them And first how it happened that divers Heretickes pretended to Tradition as the Chiliasts Gnosticks Carpocratians and divers others yet they with their Traditions have been rejected and the Church onely leftin claime of Tradition For if we looke into what Catholicke Tradition is and what the Herelicks pretended the question will remaine voided For the Catholicke Church cals Tradition that Doctrine which was publiquely delivered and the Hereticks called Tradition a kinde of secret Doctrine either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles or rather pretended that the Apostles besides what they publiquely taught the world had another mysticall way proper to Schollers more endeared which came not to publique view whereas the force and energie of a Tradition residing in the multitude of hearers and being planted in the perpetuall life and actions of Christians it must have such a publicity that it cannot be unknown amongst them Of the Carpocratians and Gnosticks I have spoke before but sure for the Chiliasts this is onely said and not proved Howsoever this undeniablie appeares that either Pappias and Irenaeus thought not this Tradition to have come such a way as you speake of or else they thought it no hereticall way but such a one as was at least reasonablie to be assented to and both what was the way by which Traditions ought to come and by which this came they were more likely to know then those of following ages which proves that this Objection as much as concernes them especiallie remaines still so strong that in spite of Fevardentius it will be better to answer it Scalpello quam Calamo with a Pen-knife then with a Pen and no Confuter will serve for it but an Expurgatory Index no non si tuus afforet Hector if Cardinally Perron were alive I must by the way take notice of what yon say here that Tradition must have such a Publicity as cannot be unknown among Christians and desire you to agree this with what you say in the next Paragraph that the Apostles may not have preached in some Countries some Doctrines which we now are bound to receive as Traditions for sure those Doctrines were then unknown among many Christians and if they had been necess ry sure the Apostles would no where have forgot wich so good a Prompter as the Holy Ghost to have taught them If they were not then necessary how have they grown to be so since Besides I appeal to your Conscience whether it appeart that the doctrine of the Exchequer of Superabundant merits of which the Pope is Lord Treasurer and by vertue of which he dispenseth his pardons to all the Soules in Purgatory appear to have been known evern to any of the best Christians and whether if it had been known to them as a Tradition being a Doctrine which necessitates at least Wisdome and Charity a continuall practice of sueing for them and of giving them it were possible that of what they knew such infinite Volumes of Authors should make no mention Suppose some private Doctrine of an Apostle to some Disciple should be published and recorded by that Disciple and some others this might well be a Truth but never obtain the force of a Catholique Position that is such as it would be a damnation to reject because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious and fit to sway the body of the whole Church I confesse that to have been no more generally delivered will prove that the Apostles thought not such a Doctrine necessary else their Charity would not have suffered them to have so much concealed it but yet to any such Doctrine it is impossible that any Christian who believes the testimony that it came from the Apostles should deny his assent because it were to deny the Authority upon which all the rest is grounded for the Church pretends to her Authority from them and not they from her and howsoever such a Doctrine although not necessary could not be damnable as you make this Besides here will first arise a Question not easie to be decided how great a multitude of Witnesses will serve to be notorious and fit to sway the body of the Church especially so many having not for a long while been thought fit even by Catholiques though attesting doctrines since received by you all and considering that multitude of your Church which believe the immaculate Conception in as high a degree as it is possible without excommunicating the deniers who either walk not by that which you count the onely Catholique Rule or else claime such a Tradition who yet are not thought fit to sway the rest Secondly I pray observe how easie it was for the two first Ages at least the chiefe of them and all that are extant to have given assent to Traditions so unsufficiently testified or to have mistaken Doctrines under that notion for so they did to this of the Chiliasts and then after for it to spread till it were generall land last as long as men last upon their authority and when once it is so spread how shall we then discover how small an Originall it had when peradventure the head and spring of it will be as hard to find as that of Nilus so that the greatest part of what you receive might possibly appear to be no certainer nor better built if we could digg to the foundation Wherefore since the delivery of a Tradition by subsequent Ages hath its validity onely from the authority of the first me thinks you should either think that they received none but upon better grounds or else think these grounds good Thirdly I know not why you resolve this opinion of the Chiliasts to have had onely such a private Tradition for though they name John the Disciple and mention certaine Priests who heard it from him yet they deny not a moregeneraldelivery of it but peradventure least men might think that the generall opinion that it came from the Apostles might arise from places of Scripture which fallacie their testimony when not so fully expressed was still in danger of concerning any point but that these books were written by these men they therefore thought it fit to name to us their witnesses that it came from Christs owne mouth and in what words And if they had done so much on your side for the differences between us I believe you would now have few Protestant adversaries left for you would have converted the greater part and by that have been enabled to burn the smaller The second Question may be How it cometh to passe that some things which at first bindes not the Churches beliefe afterwards commeth to bind it For if it were ever a Tradition it ever must needs be publique and ever bind the Church and if once it were not it appears not how ever it could come to be for if this age for example have it not how can it deliver it to the next that followeth But if we consider that the
from the Apostles then they must alwaies have been esteemed so by Christians whereas their doctrine is so farre from having any Tradition against it that if anie opinion whether controverted or uncontroverted except that Scripture which never was doubted may without blushing pretend to have that for it it must be this of theirs My Reasons are these The Fathers of the purest Ages who were the Apostles Disciples but once remov'd did teach this as receiv'd from them who professed to have receiv'd it from the Apostles and who seem'd to them witnesses beyond exception that they had done so they being better Judges what credit they deserv'd then after commers could possibly be All other opinions witnessed by any other Ancients to have Tradition may have been by them mistaken to have been so out of Saint Austin's and Tertullian's rules whereas for this and for this alone are delivered the very words which Christ us'd when he taught it Of the most glorious and least infirme building which ever in my opinion was erected to the honour of the Church of Rome Cardinall Perron was the Architect I mean his book against King James and that relies upon these two pillars that whatsoever all the Fathers he meanes sure that are extant witnesse to be Tradition and the doctrine of the Church that must be receiv'd for the doctrine of those ages and so rested upon If these rules be not concluding then the whole book being built upon them necessarily becomes as unconsiderable for what he intended it as Bevis or Tom Thumb If they be then this doctrine which is now hereticall in your Churches beleife was the opinion of the Ancient Church For if being taught by the Fathers of anie Age none contradicting it be sufficient this all for above two Ages and those the first teach not anie Father opposing it before Dionysius Alexandrinus 250. yeares after Christ at least that we know or Saint Hierome or Saint Austine knew and quoted wherein I note besides that both these Fathers either thought that no signe of the opinion of the Church or cared not though it were And if Fathers speaking as witnesses will serve let Pappias and Irenaeus be heard and believ'd who tels us it came to them from Christ by Verball Tradition and Justine Martir who witnesseth that in his time all Orthodoxe Christians held it and joynes the opposers with them who denied the Resurrection and esteemes them among the Christians like the Sadduces among the Jewes which proves that you have the same reason expallescere audito Ecclesiae nomine to grow pale at the mention of the Ancient Church the nearest to the Apostles as we have to start at that of two hundred years agoe and to be asham'd of your Dionysius Alexandrinus as wee of Luther Thus that great Atlas of your Church hath helpt us to pull it down the samewaies by which he intended to support it and though he have best of any undergone the burden of proving that to be infallible which is false yet he must have confest that either these are not proofes or they prove against himself And this advantage we have that unlesse you prove your own infallibility which you will never be able to do in what point soever you confute us that falls like a Pinacle without carrying all after it whereas if we disprove any one of your Religion we disprove consequently that infallibility which is the foundation of it all so that like them who vse poison'd weapons wheresoever we wound we kill but we are like those creatures which must be killed all over or else their other parts will remaine alive Neither must you think that you have answer'd the Chillasts by tying them to the Carpocratians and the Gnosticks which is but like Mezentius his joyning Mortua corpora vivis dead bodies to the living since the opinions of the two latter assoon as they were taught made the teachers accounted Hereticks and were oppos'd by allmost all whereas that of the first found in above two ages no resistance by any one known and esteemed Person and the teachers of it were not onely parts but principall ones of the Catholique Church and such as ever have been and are reputed Saints though by I know not what subtlety you dispence with your selves for departing from what doctrine was received from them as come down from the Apostles and yet threaten us with damnation if we will not believe more improbable Tenets to be Tradition upon lesse Certificate For as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wine measures to buy with are great and to sell by are small so when you are to put a doctrine to us how small a measure of Tradition would you have us take one place of one Father speaking but as a Doctor seemes enough but when you are to receive any from us how large and mighty a measure will yet give you no satisfaction Neither can I find out what it is by which you conclude that their Tradition was gathered the Hereticall way from private discourse with the Apostles Irenaeus indeed tells us that Presbyteri meminerunt one of which Pappias was but not a word that it was deliver'd in secret or the auditors but few nor that others had not heard other disciples teaching the same doctrine and me thinkes that if you had evinced what you desire as you seem to me not to do unlesse to affirm be to prove it would make more against you sure if from so small a ground as the word of one onely disciple that he in private discourse was taught this by the Apostles a false doctrine could so generally be received by all the first Doctors of the Christian Church and that so long after Dionysius Alexandrinus had used his great Authority to destroy it Saint Hierome was yet halfe afraid to write against it as seeing how many Catholiques he should enrage against himselfe by it as he testifies in his Proem to the eighteenth Book of his Comment upon Ifaiah what suspitions must this raife in the mindes of those of your own party least what they esteemed Tradition had at first no greater a beginning and no firmer foundation but onely better fortune for why might not the same disciple have cozn'd them from whom their beliefe is descended in twenty other things as well as in this and why not twenty as well as he especially since you confesse some of your doctrine not to have had Vniversall Tradition but onely Tradition enough which if those Fathers did not think they had had for this they would never have receiv'd it but have excepted against the Hereticall way of their delivery if they had known that to be a private one and a private one to be such and if they were so deceived in this way might not they and more have been so too in other points and in time all If you say as it hath been said to me by one whose judgment I value as much as any
sending his Apostles and Disciples to Preach the Gospel and after four of them writing his Gospel which shewes if the Books be true to the title that they writ all they preacht at least that was necessarie for else they were not Gospels but Parts of it that they should not rather leave out any thing else how important soever then not have imploied themselves about teaching us that the Churches Definitions are a Rule of our Faith and instructing us in Markes so proper to her that we might never need to doubt whether it be she that defines or no and whether their not having done this evince not in Reason that this your Doctrine is false Secondly I pray consider whether if there were any such continu'd Tradition about the Definitions of the Church whether that must not also have taught or else have been to small purpose when it is that the Church hath defin'd but yet that is a case not fully judged among you For some hold that the Church hath defin'd when a Councel hath although unapproved by the Pope which is denied by others Thirdly Consider whether supposing as was before suppos'd it must not also have taught certaine Notes to know the Church by but yet about those you are not agreed Salmeron putting Miracles among the false Signes of the Church and Bellarmine and many more among the True ones Fourthly Consider whether the Church have an eternall spring of Doctrines within her or but a finite number and onely those which the Apostles preacht and I believe you will pitch upon the latter Not then to ask how they come to know them nor if you answer by Tradition to ask you againe how come men then not to know before a Definition what it is they Preacht for if the Bishops of which a Councell is compounded know it not now how will they know it when they meet I will desire to know why the Church will not at once teach us all she knowes and not keep us in doubts which she may resolve and did the Apostles teach their Doctrines to be lockt up or taught to us And then having considered this you will find I believe that the Church do with Doctrines as Fathers with Estates never give their Children all that they may still have something to keep them in awe with because if she should she could never have after pretended a Power to end any new emergent controversie keeping in secret what she knowes any that ariseth she may still pretend is endable by her Fiftly Consider that it will appear but a shift if you say that there is a Tradition that all the Churches Definitions be true and so excuse the particular Doctrines for otherwise having none and yet avoid giving us any Rules to know the Church by at all times and answering those Questions which must be ended before we can know at any time when she hath defin'd Now I confesse if you had said Tradition teacheth that the particular Church of Rome is so the Admiral ship that we may know any other if it be of God's Fleet because then it must follow her that is be subject to her decrees theirs which joyn with her this would have bin plainly to let me know your mind and we might quickly have examin'd whether there were any Tradition for the Church in this sence to be alwaies obeyed when she Teaches and without you say this you say nothing and will never be able to give any such Note of the Church as the ignorant may without blushing pretend to know it by Because therefore I guesse that when not I but your Adversaries reasons for I am but one of the worst transcribers of them have driven you from your own Fort you must retire to that of your friends or like them which are drowning you will rather catch at a Twigg then sink I will consider this Assertion which I suppose you must lay hold of so far forth as to shew it to be indeed but an Assertion That there hath no such Verbal Tradition nor indeed any come downe seems to me for these reasons Saint Cyprian by opposing the Church of Rome and that with many Bishops about the Rebaptization shewes sufficiently that he and they knew of no such Tradition and then in what Cave must it have lain hid if the chiefe Doctor of that age was ignorant of it and even his Adversaries claim'd it not And that he knew no such appears not onely by his Actions but also by his words for to them who claim'd Tradition for the particular point propos'd though none for the Authority of the Church proposing he answers if it be contain'd in the Gospels Epistles or Acts let it be observed at one blow cutting off not onely that for sure this authority of the Church of Rome is no way taught in the Scriptures but all other unwritten Traditions which Cardinal Perron thought most skilfull in that kind of Fence was not able to ward but Du Plesis objecting it receiv'd no other answer then that the opinion of Cyprian was condemn'd and that Tradition although unwritten maintain'd Which answer though it be as far from befitting the Cardinall as from answering the objection since it is plaine that this opinion was once held by such as were of chiefe estimation among the Orthodox and consequently the contrary was not then the generall and necessary doctrine of Christians and the prevailing of the one since proves not the other false but rather unfortunate or the spreaders faulty yet I confesse I excuse him for as I have learnt from Aristotle that it is ridiculous to expect a Demonstration where the matter will beare but a probability so would it be in me to expect even a probable solution of an Argument the evidence of which will suffer none at all Neither was he I mean Cyprian the first that without blot of Heresie oppos'd the Tradition of the Church of Rome but that courage which he left to others after him when they saw the Christian World joyne in counting him a Saint and a Martyr whom the Bishop of Rome had stiled a false Christ and a false Apostle the same had he received by seeing that the Asian Bishop had also rejected and oppos'd her Tradition and yet Policrates ever had in great honour and the rest never branded with the crime of Heresie nay even the more neighbouring Bishops and who joyn'd with the Pope in the time of celebrating Easter as Iraeneus yet thought the difference not worth excommunication and for want of skill in the Canon Law transgrest so farre as to reprehend for it whereas if to that Church all else had been to conform themselves then Iraeneus ought therefore to have thought the matter of weight enough because she thought it so who were to small purpose made a Judge if she were not as well enabled to distinguish between slight and materiall as between False and Truth though that it seemes she was not for the
labour of writing them and Traditors who deliver'd them to be burnt would have been thought to have committed no greater fault then if they had done the same to any ordinary writing But if the first Christians and generally their successours since have even carefully and assiduously stucked what by comparing places what by all other waies to understand them and thought themselves bound to beleeve and obey whatsoever they found or thought they found there contain'd and esteem'd that they were taught by themselves what they learnt from their writings as they must have thought it the same thing unlesse the Apostles authority had vanisht by having their instructions put into paper which were as if the Kings verball Commands bound us but not his Proclamations Then here appeares a gate at which errors might enter which you at least I am sure this part of your Treatise did not consider 2 But even their verball might either bee mis-interpreted or knowinglie mis-alledged even by those who are counted Archi-Catholicks for I pray must not one of those two have been done or by the Church of Rome or by those of Asia which example I would not so often speake of but that I hope 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as good an excuse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For fince it is impossible that Saint John and Sain Peter both inspir'd by the Holy Ghost which is the Spirit of Truth should teach contradictorie doctrines whereof one must necessarily be false what else can follow but that one part if not both intended to deceive or were themselves deceiv'd in it and what makes it impossible that such a mistake by men of authoritie may not generallie spread and after a plaine example your reason will be no more able to overthrow experience then the earthen Pitcher in the Fable was to break the Brasen one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3 One of the Arguments you make for the infallibility of the way which you propound is That the Doctrine which the Apostles taught was neither long nor hard to be carried away Out of which me thinkes I can evidently deduce that the Church of Rome is not that since both it appears how long that is and since you tell us your selfe That the cause of many errors among you is the multiplicity of Catholique Doctrines which doth not oblige a man o the knowledge of every Part but to a prompt subjection to the Church Truely if there be no contradiction between these two Propositions I will confesse that I have hitherto mistaken what the word signifies unlesse you mean that the Apostle by teaching subjection to the Church indusively taught all that she teaches and so what they delivered was short but what implicitely much If this were so certainely the Apostles when they included almost all their doctrine in the subjection enjoyn'd to the Church taught some certaine markes by which men might at all times know her though you pretend to none but such as the Greeke Church as much claime which is enough to scruple the ignorant and rightly too as the Roman as Antiquity Succession Miracles c. excepting onely communion with the Pope and splendor whereof neither are proper markes of the true Church that is such as can never be absent from her since the Heresie of a Pope which hath been and is not by your owne whole Church held impossible may take away the one way and a generall Persecution the other 4 It appeares also by what you speake of the immediate joines es of the descent that you suppose if any errour come in some one Age must joyn to teach it which by no meanes followes no more then one Age of them at Rome joyn'd to teach their Posterity Italian instead of Latine but some may have taught a Doctrine to be probable in one Age more then in the second and all in the third according to Seneca's observation The error of few especially when Notable Persons begetting the error of a multitude and againe the authority of a multitude deceiving Particular men and so by degrees it may be thought from Probable True from true fere de Fide from that absolutely a part of Faith and consequently to have come from Tradition whilst the contrary opinion being first believ'd the more improbable next false from false Temerary from temerary Haeresi proximum and from that absolutely Hereticall hath by almost insensible degrees met with a mighty change and is arriv'd at Hell before it almost misdoubted it And that these progresse-Doctrines have travel'd it is casie for any man to see who hath been but a little conversant in your own Books and whosoever denies it may as well deny that their is any green in Summer when there is hardly any thing else 5 And for the Case you put that the wisest and best of the Townes where Doctrines were delivered should have met c. I both suppose that the controversie of who were best and wisest would not it felf have been easily ended but allowing that it might have been easily done and would have been most usefully done yet it never was and so suppose the way never so good it was yet like a Medicine which be it never so Soveraigne can never cure if it be never taken Councells there have been call'd Ancient because lesse Modern and generall because lesse particular for the first was not till more then three hundred yeeres after Christ nor to the largest appeares it that ever any were summon'd from beyond the bounds of the Ancient Roman Empire though Christianity were much farther extended Some lesse meetings or Conciliabula there were indeed before but none of these accounted infallible by your selves though me thinks they should by your grounds and in deed it would go ill with your own infallibility if you should for of the two most notable the one defended Rebaptization and the other condemned Samosatenus and in doing so taught as plain Arrianisme if we might know mens meaning by their words which if we cannot all arguing especially from what any Authors say is ended as even Arrius himself was condemned for at Nice If these intended to discusse the Comroversie out of the Principle you speak of and yet miss'd Tradition when they meant to have followed it then so might your best and wisest men have done too if they did not intend it then it seemes it hath not been held needfull alwaies by Catholikes to try Doctrines by that Criterium which you now prescribe Who can be ignorant what he was taught when he was a child as the ground and substance of his hopes for all Eternity Truely the ordinary fort more then most easily For because either their mind wanders or their Teachers descend not to their capacities they commonly goe away both from publique Sermons and private Catcchismes as if they had receiv'd instructions in a language as strange to them as that wherein they say their prayers Besides their own Fathers teach them
a Directresse at least as a Company of men which yours sure was not to those Nations which were lately discovered by Columbus But if you except and say she need onely be visible to all Christians though this exception need a proofe yet even this Condition your Church hath not allwaies had for I believe to those Christians whom Xaverius found in the East-Indies your Church had been as little visible as to those Pagans whom Columbus discovered in the West Besides beyond the Abissins how farre Christian Religion may be propagated and yet your Church unknown who can tell Besides even to most of them for any credible Testimony that appeares she may not be very visible But above all that reason being answered upon which you conclude that there is some Director and that ground being taken away upon which you build that yours is that me thinks it will be unnecessary to dispute long upon the Conditions required to that which hath no entity at all For Authority her very claime of Antiquity and Succession to have been that Church which received her beginning from Christ and his Apostles and never being all united under the universall government of ver fore-went it giveth à great reverence to her among those who believe her and amongst those who with indifferency seek to inform themselves a great Prejudice above others And if it be true it carrieth an infinite Authority with it of Bishops Doctors Martyrs Saints Miracles Learning Wisedome Venerable Antiquity and such like There is no Question but any Church true or false which claimes to have ever kept the Apostles Doctrines uncorrupted and is infallibly believed to have done so must among those Christians who thus beleeve have even equall Authority with the Apostles But me thinks that this claime before proofe should to others be any prejudice for her especially to those who have great Arguments against her is unreasonable and if after consideration it appears otherwise she hath then onely helpt to weaken her Testimony and hath destroyed her Infallible Authority in any thing else There remaineth Power which no man can doubt but he hath given it most ample who considereth his words so often repeated to his Apostles But abstracting from that who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country to everyone As in a mans Country he hath Father and Mother Brothers Sisters Kinsfolkes and Allies Neighbours and Country-men anciently called Cives and Concives and of these are made his Country So in the Church finds he in way to spirituall Instruction and Education all these digrees nearer and further off till he come unto that furthermost of Christ his Vicar and as he in his Country finds Bearing Breeding Settling in Estates and Fortunes and lastly Protection and Security So likewise in the way of Christianity doth he find this much more fully in the Church So that if it be true that a man oweth more to his Master then to his Father Bene esse is better then esse certainly a man also as farr as Church and Country can be separated must owe more to the Church then to his very Country Wherefore the Power which the Church hath to Command and instruct is greater then the Power of the Temporall Community of which he is part I wish you would have set down these words of Christ so often repeated to his Apostles in which Power to the Church I mean such a one as yours pretends is undoubtedly given For my Part Truely I remember none For I suppose not that the Power given to the Apostles can reasonably be claimed by any Society of men now no not though you should extend the Definition as largely as Erasmus who saies Ecclesiam voco totius Populi Christiani concensum I call the Church the Consent of the whole Christian People unlesse that be meant too in all Ages and so the Aposiles would come in They were so signed and sealed to as I may say from Heaven by having most conversed with Christ and been most beloved by him and chosen especially to teach the World his Will that it is impossible any men could be indeed Christians and not receive their Doctrine as that of Christ without any other Proofe but there is no other Church that hath such a Priviledge The Power of proposing she hath and so have you and without Question if you can convince any Christian that what you said Christ said first he is bound both to believe and obey it and againe let all Churches joyne in proposall yet till he be so convinced unlesse his own fault hinder it it binds him not neither is it sufficiently proposed allowing it true which it is not alwaies necessary that it should be although so attested For as a Naturall Foole is not bound to obey any Doctrine or Precept taught or imposed by God himself because his understanding cannot discover it to be so so in my opinion whose understanding soever is not convinc'd of the same how plain soever to others the thing be he is for as much as concernes this point in the state of a Naturall Foole and no more to be condemned Neither see I what you prove out of the Proportion between the Church and every mans Country for if any Church be intended by God to be so our Director that her propositions are to be received because they are hers then indeed we owe her much more obedience then to our Country which if it should require of us to believe an opinion true because that hath defined it I believe no man would obey and he who should press us to it would be accounted so mad that we should send him not to a Doctor of Divinity but to a Doctor of Physick to be confuted And that any Church is so intended appeares not at all by this proposition since the same is even amongst the Church of the Turkes which is Ecclesia malignantium for there they find their Metaphoricall Fathers Mothers Brothers Sisters Kinsfolks Allies Neighbours which all Hereticks do too among themselves all these degrees neerer and further of till at last they come to that furthermost of being united under the Universall Government of Mahomets Vicar the Mufty But to them you would say that this proves not Truth but at most Concord and that is Factio inter Malos which is Amicitia inter Bonos therefore the same we answer you since Pyrats and Theeves have as strict bonds among themselves as the honestest persons and often gerater conspiracies and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to destroy these then they make to defend themselves And whereas you say that we owe more gratitude and obedience to the Church then to our Country I have told you that this may be true without owing obedience to all she teaches But yet even this in some sence is True To the generall Tradition of Christians of the first Ages who lived with the Apostles and could not in any
you say First Your saying as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error when it shall appeare more probable to him then Truth therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors whereas you should have considered that the greater probabilities may serve reasonably to hold him without a demonstration and the evidence of the thing without a guide and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon in how ill estate are those of your Church in the Question concerning the Church in which they follow no guide nor have any demonstration but professe they yeeld to her authority but upon prudentiall motives which kind of arguments sure may as well and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in `n Orthodox opinion against a Heretick as the authoritie of the Church no surelier founded can you against us That every man should yeeld to that discourse which seemeeth fairest to him I confesse it is alwaies not onelie safe and fit but also necessarie even for them who receive the Infallibilitie of the Church since those who beleeve that beleeve it because that appeares fairest to them and as you object to us the possibilitie of being perswaded from the truth by some wittie Author why thinke you not the same Author may possiblie too appeare to you to destroy your prudentiall Motives and so consequentlie your whole Faith which is built upon the Church which is built upon them Secondlie I diflike your seeming to beleeve that any grounds which are not demonstrative are too slipperie to rest upon as not onelie being contrarie to reason but to your selfe who told me before that no more was required then a maine advantage on one side and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life Thirdlie I dislike in your own parties behalfe your saying that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turne Arrian for if you meane onelie that it is possible it concernes you as much as them since this seemes to inferre that the Scriptures doe make more probablie for them which if they did it is not Heresie and to contradict all those whom both parts call Fathers who thinke enough plaine in Scripture not onely to keepe but also to convert men from Arrianisme as it appeares by their employing so solelie those Armes against them that they needed the admonition of a Heretique to counsell them to the use of another Fourthlie I dislike your saying that after being made an Arrian he is not unlikelie to turne Jew especiallie that he is likelie to be perswaded by any exaggeration of the Absurdities in the Trinitie since both Grotius and other Authors seeme to say that the Jewes have their Trinitie too in the same Notion and howsoever the Arrian is so fullie perswaded alreadie that those are absurdities that perswasion being almost the forme of that opinion which constitutes him an Arrian yet the exaggeration of them can never worke upon him And for the Constellation you speak of it were so irrationall and so unprovable a Crotchet that no Oratorie could ever make it seeme to a reasonable man to have any inclination to sence and a foole may be made beleeve any thing how contrarie soever to his grounds unlesse he be of those who are given over to vaine imaginations because they love darknesse better then the light and the fault of no particular mens understanding or will is to lead any man to condemne his grounds for they are to be accused not of whatsoever he concludes who holds or rather in this case hath held them but onelie of what he concludes reasonablie according to them Besides for this cause it appeares strange to me that trusting to Scripture alone and without meaning the Church for my certaine guide should bring a man into danger of parting with his Christianitie since nothing can hold a man longer then he beleeves it and as long as our ground the Scripture is by him beleeved no man can possiblie turne either Atheist or Jew and he who leaves to beleeve your ground the Church cannot by that be any more with-held from either Besides that I thinke it is impossible I am sure it is irrationall that any of you should beleeve in Christ upon the authoritie of Christs Church since beleeving the latter which claimes no authoritie but from Christ praesupposeth the beleife of him and so Christianitie is not the apter to be overthrown through the absence of that upon which it is not built I feare rather least your doctrine known to be grounded it selfe upon Tradition by such a way according to which a Jew would have much advantage of a Christian may incline a man to Judaisme and your sides generall slighting all waies of knowing Gods will but onely by the Church and then neither proving her power stronglier nor teaching how to know her plainer may make men sinke into Atheisme by being perswaded by you in letting goe other strong holds upon Truth and receiving such weake ones from you Not to speake of your loading Christianitie with such impossibilities as the Pillars of it which are not absolute Demonstrations of which it may be scarce any thing is in nature capable but lines and numbers are able to beare and using all your Wits and Industries to perswade men that it is equallie unsafe to refuse any part of your Religion as to receive none and so instead of making these your beleefs admitted for the sake of Christianitie causing Christianitie to be rejected because of them But peradventure some may attribute Power to the Church without infallibilitie whom I would have consider but what himself saith For his Church by the Power it hath must either say I command you to believe or I command you to professe this whether you believe me or no. The second I think no enemy of equivocation will admit and the former it is as much as if it should say I know not whether I say true or no yet you must think I say true We having received a command that all things be done decently and in order and this being to be appointed by them whom either the Law of the Land if that consist of faithfull or the consent or custome of Christians hath appointed for Ecclesiasticall Rulers in this matter in every place the Church thus restrained to the Governours of the Church may have in some cases though not to your purpose power without the least Infallibilitie And for instruction which you aime at no Church can give it yours especially being too large a body ever to meet or joyn in doing it and if you restraine the Church to the Cleargie whereof yet many teach not and they too are too many for any man to be sure what they all agree in teaching and when they differ how shall I know which to follow otherwise then by your Rule
which the simple are capable of understanding I mean as much as is plaine and more is not necessarie since other Questions may as well be suffered without harme as those between the Jesuites and the Dominicans about Praedetermination and between the Dominicans and allmost all the rest about the Immaculate Conception and those who are not neither are they capable out of Scripture to discerne the true Church much lesse by any of those Noteswhich require much understanding and learning as Conformity with the Ancients and such like Ninethly The same answer I give to this serves also to the following words of Saint Austine for whereas Mr. Mountague concludeth that he could not meane the Scriptures as a competent Rule to mankind which consisteth most of simple Persons because there hath been continuall alterations about the sence of important places I answer That I may as well conclude by the same Logick that neither is the Church a competent Guide because in all Ages there have also been disputes not onely about her authority but even which was she and to whatsoever reason he imputes this to the same may we the other as to Negligence Pride Praejudication and the like and if he please to search I verily beleeve he will find that the Scriptures are both easier to be known then the Church and that it is as easie to know what these teach as when that hath defined since they hold no decrees of hers binding de Fide without a confirmation of the Popes who cannot never be known infalliblly to be a Pope because a secret Simony makes him none no not to be a Christian because want of due intention in the Baptizer makes him none whereof the latter is alwaies possible and the first in some ages likely and in hard Questions a readinesse to yeeld when they shall be explained me thinks should serve as well as a readinesse to assent to the decrees of the Church when those shall be pronounced Tenthly He saith that the Scripture must be kept safe in some hands whose authority must beget our acceptance of it which being no other then the Church of all ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved that free from Corruption then it self in a continuall visibilitie I answer That neither to giving authority to Scriptures nor to the keeping of them is required a continuall visibility of a no-waies erring body of Christians the Writers of them give them their authority among Christians nor can the Church move any other and that they were the Writers we receive from the generall Tradition and Testimony of the first Christians not from any following Church who could know nothing of it but from them for for those parts which were then doubted of by such as were not condemned for it by the rest why may not we remain in the same suspence of them that they did and for their being kept and conveighed this was not done onely by their Church but by others as by the Greeks and there is no reason to say that to the keeping and transmitting of records safely it is required to understand them perfectly since the old Testament was kept and transmitted by the Jewes who yet were so capable of erring that out of it they looked for a Temporall King when it spoke of a Spirituall and me thinks the Testimony is greater of a Church which contradicts the Scripture then of one which doth not since no mans witnessing is so soon to be taken as when against himself and so their Testimonie is more receiveable which is given to the Scriptures by which themselves are condemned Besides the generall reverence which ever hath been given to these Books and the continuall use of them together with severall parties having alwaies their eyes upon each other each desirous to have somewhat to accuse in their adversaries give us a greater certaintie that these are the same writings then we have that any other ancient book is any other ancient Author and we need not to have any erring Company preserved to make us surer of it Yet the Church of Rome as infallible a Depositarie as she is hath suffered some variety to creep into the Coppies in some lesse materiall things nay and some whole Books as they themselves say to be lost and if they say how then can that be rule whereof part is lost I reply That wee are excused if we walk by all the Rule that we have and that this maketh as much against Traditions being the Rule since the Church hath not looked better to Gods unwritten Word then to his written and if she pretend she hath let her tell us the cause why Antichrists comming was deferred which was a Tradition of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and which without impudence she cannot pretend to have lost And if againe they say God hath preserved all necessary Tradition I reply so hath he all necessarie Scripture for by not being preserved it became to us not necessarie since we cannot be bound to beleeve and follow that we cannot find But besides I beleeve that which was ever necessary is contained in what remaines for Pappias saith of Saint Mark that he writ all that Saint Peter preacht as Irenaeus doth that Luke writ all that Saint Paul preacht nay Vincentius Lirinensis though he would have the Scripture expounded by ancient Tradition yet confesseth that all is there which is necessary and yet then there was no more Scripture then we now have as indeed by such a Tradition as he speakes of no more can be proved then is plainly there and almost all Christians consent in and truely I wonder that they should brag so much of that Author since both in this and other things he makes much against them as especially in not sending men to the present Roman Church for a Guide a much readier way if he had known it then such a long and doubtfull Rule as he prescribes which indeed it is impossible that almost any Question should be ended by Eleventhly He brings Saint Austines authority to prove that the true Church must be alwaies visible but if he understood Church in Mr Mountagues sence I think he was deceived neither is this impudent for me to say since I have cause to think it but his particular opinion by his saying which Cardinall Perron quoted that before the Donatists the Question of the Church had never been exactly disputed of and by this being one of his maine grounds against them and yet claiming no Tradition but onely places of Scripture most of them allegoricall and if it were no more I may better dissent from it then he from all the first Fathers for Dionysius Areopagita was not then hatcht in the point of the Chiliasts though some of them Pappias and Irenaeus claimed a direct Tradition and Christs owne words Secondly As useth this kind of libertie so he professeth it in his nineteenth Epistle where he saith that to Canonicall Scriptures he had
the Roman whereof both it seemes claim'd a direct verball Tradition because one pretended to have received theirs from Saint John and the other from Saint Peter whereof there is no word in their workes and that the erring Part did not prevaile We know out of the fifth of Eusebius History that the fore-runners laid claime to Tradition and nam'd the very Pope that had chang'd the doctrine at Rome which claime how impudently soever yet shewes that men might joyne to deceive their Posterity as pretending to a Tradition when there was no such for if you say those were but few I answer both that you are not certaine of their number and since so many may joyn I pray what number is it cannot Thirdly Since you must and doe confesse that some Doctrines which were not once generally witnessed to have been delivered by the Apostles are now Doctrines of Faith as the Epistle to the Hebrewes was rejected by the Roman Church in Saint Hierom's time though to her yee use to say that Iraeneus would have every Church agree and though Saint Hierom whom you would prove to have thought Damafus infallible when it is known that he thought Libertius a Heretick received it for all that because you say that these doctrines had so much Tradition as was exceptione major beyond exception though the Church of Rome thought not so then doth not this rest upon the Logick of those Ages to conclude what Testimony is so which might easily deceive them especially since you confesse also that particular Traditions may be false as you instance in the Chiliasts and yet the same reason which perswaded some to receive them may perswade more and more in severall times and so no age need to joyne as you suppose and so a false Tradition may grow a generall one as it seemes that of the Chiliasts if it be one did so generall that Justin Martyr sayes in his time all Orthodox Christians held it Besides in those things which were beleeved very convenient and which yet it was fear'd that unlesse men thought them necessary they would be backward to practise in respect of the contrariety of them to their dispositions as confession how easie was it for them to be after taught under paine of more danger then at first they were delivered with as Physitians often tell their Patients unlesse they take such a Potion from which they are very averse they must unavoidably die though the not taking of it even in their own opinions would but make them lesse likely to recover Some of great authority moved by a good meaning might thus deceive others these thus deceived might deceive others till being generally spread other good men being loath to oppose them for the same reason for which others desir'd to spread them as we saw Erasmus who beleeved your confession not to have been instituted by the Apostles yet would not reprehend them that said so thinking it an error that would increase Piety they be at last taken to have been commanded by the Apostles without contradiction Indeed all the waies by which I shewd in that paper which you vouchsafed to answer which I desire not to repeat to avoid both your being wearied and my own 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that errors might come to be generall all those are waies by which the same errors might come to be thought to have proceeded from Tradition Saint Austin and Tertullian agreeing in the sence of the sentence which we read in the latter Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habiturum quandoque apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis and it is the more strange that Tertullian should allow any custome the authority of comming from the Apostles since in the same place he gives any man leave to beginne a custome so it be good which depends upon his reason as the reception of it does upon theirs that follow him and so make it a custome in these words Annon putas licere omni fideli concipere constituere duntaxat quod Deo congruat quod disciplinae conducat quod saluti proficiat dicente Domino cur non vobis ipsis quod justum est judicatis By which it seemes he was willing more should be beleev'd then was first taught and when that way had brought in any thing for there is the same reason of opinion as of actions and made it common then the former Rule serves to rivet it in under the false Notion of comming from the Apostles or having at least equall authority neither can you except against this as said by him when he was a Montanist since your side useth to brag of this and the like places as making for them To explaine my meaning the fuller give me leave to consider one question which shall be the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin In the first ages it is a thing granted that many Fathers beleeved her not onely not free from Originall sinne but not even from Actuall after this second question came to be more considered and this first to be defin'd but yet those of the Affirmative opinion cannot but grant to those of the Negative that many Fathers sided with them or else they were impudent Quoters who claim three hundred nay even in Saint Thomas his time they confesse that the Negative opinion was the more common doctrine and yet see I pray how things are altered We have now a History of some Treaties of two Kings of Spaine with two Popes by two Embassadours to perswade them to define the Affirmative The History is written by one Wadding an Irish-man his Secretary there I find that the Bishop of Carthage having Order from the Embassadour his Master to desire to presse nay almost to tear a Definition from his Holinesse about it tells him and not falsely that those who hold the Negative are Inter Catholicos soli pauci unius instituti viri unus alter ab illis edocti but a few of one onely Order and one or two of their Disciples His Master bids him urge for the contrary The opinion and subscription of so many Prelates Orders and Universities the universall acclamation of the People the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals nay saith he many Universities suffer none to take Degrees without making a Vow for the Defence of the Immaculate conception and for the Oppugners Constat eos sentire aliter quà m universa docet Ecclesia they differ from the Doctrine of the Universall Church If then an opinion for which nothing is to be said out of Antiquitie and much against it which was even lately the lesse common opinion could grow to be held by so great a multitude in so high a degree in so short a time that the much greater part of the Church should now presse to have it defin'd and that so earnestly that to remove the opposing Fathers out of the way they
one of your Party that if this opinion had indeed had Tradition it could never have been so totally extinguish'd I answer that I affirm not that it had but onely that if the rules of your part be good and valid then it had I am sure it hath better colour to plead upon then any of those other doctrines which you impose upon us Besides although it had yet when Doctors of great authority with the people had won upon many first not to think it Tradition and then not true and lastly their courage encreasing with their multitude for Saint Hierome durst not call it had made it accounted an Heresie it is not strange that none should rise to oppose it for by that time burning was come in fashion which was a ready way to answer all objections and end all controversies especiall Piety being grown more cold and so men lesse apt to suffer for opinions and the times more ignorant and so men lesse able to examine what had beleeved before them But you who affirm that your Church receives nothing but what hath come to her by Verball Tradition down from the Apostles must not onely destroy the Arguments which prove this to have had Tradition which you or any else will be never able to do but must affirm that the contrary hath such which yet their most ancient opposers never pretended too but scoft at the opinion as rediculous and savouring of Judaisme which as wise men and as good Christians as they before them beleeved to be Orthodox Let us next consider that controversie which more afflicted the Church and for a longer time then any other that between the Arrians and their Adversaries and let us see whether even against those there were any such Tradition as you speak of First then I pray mark what Cardinal Perron confesseth that an Arrian will be desirous to have his cause tried by those Authors we now have which lived before the Question arose for there saith he will be found the Son is the instrument of his Father The Father commanded the Son when things were to be made the Father and the Son are aliud aliud which who should at this day say now the language of the Church is better examin'd would be accompted an Arrian Now though there be no reason for you to disbelieve so learned a Prelate in a matter of Fact especially since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet if you please to reconsider those Authors seriously if you have not mark't it before as Praejudication blinds extreamly you will then confesse it Sure then if Fathers in the first ages taught their Children that so they had receiv'd from theirs as the doctrine of the Apostles how could the chiefe Pillars of Christianity have been ignorant of it or if they knew it how would they ever have written so directly against their knowledge For that answer which Saint Hierome gives as Saint Austine to the Pelagians gians that before Arrius arose the Ecclesiasticall Writers spoke minus caute with lesse circumspection though it brings some salve to the present objection yet it is a weapon against Tradition in generall for if through want of care the best and wisest men vs'd to contradict Tradition as you must grant they did then sure much more likely when they taught by word of mouth when lesse care is alwaies us'd then in Bookes and how then can any age be sure that by this reason of minus caute loquuti sunt their Ancestors have not mistaken their Fathers and mislead their Posterity Look but into Athanasius and see but what he answers to what is brought against him out of Dionysius Alexandrinus truly in my opinion when he strives to make it Catholique Doctrine he doth it with no lesse pulling and halling then Sancta Clara useth to agree the articles of the English Church with the Tenets of the Roman Consider what eighty Bishops and those Orthodoxe decreed against Paulus Samosatenus and if you make it consent with Athanasius his Creed I shall believe that you have discouer'd a way how to reconcile both Parts of a Contradiction This I say not as intending by it to prove the Arrian opinion to be true but that the contrary Party insisted not upon your grounds but drew their beliefe out of Scripture for if there had been such a common and constant Verball Tradition the chiefe Christians would not through want of Caution have contradicted it neither could Constantine if it had been then as known a Part of the Christian Religion as Christ's Resurrection have ever so slightly esteemed the Question when it first arose neither would Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria have remain'd any while in suspence as Zozomen saith he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but this being then a Question newly started and spoken of before but by Accidents and so peradventure minus caute for the same Author saies that they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were therefore faine to try it by Scripture esteeming Written Tradition as sufficient a Rule as Verball as you may see by Constantine's own words at the Councel of Nice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bookes of the Evangelists and the Apostles and the Oracles of the Ancient Prophets teach us clearly what we are to think of the Divinity Let us therefore out of these Divinity-inspir'd discourses seek the solutions of our Questions which being the Emperours Proposition and passing uncontradicted which the Bishops would not have suffr'd it to do if they had known yours to be so much the best and most certaine way and this so hazardous as you suppose we have reason to believe that they for want of your direction made the Scripture their Rule and sought out for Truth by the same way that we damnable Hereticks do and by that condemn'd the Arrians as not having such a Tradition as you speak of or if they had which is very unlikely counting it so insufficient as that they were not to conclude by that Neither did onely that ancient and not yours Councell but even your own Modern ones shew that they went upon other grounds since to have had every Bishop askt what he receiv'd from his Teachers as receiv'd from theirs as come downe from the Apostles would sure have been the shortest way to find Truth and if they had thought it the best too it would have sav'd the Friers at Trent many a long dispute out of Scripture Fathers and Reason and the Bishops many a weary sessron before any thing could be determined or the Parties brought to agree Besides there is another reason if I may be pardon'd a little insisting upon my digression which perswades me that your own Councels define not upon your grounds that is because suppose a thousand Catholique Bishops meet and define any thing yet wee know it is not among you believ'd de Fide without it be confirmed by the Pope which shewes plainly enough that you think not
Church of Rome never refus'd their Communion before though she knew them to hold the same opinion and so as plainly appeares counted that materiall in one Age which she had not so esteemed in others and therefore in the degree at least of holding what she held contradicted herself and followed Traditions And as Cyprian imitated them so did the Affrican Bishop him for a Question hapning between them and the Bishops of Rome about Appeales though they absolutely oppos'd him and in vaine I confesse desired him that he would not bring into the Church Typhum hujus Saeculi the swelling pride of this World and though he laboured infinitely in the businesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he might bring it to passe yet he and two of his successors were either so unready or so unskil'd in the present Roman Doctrine that Feed my sheeep and thou art Peter were either out of their knowledge or out of their memory and they alleadged not any power jure divino but onely pretended to a Cannon of the Councel of Nice which when the Affricans found not in their coppies for they would not believe the Church of Rome so farre as to trust to hers though now you generally think the Scripture it selfe to have its authority quoad nos onely for her definitions they sent to the East to enquire there and finding their coppies agreeing with theirs they then more resolutely withstood the Pretence which brought at that time nothing to the Popes but repulse and shame And indeed not to object that it is not numbered among any of the ancient Herisies that they differ'd from the particular Roman Church nor is this Rule of being sure at all times to joyne with her ever given by those Fathers who set us waies and Antidotes how to secure our selves against Heresie which could not have been left undone if they had known any such Tradition nor to speak of the Cannon of the Councell of Chalcedon which attributes the power of the Popes to the gift of their Fathers and that againe to Romes being the head City setting all this aside I will aske your selfe if it be not plain that those Fathers who upon the impudent pretence of some Hereticks send men to severall places to enquire after Tradition either send them to all the Apostolicall churches or to save their labour to that to which they were nearest as esteeming them all of equall authority though not jurisdiction for I may say of Rome and them as Tacitus doth of Caelius and the other Commanders Mutato nomine the name onely chang'd Pares jure Roma audendo potentior for what by watching all occasions to greaten herself whereof Cardinal D' Ossat is my witnesse what by abusing the respect all men had ever given her in respect of the chiefe Apostles which founded her of the Empire which was long seated in her and of her ancient Bishops whereof about thirtie together were martyr'd there what by interpreting what was given to her Authority as given to her Power and taking civilities aud complements of which no Court is now so full as the ancient Bishops were made to Popes for alleagiance sworn to them what by forging false decretall Epistles which the Tearmed Authors of them would not forgive them for if they knew it if it were onely for the barbarous language what by these and such other waies she is come at length to that passe that what Auitus a Roman Generall said to the Ansibarians who gave him reasons why he ought not in justice to disturbe their possessions Id Diis placitum ut Arbitrium penes Romanos maneret quid darent quidve adimerent neque alios Judices quam seipsos paterentur It is the will of Heaven that it be left to the Romans what they will please to give or take away and suffer not any Judges but themselves appeares now not so much a History of the Pride of the Roman Empire as a Prophecy of the generall doctrine of the Roman Church Having ever marked Error and Confidence to keep so much company that I seldome find the first but I mistrust the second makes me loath to affirme any thing over-dogmatically out of these objections or say that they cannot be answered Onely because I must not offend against Truth for feare of offending against Modesty I will take leave to say that if I could have answered them my selfe I would not have put you to the trouble of doing it which you might also have sav'd if by letting me know your name you would have enabled me to have found you out and so in a short discourse have tried whether I could have obtain'd that satisfaction from your words which I must now expect from your Pen. But supposing I had none of these objections yet two things besides would have kept me from assenting to what you say The first is that your men when they aske us how we know Scripture to be Scripture and this to be the sence of it tell us withall that unlesse we know it by some more infallible way then our owne Reason they mean their Church it will not serve for a beliefe of those things which are to be believ'd by a divine Faith Now this Argument of yours upon which you build all allowing that it appear'd good reason yet at most it is but reason and liable to the same exceptions unlesse the same thing be a wall when you leane upon it and a bulrush when we doe The second is that all you say for as yet you speak not of the Authority of the Particnlar Church of Rome though you must at length come to it though by that too little is to be gotten if it were granted would but prove those who adhere now to the Church of Rome to be now in the right but I asked for a guide which might without new search serve me the next yeer as well as this For for all that you have prov'd she may leave the way you say she now pretends to walk in and attempt to reform too which I wish were as probable as it is possible or there may arise a schisme between two parts of those Churches which now adhere to the Roman and both may claime Tradition for what hath been may be againe and how shall I know then which side to take since both will seem equally good by that Touchstone which you appoint me to try with And if I be then sent to try by Ancient Writers it is certaine that besides the fallibility of that way for the learned this cannot be done at all by the ignorant and it is probable that both Parties will fall into that absurdity into which the Church of Rome daily runs which is that although the evidence which she claimes by cannot well be exactlie read over in thirty yeares time yet she requires us under paine of Damnation to give our Verdicts for her by twenty yeeres old The Second Part. THe high and Sage Master
with the Protestants by want of Succession Vocation and such like Bull-beggers would goe over to them as I have heard Spalato meant to doe if they were not kept by an unwillingnesse to change the spirituall tyrannie of the Pope for the temporall of the Turke But although there were no such Churches or they made no such claime yet having shew'd out of your own Authors that some opinions have not been constantly delivered by Tradition but have entered into the Church upon the grounds which might at least possiblie deceive them of Scripture Reason and Revelation and others knockt apace to be let in I hope we may be excused for making a reveiw of all and examining what doctrines have been brought in if not by Scripture which we think reasonable at least by comparing what this age teacheth and requires with what the first Ages did to which we are encourag'd by your selves who make agreement with Antiquitie the chief mark of the Church unlesse you meane your selves to be onelie Judges even of those things by which you bid us to judge you For our examinations by reason I cannot tell why you mislike it since those who trust their own reason least trust it yet to chuse for them one whom they may trust against which all Arguments drawn from her fallibilitie without question lie Your Religion is built upon your Church her authoritie upon reasons which we think slight and fallacious and your selves think but prudentiall and probable ought we not then nay must we not examine them by Reason or receive them upon your word And allowing them probable reason yet I have still cause to examine further whether your superstructions be not more unreasonable then your foundations are reasonable for then I cannot receive a more unprobable doctrine then that is probable which it is prov'd by Yet in respect of things appearing divers at divers times I doe not like my own way so well as to esteem it absolutelie infallible but though I keep it because I account it the best yet I will promise to leave it when you can shew me a better which will be hard to doe because you cannot prove it to be better but by reason against which proofe and consequentlie against whatsoever it proves your own Objections remaine For to be perswaded by reason that to such an authoritie I ought to submit it is still to follow reason and not to quit her And by what else is it that you examine what the Apostles taught when you examine that by ancient Tradition and ancient Tradition by a present Testimonie Yet when I speake thus of finding the Truth by Reason I intend not to exclude the Grace of God which I doubt not for as much as is necessarie to Salvation is readie to concurre to our Instruction as the Sunne is to our sight if we by a wilfull winking chuse not to make not it but our selves guilty of our blindnesse Indeed if we love darknesse better then light and instead of esteeming it shut it out it were but just in God if we so continue long hardened not to suffer it to see after when we would since so obstinatelie we would not when we might like to that which happened to those Englishmen of whom Froissard speakes who having long bound up an eye and made a foolish vow never to see with that till they could see their Mistresses when they returned and unbound them they saw nothing but that they could not see Yet when I speake of Gods grace I mean not that it infuseth a knowledge without reason but workes by it as by its Minister and dispels those Mists of Passions which doe wrap up Truth from our Understandings For if you speake of its instructing any other way though I confesse it is possible as God may give us a sixth sence yet it is not ordinarie and ought not to be brought to dispute because so we leave visible Arguments to flie to invisible and your Adversarie when he hath found your play will be soon at the same locke and I beleeve in this sence infus'd Faith is but the same thing otherwise apparell'd which you have so often laught at in the Puritans under the title of private Spirit This being supposed either this Principle hath remain'd unto her ever since her beginning or she took it up in some one Age of the sixteen if she took it up she then thought she bad nothing in her but what she had receiv'd from her fore-fathers and if she thought so she knew it This Principle is not yet taken up by her and suppose it were yet since some other opinions are confess'd to have been receiv'd by her not from a constant Tradition but Scripture and Revelations and not at once but by little and little this very Principle of receiving nothing but from Tradition might it selfe have been receiv'd not from Tradition nor need it have been in any one Age of the sixteen but some might have taught it in one Age more in another and all at last and this so farre from being an impossibilitie that it were no wonder Let us adde that the multitude of this Church is so dispersed through so many Countries and Languages that it is impossible they should agree together upon a false Determination to affirme with one consent a Falsity for Truth no Interest being able to be common to them all to produce such an effect Although so many Countries could not so well agree upon it at once yet some might so perswade others that in time and by degrees the disease may be grown epidemicall And trulie considering in everie Countrie how few there are who thinke of Religion at all or of them againe who walke in it by the directions of their owne eyes even of them who take upon them to shew that way to others but for the most part which they did much more in more ignorant times when Scriptura sacra cum vetustis authoribus frigebat are lead by some few whom they reverence for their Piety and learning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose words are accounted lawes and they againe by a Thomas or a Scot or at best by Austine or Hierome and thinke it Tradition enough to have it from them for else why thinke they to beare us downe with the Authoritie of one or two Fathers if they thinke that not ground enough to goe upon themselves it seemes little stranger to me that whole Countries should let in not ancient opinions then that a few should since a few in all places have ever govern'd all the rest of this I will bring two very known examples out of the Ecclesiasticall Historie The first is of Valens the Emperour who being himselfe an Arrian and making peace with a Nation which was not so and supposing that they would never have firme concord with him to whom in Faith he was so opposite was advised to perswade their Bishop to change his beleife for which end having
scope of Christian Doctrine being great and the Apostles preaching in so great varieties of Countries it might happen some point in one Country might be lesse understood or peradventure not preacht which in another was often preacht and well both understood and retained we may easily free our selves from these brambles For the Spirit of Tradition residing in this that the testimony be exceptione majus and beyond all danger of deceit It is not necessary to the efficaciousnesse of Tradition that the whole universall Church should be witnesse to such a truth but so great a part as could be a warrant against mistaking so that if all the Churches of Asia Greece or Affrick or AEgypt should constantly affirm such a Tradition to have been delivered them from the Apostles it were enough to make a Doctrine exceptione majorem Whence it ensueth that if in a meeting of the universall Church it were found that such a part hath such a Tradition concerning some matter whereof the rest had either no understanding or no certainty such a Doctrine would passe into a necessary bond of Faith in the whole Church Your sword is so sharp and your shield so weak that I can hardly believe they came out of the same forge but when I observe how much you have a better right hand then a left and that not onely you have raised an objection which you cannot lay but your answer to it multiplies more I cannot but compare you to him in Lucian who travelling with a Magician that had no servant and instead of one was daily wont to say to a Pestle Pestle be thou a man and it would be so and when his occasions were served would bid it return to be a Pestle and was obeyed thought one time to imitate the Magitian he being abroad and made indeed the Pestle a man and draw water but could not make it return to the former state but it continued still to draw wherefore angry and afraid he took up an axe and clove the Pestle-man in two whereupon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in stead of one water-drawer there lept up two For first I pray consider what could you have found more certaine to destroy all which you had before laboured to settle about the Infallibilitie of your Tradition then this distincton of Exceptione Major since if not a generall one but one which seemed such were required how easie was it for false opinions to get in under that colour testified but by a few reputed honest men and so received by and transmitted from others of great and generall authoritie Secondlie how could you have found a better way to answer your owne Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition for want of being sufficientlie publique since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition I mean if they had thought they should for this cause have excepted against it it had been impossible these Saints should have received it and concerning the publicitie of it and the number and authoritie of the deliverers they must of necessitie have been the best Judges who then lived and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most considerable Ages so that you must either confesse that a Tradition bindes not unlesse indeed generall or confesse that this doth supposing this not to have been generall which you cannot prove A likely example of this may be drawn from the Canonicall Bookes I deny it to be now necessarie to Salvation to admit of any Bookes for Canonicall which it was lawfull for Christians in past ages to doubt of and which had no generall Tradition and againe this answer helpes against your selfe for it is plaine by Saint Hieromes Testimonie that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrewes which the Easterne Churches received whose Testimonie according to your grounds she then should have beleeved to be beyond exception and it is plaine by Perrons Testimonie that the Easterne Churches received not the Macchabees when he saies the Church of Rome did Now it is plaine that the Receivers pretended to Tradition because nothing else could make a booke thought Canonicall whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scriptures and after being spread might be thought to come from Tradition So that according to your grounds and these testimonies not onely the Westerne Church ought to have beleeved the Easterne about the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Easterne the Westerne about the Macchabees but also they ought to have required this assent from each other which they not doing as they would have done if they had thought their testimonie so valid as you doe it followes that you doe differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age about what is exceptione majus you thinking that to be so which they thought not and againe from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages you thinking that not so which they thought was as also those two times agreed about it as little with each other as you with them both The third question may be how Christian Religion consisting of so many points is possible to be kept uncorrupted by Tradition which depending upon Memory and our memory being so fraile it seemeth cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages But if we consider that Faith is a Science a thing whose parts are so connexed that if one be false all must needs be false we shall easily see that contrarily the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the right the other wherein we doubt As in Judges when a battell was to be fought between the children of Israel and the Midianites the Midianites destroyed each other and left nothing to doe for Israel but onely to pursue them so truly your Objections worke so strongly upon your own Party that I have nothing left me to presse and much to applaud For for this very reason I beleeve that all necessarie points were given in writing and onely the witnessing that these were the Apostles writings was left to Tradition which was both much lesse subject to error as being but one point and that a matter of fact and could no other way be done because no writing could have witnessed for it selfe so sufficientlie that we should have had reason to have beleeved it upon no other certificates and to this your answer seemes to me no way satisfactorie since first I deny Faith to be a Science it being nothing but an assent to Gods Revelations neither are those so connexed as you liberallic affirme and sparinglie prove Nay suppose they were yet though errors would be the lesse likely to enter yet when any one by any meanes were got in ' then this connexion would be a ready way to helpe it to let in all its fellowes Besides those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditions which such a connexion could not hinder if they were not
amongst those who parted from us for although to day they agree there is no bond or tie why to morrow they may not disagree These two things we brag of and I think the Author will not denie it For he confesseth that we all agree in that the Church is an infallible Mistresse Then it is evident that if in any controversie she interposeth her judegment the controversie is ended He likewise confesseth that who part from us have no such definitive authority amongst them and that Scripture whereon they rely hath no such vertue to take up Controversies clearely Supposing that we agreed much lesse then you yet a little all in earnest that is unforced is more considerable then much constrained and so peradventure much of that much but in appearance Besides that you all agree in those points wherein if any disagree he becomes none of you is no more then is so common to all Religions that even the very Anabaptists may say as much for themselves For either all the Parts of them remaine of assent insomuch that they are all still of the same Religion and so agree as well as your Dominicans and Jesuites or else their differences are such as to make them of severall Religions and then why is want of Unity objected to them any more then it is to Christians in generall among whom are so many divisions and yet not the whole but the faulty party taxed And truely in my opinion some Questions among your selves are as great not onely as any among your adversaries but as any between you and them I but you answer we have a way of being agreed we reply is it a way sure to lead to Truth as well as to Unity or else so might we have by going to most at three throwes and resolving to stand to that Besides if you have and make no more use of it it seemes there is no such need that Questions be ended as for that purpose to introduce a necessitie of an Ender But say you neither are all suits in the Common-wealth ended We reply that yet truely those Judges who should make no more haste to end them then your Judge doth these would deserve to loose his place but this they do as fast as the nature of the thing will permit which being or depending upon matter of Fact cannot be known erough to be judged before examination of witnesses and the like be ended and if they willingly deferre the ending they are confess'd to be in fault by all men but those who hold Perjury to be none But you seem to conceive our grounds faulty as not leading even to a possible Unity whereas to a possible one I am sure they do since what is concluded out of them by many may be by all nay indeed am confident that all who receive the Scripture for the onely rule and believe what is there plain to be onely necessarie would if they truely beleeved what they professe and were not lead aside either by prejudice or private ends or some Popish relicks of holding what they have long been taught or following the authority of some by them much esteemed persons either alive or dead soon agree in as much as is necessarie and in concluding no necessity of agreeing in more there being no doubt but it would soone appear plainly what is plaine Besides if no grounds be sufficient for Unitie which produce not the effect then it seemes the grounds of your grounds those Arguments by which you prove that there is a Judge and a generall Councell is it are insufficient since they are not able to make all Christians about this question Again although a Judge and this Judge be received yet this is still an insufficient ground for Unitie since the Greek Church agree thus farre with you which is as farre as you agree with one another and yet are not so bound by it to any universall Unitie with them but that they esteem you Hereticks and are esteemed so by you and if you say that it is not because the grounds upon which the Infallibilitie of the Church are built lead not sufficientlie to Unitie that we joyne not with you in beleeving them to be infallible not because the determination of generall Councels is not a sufficient meanes of Unitie that the Greek Church admitting their authoritie admits not of your opinions but it is the fault of us and of them hardening our hearts against the truth then we may as well say that some of those who agree in our grounds yet disagree from our doctrine not that the grounds lead not to Unitie but that our Adversaries will not be lead or if as you doe and some others of you sometimes you confesse that they through an innocent error dissent from you and doe this without any imputation in this respect to your grounds I hope it will be lawfull for us to allow the same possibilitie without any disadvantage or prejudice to ours Besides say you though we agree to day yet we may not to morrow which to prove were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 paines whollie lost we confesse For though Tully make it an expression of his contempt to Piso in an Epistle to Atticus Ita nihil est ut plane quid erit nesciat yet I take it to be a true saying of man in generall who knowes little of present things and nothing of future but this is common to us both for if we change not our opinions we shall agree as we doe and if you change yours you shall not which is possible for not onelie that opinion of the Infallibilitie of your judges decrees may it self be altered which holdeth together all the rest but some of you may holding that ground like the Greek either change their opinions concerning the authority of such or such a Councell as beleeving it unduelie called factiouslie carried or not generall as is pretended or not so consenting as is requisite or differ from the rest concerning the sence of the decrees for whereas you say you agree that the Church is an infallible Mistresse and when she interposeth her judgement the controversie is ended I answer that first some of you with whom I have spoken my selfe hold that the Churches authoritie in defining extends no further then to such points whereof Tradition is of one part as in many controverted there is I beleeve no such and that this rule she may transgresse and so erre Secondlie Neither the Dominicans nor their Adversaries are very readie to remain in suspence to await her decision but define all readie concerning her definitions Cum utraque pars tenax contendat suam non aliam posse definiri sententiam either part tenaciouslie urging that the contrarie opinion cannot be defined which if they did to fright the Pope from defining least the condemned partie being even before should after make a Schisme they obtained their end Thirdlie What are you the nearer to Unitie for your Infallible Mistresse the Church when