeing the Fathers agree among themselves in this, that they would have neither their own nor any Writings of Men, except the Books that are Canonical, to be lookt upon as free from Error; yea, seeing they roundly confess that they may err, and by Consequence would not that their Wri­tings should be believed not to be lyable to Error, but do expresly will, that they be tryed by the Word of God, desiring that they should be rejected if they agree not therewith; What shall be done then? What Certainty can there be had from their Writings against Er­rors? Certainly none at all. Yea rather, if we make Use of them for this end, that we may from thence be assured in our belief; we use them contrary to the Intention of the Fathers, and so against their plain and express Prote­station and Prohibition, wherein the Fathers are all agreed.

CHAP. VIII. That the same cannot be proved by Reasons.

IF he at length have a mind to confirm his Thesis by Reasons, he falls out of one La­byrinth into another. For first, what Reasons will sway with him whereon to rely, when as in the main Article of his Belief he doth not only not heed Rea [...]ons; but doth not believe so much as his outward Senses? Can there be given any more solid Argument for the convincing of any one, than that which is drawn from that which we see with our own Eyes, which we perceive with our Senses being sound; and lastly, which we feel and taste? These things notwithstanding the true Papist makes small Account of; Seeing that neither by Reasons, nor by his own Senses he suffers himself to be induced to believe, that the Eucharistical Bread, in the Lord's Supper, is essentially and substantially Bread: Yea when he will undoubtedly believe that one and the same Body is in many places together, and they far distant each from other, remaining indivi­ded, notwithstanding that it be distant, and separate from it self one hundred, yea a thou­sand, and, if it were possible, a thousand thou­sand Miles; that one and the same Body at the same Time should be able to move in this [Page 21]Place, and elsewhere not to move: That one and the same Body should meet it self, and move with contrary Motions at the same mo­ment of Time, that is, together at once from East to West, and from West to East, Upward and Downward, Foreward and Backward: That one and the same Body here should be as hot as Fire, and at Rome as cold as Ice; That it should be alive here, and dead at Venice? He that will believe these Things, which are di­ametrically contrary to the Nature of Man, and right Reason, by what Reason shall he either dare, or be able to perswade himself or others of any thing? Those who shame not to que­stion so clear a Truth, and obstinately to be­lieve the cont [...]ry, and as I may so say, wil­fully to draw a Film over their Eyes that they may not see; with such, I say, Reasons are like Counters, which stand for so much, as they de­sire they should stand for that use them in Ac­counts.

But be it, that they make Use of Reasons. What Reasons I pray you will they here pro­duce? Will they take them from the Scrip­ture? But then the same Difficulties will remain, as we have already recounted. Or, shall their Reasons not be taken from Scripture? But those by other Reasons may most easily and not without just cause be called into Doubt. For if the Church cannot err, this must necessarily proceed from the Divine Will and Decree. [Page 22]For if God will not have the Church to be be­yond or out of all Danger of Errour, what Reason will there be given undenyably prov­ing that the Church cannot err? Now the will and Decree of God cannot be understood with­out the Scripture, much less can it be drawn from mens Wit and Reasoning. From whence it followeth that it is altogether most absurd, by Reasons, which may be doubted of, to prove any thing, which ought now long before with­out all Doubt and Controversie to be believ­ed, to depend upon the meer free Will and De­cree of God.

By these Things it is manifest in how intri­cate and inexplicable a Circle the Papists wan­der, in [...]espect of the fundamental Article of their Faith, when they will believe nothing but what their Church believeth; yet cannot certainly shew what their Church properly is, or who is the Head of their Church; and al­though they could shew that (as they cannot) yet were it impossible for them to prove that the Church, much less that their Church cannot err.

And thus far of the first sort of Papists, with whom we have said that Dispute is alwayes held in vain.

CHAP. IX. That the Controversie of Succession is use­less, and endless.

THe second sort of them is those, who greatly desire always to dispute of those Questions, which though they be weighed by the exact ballance of Truth, yet do they not assure the Consciences of Men, nor convince them of the Truth, that is chiefly necessary to be believed.

These are they, who have the Antiquity and Succession both of their Doctrine and Church always in their Mouth: concluding for certain that they have born away the Palm, and gotten the Victory; if they may glory thereof. This they sound forth as the Burden of the Catholicks Song. And which is wor­thy of the Highest Admiration, the chief Cry­ers and Boasters hereof are even those, who haply not so much as ever throughly viewed the Books and Histories of those Men, from whence this Antiquity and continued Succes­sion is to be drawn and maintained; or if they have viewed them thorow, are yet neverthe­less no wayes fit to turn them over without Affection and Prejudice, to wit, being wont, either foolishly to believe by a Proctour, to [Page 24]whom they perswade themselves the Matter is best known, although he sometimes be void of all knowledge of matters; or else foolishly and without Judgment to catch at all words and syllables, which they deem do any way serve their Purpose and Design.

How tedious a thing it is to enter upon the Stage of Disputation with such, every one ea­sily perceives. For who seeth not how hard and great a Labour it is to dispatch or put an End to those Questions, which are to be de­monstrated, from the Memory of Ages, and so great variety of Books and Histories; and being demonstrated so that all way to any fur­ther Exception be shut up, do produce no Fruit in the Minds of the contrary Party? Where­fore those who trouble the People with suc [...] Things, what do they else, but involve them in an inextricable Labyrinth, whereby the un­skilful Multitude either despaireth of an happy Event or End; or if they have any Hope, they nevertheless cease not to stick fast in the same Mire of uncertainty, to wit, being dull'd and stupified with the overmuch labour of search? This indeed is the readiest Way, whereby any one may lord it over the Consciences of simple Men, and having entangled them in a Gordian Knot, perswade them any Thing. But let us propose both these a little more clearly. The first I prove thus.

None will be able to deny, that for the asser­ting [Page 25]the Antiquity not only of the Church, but also of a continued and uninterrupted Succes­sion of Bishops in the Church, there is necessa­rily required, first a certain, undoubted, and accurate Knowledge of Authors both Greek, and Latin, and of all Histories, that have been written of this thing. And Secondly, that to this knowledge there ought to be added a good and quick-sighted Judgment, whereby exactly to discern their true and genuine Books from those that are supposititious and adulterate; true Histories from those that are foisted in and interlaced; those that were composed with Partiality, out of Affection, and fore-stall'd O­pinion, from those they composed void of Partiality and Prejudice; to reconcile Repug­nancies, and faithfully to supply Defects. How much Pains, Trouble, and Time it requires, eve­ry one sees; even amongst the most learned for the whole Space of a thousand and six hundred Years, there hath been none hitherto, who hath been able to perform it. The first of them can­not indeed be so much as sought for, much less found. Shall then the unlearned and un­skilful common People, who are counted un­able to turn over one Book of the Scripture, be sufficient to undergo so great a Work as ac­curately to enquire into all Histories, where­with even whole Barns may be filled, and Ships laden? The Laicks or lay-People in the the Papacie, who laying aside the holy Scrip­ture, [Page 26]alwayes talk of Antiquity and Succes­sion, bewray a mind stupid and foolish e­nough; because they know nothing more, yea happily much less of true Antiquity and Succession than they do of the Scripture, in­deed being alike ignorant of both.

It is true indeed, that there may easily be drawn up a Catalogue and Index of Bishops, where, in their Course and Order wherein they succeeded each other, they may be set down. But that is nothing to the Purpose. For the same do the Grecian, the Ethiopick Churches and others. The Constantinopolitan doth it, sayes Bellarmine from the Times of Constantine Cae­sar, in an uninterrupted Series; as also Nice­phorus, who continues the Names of the Bi­shops, even from the very Times of Andrew the Apostle. And yet Bellarmine denies, and all the Papists with him, that the Grecians can of Right claim to themselves a Succession. The Succession therefore of Persons is not e­nough, but it is required withal that it be lawful and such, as that among the Bishops who have succeeded one another, there have been no Heretick, Atheist, or Apostate among them. First it is requisite that it be lawful, for as the Papal Decree hath it Dist. 79. If any by Mo­ney, or mens Favour, or Popular, or Military Tumult, without the unaminous and Canonical Election, both of the Cardinals and of the following Clergie, shall be inthron'd in the A­postolick [Page 27]Seat; let him not be accounted A­postolical, but Apostatical. Secondly, it is re­quired, that among the Bishops that succeed each other, there have been no Heretick among them. For, for this cause, as Cardinal Bellar­mine, and other Pontificial Doctors affirm, the Succession of the Constantinopolitan Bishops is not to be counted lawful, because there have been Hereticks amongst them. Lib. 4. of the Marks of the Church, Cap. 8. He there­fore that will judge aright of the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, he must of Necessi­ty be most certainly assured of both these, e­ven according to the Canons of the Papists themselves. But how is this possible? Who can undoubtedly know, whether all their Bi­shops have obtained the Episcopacy lawful­ly? Whether some have not obtained the Dignity of Succession by Simony, that is, by Mony and Gifts (as Simon Magus desired to do) or by Force, Arts and Wiles, by Factions and unlawful Suits and Bribings for the same? Again, if any desirous to read their Histories, do find of a certain that even those Writers themselves who have been most devoted to the Pontificians, do openly and roundly confess, that not only one or two, but that many and diverse Bishops of Rome, have climbed to the Pontifical Dignity, who having been condem­ned of manifest Heresie, have been counted im­pious Villains, Atheists, Schismaticks, Ruffians [Page 28]and Bands who by Gifts and Bribes, by Force and Factions, without any precedent Choice, or consequent Approbation of the Clergie, by dishonest and foul Devices and Guil [...] [...]ve in­truded themselves, or by Harlots, and their Whores have come to the Succession: Who I pray, can extricate himself out of this Maze of Doubts? If you say, the best and faithfullest Historians are to be credited in this Case, you fall into a new Labyrinth. For I demand who are they? and by what are they to be distin­guished? Why shall he derogate from the Cre­dit of the Pontifician Writers? For they can­not be termed Hereticks, or mortal Enemies to the Church of Rome, because themselves were sworn Vassals thereunto, and some of them the greatest Flatterers and fawners upon the Popes, and the pontificial Dignity. He is therefore forc'd to believe, that these Writers were impell'd and constrained by the Truth of the thing it self, to write these things. And suppose that they were not Pontifician Wri­ters; What Reason shall perswade that Cre­dit is to be denyed to them as not faithful Wri­ters, rather then unto others who were Favou­rers of the Pope and his Dignity? Friend­ship is no less able to with-hold a Writer from writing the Truth, than Enmity or Hatred is. He that will deliver Truth to Posterity must write without all Affectation. And by what solid Reason, and which will convince, [Page 29]the Judgment, shall we perswade our selves that there hath been any such Writer, especial­ly if we live not in the same age, and at the same time with him? He that considers these Things without Prejudice, ought to be induced to be­lieve, that those who endeavour to defend or shelter themselves under Antiquity and Suc­cession, do involve themselves in a Labyrinth, in which one may easily be intangled, but hardly, nay nor indeed hardly be disintangled or loosed.

CHAP. X. That Truth is to be preferred before all Antiquity and Succession whatsoever.

BUt granting that any one could prove this Antiquity and Succession. What will be evinced from thence as to the chief Point of the Matter? Nothing at all. For Antiquity and Succession of Persons being proved; yet the Que­stion concerning Truth will still remain. If Anti­quity and Succession be not joyned with Truth, what I pray do they make for the proving of this Business? Antiquity is not the Cause of Truth, much less Succession. And if Anti­quity and Succession ought necessarily to be joyned with Truth, then the Truth is first and chiefly to be known, which whilest it is un­known, so long a man hangs in Suspence. [Page 30]Even as if a man should find Money, which he certainly knows was coined many Ages before, yet remains in doubt, whether that Money be made of good Metal, or no. Anti­quity doth wholly differ from Goodness: Nor doth a naughty Person cease to be naught, be­cause he is old. Not every ancient Custom is good. And this is the Cause, Why the Fa­thers discoursing of true Antiquity and Successi­on, would have us chiefly to Mind that Suc­cession, which is in Conjuction with the ge­nuine Doctrine and Truth; Especially when we have to do with those, that reject the Scrip­ture either in Part, or in whole, [...], saith Gregory Nazianzen, i. e. For the one is a being of the same Mind or Judgment, and to sit on the same Throne: The other is to be of a contrary Opinion or Judgment, and to sit on a contrary Throne: The one hath the Name, the other the Truth of Succession. And Ambrose saith, Qui Pe­tri Fidem-non habet, is nihil à Petro haeredita­rio Jure obtinet, ac frustra gloriatur de Petri Suc­cessione; That is, He that hath not Peter's Faith, he inheriteth nothing from Peter, and boa­steth in vain of his Succeeding of Peter.

This thing is so clear, that even the most learned Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine proveth the same, acknowledging both these, 1. That [Page 31]the Argument concerning Succession is not brought by his Party to prove that that Church, wherein is the right of Succession, is therefore to be accounted the true Church; but onely to prove that that is not the Church, where there is not Succession. And, 2. That Antiquity and continued Succession doth no­thing at all avail the Grecian, or at least the Constantinopolitan, nay nor all your Patriarchal Churches, to prove that they are a true Church, because there have been sometimes amongst them Bishops that have been hereti­cal, whose Thread therefore of Succession hath been broken and cut off. From hence it most clearly follows, that though Succession be al­ready proved, yet the main Question concer­ning Truth doth remain still. For if when Succession is proved, it cannot infallibly be gathered and concluded, that that Church is the true Church in whose Hands the Succes­sion is; And if farther it ought to appear for certain that no Heresies or heretical Bishops have broken off the Succession; Reason it self dictates, that Succession is proved in vain, or at least to no great Profit, unless we be thorowly informed concerning the Truth. For whilest the Truth is unknown, it is impossible to know, whether any thing favour of Heresie or no.

But who shall shew us the Truth? Or who shall most fully assure us thereof? Shall the true Church? But where, and which is [Page 32]it? It cannot be. For when Succession of Per­sons is proved, it is not yet certain and undoub­ted, that that Church wherein is Succession, hath Truth on its side, or hath been alwayes free from Heresie, and by Consequence hath belonging to it the Right and Power to point out the true Church. What Church therefore shall it be, that shall infallibly shew us and say, that this is true, that that on the contrary is Heretical? For the Church that wants Succession, according to the Jesuits, cannot do it, nor the Church in which is Suc­cession, as is manifest from the precedent Grounds. What then? What End is there? It is impossible for a Papist to untye this Knot. To which I add this over and above; Sup­pose that no heretical Bishops have interven'd or stept in among those that have succeeded, but such who, as we have said, have by Force, Faction, and popular Tumult, by Gifts and Bribes thrust themselves into the Apostolical Seat, where I pray will be the Succession? Must we indeed believe that holy and saving Truth may better consist with these nefarious Wic­kednesses, than with Heresie and Errour? Nay rather, if farther it be found in Histories that at one Time, and that indeed for fifty, or eighty Years together, there have been two or three Popes, the one of which expunged the other out of the Catalogue of Christians, call'd him in Reproach Heretick and Antichrist, [Page 33]pronounced him an unlawful Pope, cut off two of his Predecessors fingers, drew up out of the Earth Bodies already buried, and ha­ving shamefully abused their Ashes, cast them into the Tyber, all which three Popes some­times together have been condemned and de­graded, and taken out of the Number of Christians, by an universal Council, as false and unlawful Popes, as Hereticks and ungodly Villains, by whom notwithstanding there were many Bishops and Clergie men ordained, what End or Bounds of Succession will the Thread of Connection find? For if it be said for Examples sake, That that Pope, which in the Times of the Council of Constance was by common Votes substituted in the room of those three Popes, which were deposed by the said Council, is to be accounted for the true Pope, who succeeded in the Room of the last that de­ceased lawfull Pope, the Apostolical Sea being in the Interim vacant, and usurped by Force, he will fall into a new Labyrinth; for that many of the Popish Doctors, and Bellarmine by Name, and all the Jesuits do determine and urge, that this Council is so far to be judged for not lawful, in that it decreed that the Council was above the Pope, because it was not approved of either by the Pope, that is, that most impious Knave and Villain, John the twentie fourth, or twentie third, who had cal­led that Council, and was by the Sentence of [Page 34]the same degraded, or by the Pope whom this Council constituted in his stead. For if this Council in that Respect be not to be coun­ted for lawful, how then shall a lawful Suc­cession be proved? Had then this Council been in this Respect lawful, if that Knave and Var­lot had approved of the same? This is shame­ful to be spoken, and more shameful to affirm, that therefore this Council was not lawful, because it was nor approved of by him. Or had it then been lawful, if the succeeding Pope had approved of the same? But now, forsooth, it shall be unlawful, because the Pope that was made by this Council, said not of him­self and those like him, that he was subject to the Council, but on the contrary, Lucifer-like maintained that he was above the Council. Howbeit it is altogether credible that the De­cree of the Council was approved of by Him, before he was chosen for Pope. Who here sees not a Circle of Absurdities? However it be, if the Authority of the Council be no more than the Popes, it could not depose the Pope, and therefore those ungodly Knaves Popes are to be reckoned among the Bishops that lawfully succeed by a continual Succession, not inter­rupted by Reason of their Heresie, Atheism, Simony, Force and Villanies; or if there be granted an Interruption, there will now forthwith be no Succession at all, upon the same Account, that Bellarmine denies that the Suc­cession [Page 35]of the Greeks is to be accounted law­ful. He that seeth not that the Papists are wholly at a loss in all these Things, as in an endless Labyrinth of Errours, he truly seeing is blind. For howsoever the Case stands touching Succession, the Question concerning Truth will alwayes remain. To what Pur­pose therefore do they enter into so intricate a Labyrinth, and take so great Pains for to prove a Succession? One of these must necessa­rily be concluded, either that the Truth is sufficient to constitute a true Church, or that it is not. If the former be true; To what End is Succession by these endless Windings to and fro proved? If the latter; What doth Truth avail, if it do not constitute a true Church? It is contrary to the Nature and Propertie of Truth not to constitute a true Church, whether those who teach the Truth, have it by Tradition from others, or no, or at least know not the List of their Names, from whom they have it delivered to them. Gold will be Gold, although it have been hid, and buried in the Earth a thousand Years. But you will say, it is requisite that there be some, before I know Gold, to teach me that that is Gold. But, say I, shall the Church thorowly do this? But then there is required some one besides, by whom I may be sure that that this Church, which doth affirm that this is Gold, doth know it most exactly, and can­not [Page 36]err therein. Who shall that be? Here the Papists make a Circle. We assert that the Scripture is Truth, which the Church of Rome granteth us. But yet it is the Prerogative of the Church, saith he, to tell us that the Scrip­ture is Truth. But, say I, who shall tell me that the Church that affirms this, saith true? She hath not this Priviledge by Succession, unless it clearly appear that she never defected from the Truth. This cannot appear, unless I know what is Truth. If the Church her­self assume this, she then singeth to us the same Song, and so the Church will be both Plan­tiff, and Judge, and that in her own proper Cause. Here will be no End of contending. And that is it, which Tertullian meant, in that most known Place, and commonly in the mouth of all the Papists, which they quote in all their Writings, with a very perverse wrest­ing of the Sense thereof, in his Book of Proscript against Hereticks, Chap. 32. Where he thus speaketh: But if any (Heresies) dare insert themselves in the Times of the Apostles, that so they may be thought to have been deli­vered by the Apostles, because they were in the Apostles Dayes, we may say; that is, we may in such Case demand of them the Succession of which they boast, saying, Let them produce the Originals of their Churches, turn over the Order of their Bishops, so running down by Succession from the Beginning, as that first Bishop, had some one [Page 37]of the Apostles, or Apostolical men, who yet con­tinued with the Apostles, for his Author and Predecessor, &c. And a little after, Let the He­reticks feign any such Thing: (which is to be noted, as serving our Purpose) yet though they shall feign it, they shall prevail nothing. For their very Doctrine compared with that of the Apostles, by its Diversity and Contra­riety, will aloud declare that it hath neither a­ny Apostle, nor Apostolical Man for its Au­thour. For as the Apostles would not have taught Things differing among themselves, so also the Apostolical Men would not have published Things contrary to the Apostles, except it were those, who revolted from the Apostles, and taught otherwise. According to this Form therefore or Manner (note it well) shall those Churches appeal, which though they can produce none of the Apostles, or Apo­stolick Men, as their Authour, as being long after, and which lastly are daily instituted: yet agreeing in the same Faith, (to wit with the Apostles or Apostolick Men) they are not the less deemed Apostolical, by Reason of the cou­sanguinity or nearness of kin of their Do­ctrine; That is, (according to Tertullians style) because they agree with the Apostles in Doctrine. These words of Tertullian, which the Papists so shamefully abuse, and so violent­ly wrest, do not obscurely confirm what we have said. For Tertullian says three Things, [Page 38]First, that those Churches, which have the Truth agreeable with the Doctrine of the Apostles, are no less Apostolical Churches then others, although they cannot shew their Succession, for that only Cause, for that they have the Truth on their side. Secondly, that those Churches which glory of their Succession, and Original derived from the Apostles, and cannot demonstrate it, are justly to be rejected, as those who obtrude upon us that which is false. And Thirdly, that those Chur­ches which demonstrate their Succession, whether lawfully, or unlawfully, are not to be counted for true Churches, unless it appear, that their Do­ctrine is agreeable to the Doctrine of the Apo­stles. What Churches agree therein, the same are Apostolical, although they be destitute of Succession. This is more clear then the Noon­dayes Sun. The same affirmeth Augustine in that Place, which is also quoted as unfaith­fully, and contrary to the Meaning of Augu­stine, by the Papists, in his Book which he wrote against the fundamental Epistle of Ma­nichee, Chap. 4. For when he had said that he clave to the Catholick Church, wherein from the See of Peter, even to his Time, the Succession of Bishops and Priests had been deduced, he addes these words, which are altogether agree­able with our Judgment, With you (he speaks of the Manichees) where there is none of these to invite, and detain me, there is onely the noise of the Promise of Truth, which indeed were it [Page 39]so manifestly shewed, that it could not be questi­oned, were to be preferred before all those Things, by Reason whereof I am detained in the Catho­lick Church What could Augustine have spoken more clear to prove and shew, that nei­ther Antiquity nor Succession can avail, so as that any one should be able to quit himself of the Labyrinth of Doubts touching the true Church, but that the Truth alone onely can, and ought to do it.

CHAP. XI. What may be the Cause or Original of the Popish Labyrinth.

BUt some one will say, by this Means the Business indeed is made intricate, but there is no way shew­ed to untie this Gordian Knot. But, say I, the Way to unty this Knot is not so hard, if we mind the Fountain, and very Original of it. For it ariseth hence, that Men in this World desire an outward Ease and Peace, an easy and delicate Religion, the which to ob­tain, they seek for an infallible Judge speaking in the Church, who Authoritatively may decide all Contro­versies, and to whose Award and Judgment the Consci­ences and Tongues of all should be obliged or bound, so that it shall not be lawful to contradict it; and if any refuse to acquiesce in his Judgment, he ought to be subdued by Force under Pain of Death and his highest Displeasure: In a word, they endeavour of the Church of Christ to make a wordly Policy, and for that End forbid the Laicks and common People of the reading the Sacred Scripture, lest Confusion arise in the Church; [Page 30]and the Clergie that are admitted thereunto, they com­mand, that they read not the Scripture upon any other Terms or condition, but to understand, and interpret it ac­cording to the Mind and Sense of this Judge, or upon an express Proviso added, that they will not understand it otherwise, although they do understand it otherwise.

This is the Spring and Original of this Evil, as long as this is not withstood, the Labyrinth of Errours will remain. I grant indeed that at the first Veiw it doth not seem so unreasonable, that some Judge should be ap­pointed in the Church, because otherwise there can be had no end of Questions and Controversies about Re­ligion; But in very Deed and in Truth it is but the De­vice and Appointment of those men, who either endea­vour to introduce a Tyranny, being desirous of Rule; Or study their own Accommodation, being indeed Lovers of Ease more then of the Truth; Or at least shelter them­selves partly under a Desire of the Churches Tranquilli­ty, partly under the Pretence of Simplicity, Piety and Humility. The Matter is clear. For if God or the Lord Jesus Christ, had thought it necessary or useful, that there should be alwayes such a Judge speaking in the Church, they would have declared it even expresly; and not only that, but they would withal clearly and palpably have pointed out who and where that Judge should alwayes be, that we might not be deceived: And so might have Recourse unto him, as unto a Place of Refuge. Yea farther, Christ would first and chiefly have taken Care of this, and the Apostles would have prest it before all the Articles of Faith, because all Things ought necessarily there to issue. For by such a Judge all things might have been decided and composed. But in­deed on the Contrary, because neither Christ, nor his Apostles have done this, it cannot but be an humane Device and Project, built upon a wordly and outward Tranquillity and Conveniency, and favouring of Tyran­ny, and usurped Domination: For, for any one of his own Head to appoint such a Judge, is a piece of over­great boldness, and the highest Treason against the di­vine Majesty that can be again, and fit or apt to enslave [Page 41]the whole World under everlasting Errours and Condem­nation.

As to what they say, That Christ delivered or gave the Keys to Peter, it is too light to build the whole Office of a Judge upon it. For seeing this is a Business so hard, and so highly concerns the whole World, even Christ, who came to save the World, would have declared, that this was the Sense of his Words, saying; since I grant this Power and Priviledge to Peter, I will that all the rest of the Apostles be excluded: and furthermore, that those, who succeed Peter, not at Antioch, or at Jerusa­lem, but only at Rome, should inherit that Right or Pri­viledge of Supream Judicature, and that all Christians should be bound or tyed to this Judge even to the worlds End or Consummation of Ages. Thus Christ would have roundly, and clearly, exprest his Mind and Men­ning; and indeed, who in a matter so arduous, would have expected other from Christ, who is a Lover of Men; Al­though the whole Scripture from Head to Foot, had been nothing but a far-setcht Allegory, and continued Obscu­rity, it could nothing haue prejudiced us, because the Judge of the Sentence thereof would be known; this one Thing if it were clear, and undoubted, all other Articles, although seemingly difficult, would be most easily under­stood.

CHAP. XII That the judging of Truth according to, or out of the Word of God, belongeth to every private Man.

BUt Now, because we see the Lord Jesus Christ, and his Apostles, have in the holy Scripture clearly and plainly exprest all Things necessary for a Christian to believe, hope and do, and will that the said Scriptures, be with all diligence read over and inquired into by all that are desirous of Salvation, and the Way that leads thereunto, and that withal with an accurate Examination [Page 42]and Tryal of all things and Spirits, whether they be of God, under the Pain of eternal Condemnation, and there be no one tittle any where in all their Writings extant, of any such infallible speaking Judge, alwayes to be in the Church, much less where he is to be found; We cannot but judge, that those who desire such a Judge in the Churches, are moved thereunto by Considerations far otherwise then Divine, and that they render themselves guilty of the greatest sin, and crime, to wit, of Dominion, and Tyranny or abitrary Power over the Word of God, and the Consciences of Men.

That in wordly Concerns there are appointed Judges, by whose Judgment and Award we must stand, the Case is far different. For to their Judgment the Consciences of Men are not bound, it is free for every man to believe, or judge of their Awards, Judgments and Decisions as he please. The Award of the Judges is to be commended with our Mouth, not to be approved without Hearing. With­all oftentimes their Judgments and Awards, a long while after, are by contrary Judgments and Awards null'd, or corrected. But when the Business is about Conscience, Religion, Salvation, eternal Life, or eternal Condemna­tion, there ought to be no Judge there, but God, or he to whom God hath expresly, and in Terms committed and given this Power, that a man may most rightfully say, if God hath given this Priviledge to the Church of Rome, it is the best, yea the only Church; and on the contrary, if it be evident, that God hath not given this Right, it is the most abominable, pernicious, and filthiest Church that can be again upon the Earth. But, you will say, what End will there be then? This, say I, that the Word of God be impune and freely read by all, that no mans Conscience be tyed to the Judgment of others; that one man love another, and by the best Means, out of the Word of God endeavour to instruct him, and so we expect that Time wherein the Lord God and Jesus Christ, the only Judge of the Quick and Dead, will pass A­ward of Life and Death. By this means Consciences will be free, Christians all quiet and peaceble, and the Word of God the only Rule and Square of all Mens Actions.