to thy salvation so that thou understand them according to the Faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally deliver'd to thee and this is in direct terms the Catholick Rule that the interpretation of Scripture is to be govern'd by Tradition or by the faith and doctrin so receiv'd and formally depends from the first words Remain constant to my doctrin Or by another explication which is more material and flat and most incredible That the old Scripture for of that only the Apostle speaks no other being written while Timothy was a child should be able without relation to the knowledg of Christ by other means to make a man understanding enough to be saved by the Faith of Him as may be seen by Sr. Peters being sent to Cornelius So that of these three senses the first is nothing to our adversaries purpose and nevertheless is the best The second positively and highly against him the third incoherent to the words precedent and following and in it self an incredible proposition But give it the greatest force the words can by any art be heightned to they come nothing neer the state of the question proposed which concerns the decision of all quarrels carried on by litigious parties Whereas this Text is content with any sufficiency at large to bring men to salvation a point not precisely now controverted betwixt us Besides Timothy being already a Christian 't is a pure folly to think the Apostle sent him to the Scriptures to chuse his Religion The words immediatly following the place explicated are urged for a new Argument They are these All Scripture is inspired from God and profitable to teach to reprove to correct to instruct in justice that is good life that the man of God become perfect being furnisht to every good work The paraphrase according to my skil is thus The holy Writ I spake of is any Book inspir'd from God and profitable to teach things unknown reprehend what is amiss to set straight what is crooked to instruct in good life that the Church of God or any member therof may become perfect being by instructions and reprehensions applyed out of Scripture by such preachers as Timothy fitted to any good work or all kinds of good works This I conceive the natural meaning and most conformable to the Text were we to seek the interpretation of it indifferently without any eye to our present controversy And in this sense 't is a cleer case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and apply'd by a Preacher in order to the perfecting of those that hear him But if by importunity the adversary will needs have it that the Scripture should give the quality of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the person himself that reads it to content him I shall not hinder him of his mind but only prove it nothing to his purpose For still this must be the sense that it produces in the reader the excellencies requir'd in a Preacher namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him as teaching reprehending c. so that one way or other still the Scripture is apply'd to furnish him with Precepts Arguments Examples and such like instruments of perswasion but of giving the first Catechism or binding ones self Apprentice to the Bible to learn the first rudiments of Christian profession ther 's not the least word or syllable that colours for such a conceit nor can it indeed consist with the direct meaning of the place since the being already a Christian is plainly suppos'd in Timothy by St. Pauls institutions viva voce before any exhortation to this use of Scripture So that here is no question concerning the first choyce of Faith but of perfection after Faith much less any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Another place is Acts 26. where St. Paul defending himself before Agrippa and Festus against the Jews accusation who calumniated him that he spake in derogation of the Law and brought in a new doctrin to the disturbance of the people made only this answer that he preach'd nothing but what the Prophets had foretold His words are these The Iews for this teaching Christs doctrin finding me in the Temple would have kill'd me But I having obtain'd succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoke nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass as that Christ was to suffer that he was to be the first should rise from death to life and preach light both to Iews and Gentils This is the true interpretation of the Greek Text as far as ly's in my power to explicate it according to the intention of St. Paul I deny not but the words singly taken may be interpreted I have persisted testifying to great and little and in my Sermons saying nothing but what c. But this explication is neither so proper to his defence nor at all advances the Adversaries cause For since St. Paul tells us directly what the points are of which he spake whatever can be gathered out of them only this is said that these three points were foretold by Moses and the Prophets and on the other side the discours is imperfect running thus I preach'd indeed many other things yet nothing but what was in Moses and the Prophets to wit that Christ was to suffer c. His meaning therfore is that since he was in hold his perpetual endeavours had been to shew that these things he was accused to have preach'd against the law were the very marrow of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets and that wheras the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King who by force of Arms should restore the house of Israel to a great and flourishing estate the truth was quite contrary for according to the doctrin of Moses and the Prophets He was to be a passible man to suffer death afterwards to rise again triumphantly as the first fruits of the Resurrection and to send his Disciples both to Jews and Gentiles to spread the light of the Gospel throughout the world What advantage against the necessity of Tradition can be drawn out of this place of Scripture which doth not so much as talk of the extent of Catholick doctrin much less come within kenning of our Controversy is beyond my reach This I know that to say all points of Catholick doctrin can be sufficiently prov'd out of Moses and the Prophets is an assertion I believe our Adversaries themselvs will deny as being both ridiculous in it self and absolutely discrediting the necessity of the new Testament and yet clearly without maintaining so gross absurdities they can make no advantage of this Text. THE SEVENTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion WE are at last come to those places in which they most glory
Captain searches the Hospitals for Perdues Forcers of breaches It is a great step towards the reducing others to reason if first we make our own thoughts rational This is my endeavour this is my fault for which I am so deeply censur'd even by Catholiks As for Persons my writings neither name nor touch any and those who make themselvs pointed at by their forward boasts of defending the opinions I dispute against either understand not me or themselvs for did it deserve the pains I would undertake to shew out of their printed Writers that they doe not with any universality maintain those tenets I contradict If in this present Treatise I have in one place descended to more particulars then my course and nature incline me to I appeal to your own Judgment whether I do more then follow my Adversary by replying upon his very words and therfore your commands ought to be my excuse But some think at least this conjuncture improper to begin this Work I wish they could give me a good cause of delay they should finde me very ready to accept it But I know no time in which destructive Errors should live unconfuted our great Master securing us by his example neque ad horam cessimus nor can your self be ignorant with what fury and violence the opposite opinion strives at this very day to possess the Chruch of God and break the eternal Rule of Christian faith Wherfore though conscious of my own weaknes and that unless God extraordinarily shews his power my endeavours wil take no place yet propter Sion non tacebo propter Hierusalem non quiescam Your most obliged Cosen and obedient servant T. W. 27 March 1654. The Table THe Introduction page 1 The first Encounter Explicating the argument by which Rushworth proves the infallibility of Tradition p. 7 The second Encounter Defeating three Oppositions made against Tradition p. 14 The third Encounter Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition p. 22 The fourth Encounter That unlearned Catholiks rely on the infallibility of Tradition p. 31 The fifth Encounter That Catholik Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition p. 36 The sixth Encounter Disabling three other arguments brought against Tradition p. 44 The seventh Encounter Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new beliefs to the Catholik Church p. 50 The eighth Encounter That our Lady's immaculate Conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith p. 64 The ninth Encounter Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition p. 70 The tenth Encounter That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chyliasts p. 77 The eleventh Encounter That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice p. 84 The twelfth Encounter That the necessity of communicating Infants is no Tradition but prayer to Saints is p. 99 The thirteenth encounter Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Romes Communion to be the sign of the true Church p. 107 The fourteenth Encounter Four other Arguments revers'd p. 113 The fifteenth Encounter Declaring the state of this question Whether the Scripture can decide Controversies p. 135 The sixteenth Encounter Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture p. 150 The seventeenth Encounter Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion p. 262 The eighteenth Encounter Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies p. 173 The first Survey Of the Nature and subject of Deille's Book p. 179 The second Survey Of the two first Chapters of his first book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first Ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies p. 188 The third Survey Of his third and fourth Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works p. 197 The fourth Survey Of the fifth Chapter wherin he objects the Fathers Eloquence and that on set purpose they spake obscurely p. 208 The fifth Survey Of the six Chapters following wherin he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers p. 216 The sixth Survey How the Authority of Fathers is infallible p. 226 The seventh Survey Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherein he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges 232 The eighth Survey Of the two last Chapters of his second Book wherein he says many Fathers have agreed in the same Errors and objects certain varieties between the ancient and modern Church p. 238 The ninth Survey In Answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judge we ought to recur The other What use is to be made of the Fathers p. 250. ADVERTISMENT THe Reader is desired to take notice that this Apology particularly relates to the last Edition of Rushworth's Dialogues in 80 of the Long-Primer-Letter 1654 as which alone has felt throughout this Authors last hand and principally undertakes the refutation of Lucius Lo. Falkland's Discours of Infallibility and George Lo. Digby now Earl of Bristow his printed Letters to Sir Ken. Digby which he performs in a stile modest and respective answerable to the dignity of their Persons and civility of their Writings The Animadversions upon Daillé are apply'd to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original wherin the Reader wil easily pardon those uncourteous expressions he shal meet with if he consider how little favour he deservs from his equals that insolently condemns his Betters nay perhaps approve the justice of so necessary a resentment since 't were unreasonable in him to pretend the least regard from his Cotemporaries that has compos'd so infamous and injurious a Libel against all Antiquity ERRATA PAge 13. l. 1. since in Const. p. 27. l. 13. Eight's p. 58. l. 20. which were p. 78. l. 10. handing p. 82. l. 16. to our ears p. 102. l. 7. reatus l. 17. is there p. 106. l. 2. be not l. 28. but by their p. 119. l. 2. exposes p. 127. l. 3. evident they cannot p. 128. l. 5. part that is the p. 137 l. 10. the venom p. 142. l. last attempt the other p. 143. l. 1 2 dele but out of Scr. nor yet in that doe they use so fair play p. 148. Parenthesis begins at this l. 10. and ends at being l 13. p. 152. l. 2. vivifying l. 25. in the first p. 174. l. last day as com p. 179. l. 7. with p. 193. l. 2. so few p. 237. l. 28. not bound p. 238. l. 19. certain varieties p. 245. p. 243. l. 23. dele of l. 7. in his p. 248. l. last shal not in AN APOLOGY FOR TRADITION The Introduction THus it will sometimes happen that events of greatest importance take their rise from smal occasions The Controversy this following Treatise undertakes
I fear not these few animadversions I have hastily collected sufficiently demonstrate to the sight of any that will but open their eyes how dangerous and damnable a a poyson lies hidden under that guilded hypocritical cover THE SECOND SURVEY Of the two first Chapters of his first Book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies THe intention of the Work being so pious so conformable to nature and the ways of the Author of nature you cannot chuse but expect the proofs very sound and convincing And if you will believe either my Lord of Bristow's judgment or my opinion we shall easily agree in his Elogium both of them and their Author that little material or weighty can be said on this subject which his rare and piercing observation has not anticipated To understand his perswasions the better I entreat you reflect upon two ways or rather two parts of one way ordinarily chosen by such jugling Orators as we before made mention of who use to employ their wits in contradicting open verities The first is to talk much of the common notion when the question is of a particular As if one would undertake to disswade a man from travelling to Rome because 't is a long journey he will plead the inconveniences which accompany long journeys and immediatly talk of Wildernesses wild Beasts great Robberies dangerous Rivers unpassable Mountains want of Company and disfurnishment of all accommodations by the way a thousand such frightful narrations which occur in the misfortunes of Shipwrack'd men and the desperate voyages of Romance-Lovers But never descend to consider whether all these be found in the way to Rome or what remedies are provided to correct such Symptomes knowing too wel that equivocation is easily couch'd and ambushed in common propositions but soon detected if a descent be made to particulars The other Fallacy is To assign real inconveniences but not tell you how far they annoy the Subject alledging many sad things but concealing how great they are As a man may have the Gout or Stone in so slight a measure that they shall never trouble him yet a third person who hears the melancholy relation may conceit and pitty his case as most deplorable because the Reporter not expressing the violence of these diseases leavs an impression in our minds of such a degree of pain and affliction as we ordinarily commiserate in those that suffer the extreamest fury of such vexatious tormentors These two Fallacies run in a manner through his whole Book which he divides into two parts very methodically In the former he pretends to shew 't is an excessive hard if not impossible task to know the meaning of the Fathers In the later that supposing their sense were known it imported little to the dispatch of controversies they being not infallible nor without all danger of errour grounding himself on this maxim that the understanding neither can nor indeed ought to believe any thing in point of Religion but what it knows to be certainly true Which had it come out of a Roman Catholicks mouth would have sounded gloriously and worthy the dignity of that Faith which God and Iesus Christ being the Author of have compleatly furnisht with clear and solid principles He perhaps would have offered you choice either of Faith or Knowledg produced in order to this as perfect demonstrations as Aristotle is ador'd for and towards that engaged you in the most evident directors of humane life and cleerly evidenc'd by the principles of common sense that if you refuse the Authority of the Roman Church you renounce all the certainties on which you build every serious action of your life in a word constrain'd you to deny or affirm somwhat that your self in another case will confess a meer madness to affirm or deny But in Monsieur Daille's mouth who in his next words will cast you upon the vanity of a broken breath which has been a boulting and searsing these hundred years without any profit in the certainty of its meaning I cannot pierce farther then that this glorious principle is assum'd as the readiest means to betray his Auditor into a despair of Christianity and then leave him in the gulf of Atheism However let 's see the nature of his proofs which for the first point he has screwd up to eleven The three first are that the Fathers works especially in the three first Centuries were very few and of matters far different from the present controversies and besides many fals writings father'd upon those Saints by unworthy persons of which last imputation my third Survey gives you a more exact particular Nor can I deny any of this but I find two exceptions which I believe would shrewdly trouble the Minister to answer One that those of the pretended Reformation who have so much modesty in them as not to renounce utterly the authority of the whole Church of Jesus Christ at one blow strive to shelter their nakedness in these three Centuries wherof these three arguments make me plainly see the reason Because by the paucity of Books the difference of Subject and pretence of Forgery they hope nothing can be made evident for those Ages and so the purity for which they cry up those days as only worth our conformity is in that sense the Poet says purae sunt plateae that is ther 's no body in the streets My other unsatisfaction is He does not shew that even in these ages and those very works which he acknowledges for the Authors home-born Children and to have descended incorrupted to our daies there is not sufficient to convince all Hereticks For though every particular point peradventure cannot in so few works and written so accidentally to our purpose be clearly demonstrated yet the generality of the Rule we are to follow in Christian doctrin is so manifestly set down in those very Fathers he admits that were their writings made our judges no man could possibly be an Heretick since as the material points the Fathers wrote against were different from ours so the formal ones as the deserting the Catholick communion the renouncing the testimony of Apostolical Seas and the hiding themselves under the leaves of Scripture were common to all the ancient as well as modern Hereticks But however if he cannot maintain that there is not enough left to convince the truth his proof is deficient and wholly useless to the end he brings it One observation more I cannot chuse but note He quarrels with some Catholick Doctors who prefer the second Tricentury before the first as to the right understanding the sense of the Fathers Which he says he takes for a confession of the want of testimonies in the former Ages and doubts not but in equal cleerness they would prefer the first Tricentury for point of purity before the latter But either his own opinion or mis-understanding our Tenets deceiv'd him For we do not imagin
Canons of Nice and after the matter was examin'd bore the Cause in force of them and continu'd on to posterity still the same denomination This is that solemn Forgery he decries with so loud a clamor and concluds his vehemency with so notorious a falshood that every three-penny Controvertist can spit in his face For he says that even now a great part of Christendom holds and 't is generally urg'd by all that the Popes Authority in Appeals was first given him by the Council of Nice wheras the most ordinary opinion is that 't is jure divino and those that look on jus positivum are so cunning as to distinguish the Council of Nice from that of Sardica and in that of Nice seek only a Testimony of what was in use before the Council not a Guift of this Authority His next accusation concerns certain writings that both the Catholiks and pretenders to Reformation agree to be Counterfeit which how little it imports our Controversie since neither party grounds any doctrin upon them needs not be express'd Another sort he counts for Forgery when Catholiks among themselvs question certain pieces of ancient Authors in which case he still joyns himself to that part of Catholiks that refuses to admit such passages for legitimate and then immediately charges all the rest who receive them with downright forgery which is the same as to call all men Knaves that are not of his side as if no real and just doubt could be made of Authors by sober and vertuous persons but all must be imputed to malice so that this exception is plainly a peevish and shallow cavil and besides no waies available to his purpose since that which is in real doubt among Catholiks can be no argument against Heretiks He that has patience enough to take notice of these qualities in his Chapter of Forgery and see that besides this he has nothing in it but aiery discourses in common how writings may be corrupted cannot chuse but say Movet Cornicula risum Furtivis nudata coloribus And yet suppose all he endeavours were true in abstracto there remains stil the application wherein if he miscarry instead of pulling down the Fathers he lays himself in the dust for after never so many Books never so much disabled if we can finde a Library full of unsuspected and universally acknowledg'd Authors we sufficiently discover the impertinency and deceitfulness of this manner of proceeding Therfore to prevent this inconvenience our quaint Discourser raises two suspicions against the confest works of Fathers One of Corruption the other of Obscurity The former he begins from the escapes of Transcribers which as we cannot deny to have some force if spoken in common so apply'd to particulars we shall find little important to our purpose For if the question were of some two or three Sentences spoken by the by such perhaps might be suspected though not justly without better ground then a bare surmise because where the error of the Transcriber has its amplitude to happen in one of ten thousand lines to say it lights just here is a very weak conjecture unless there be more particular causes of jealousie alledg'd which may apply it to that place then follow from this common cours But when there are formall and set discourses or frequent and express passages to the same effect and purpose then this suspition has no weight at all and such is the case betwixt Catholiks and the Pretenders to Reformation At the next turn he would perswade us that St. Hierome Ruffinus and others who abridg'd certain Greek works in their translation did therby falsify the Authors afterward that the collections of Canons made either by Greeks or Latins are corruptions because they omitted such as they dislik'd or had no use of not understanding or dissembling his knowledge that such Books are not intended for Histories to tell us what pass'd but Rules for government and so to be fitted to the particular occasion taking what conduces to the writers purpose and leaving out such passages as are though in themselvs good yet impertinent to his designs In the same rank are Liturgies which being the publik prayers are subject to be enlarg'd contracted or changed according to the devotion of the people and prudence of the Pastors as we see daily practised and so are better testimonies for universality in their districts then of antiquity These therfore neither are corruptions nor make the sense of the Fathers more difficult for we can use but so much as we find in them and so far they are as authentical as any other whilst what is not there cannot be pressd out of them After these he produces some debates between the Latines and Greeks about falsifying certain passages whose quarrels it concerns not me to take up only I must note the brotherly correction he gives the Fathers in these words thus did they bandy stifly one against the other each of them as it may be easily perceiv'd having much more appearance of reason and truth in their accusation of their Adversary then in excusing or defending themselvs which is no less then a plain condemnation of all how ever disputable the case be in it self Now how many of such passages mutually objected justly deserv'd that calumniation and were not by the fervour of disputation only term'd so being in themselvs but mistakes and wrong informations is too long a business for the brevity I propose to my self Yet this also I may observe not without ground from Daillè himself that the true controversie concerning such abuses has been indeed between Catholiks and Heretiks but not Latins and Greeks in common for the Catholik Greeks stil accus'd their Hereticks of great corruption And this is reasonable because Catholiks having alwaies stood for and rely'd on Antiquity alwaies upbraided and condemn'd Hereticks as guilty of novelty it necessarily follows they were without question fully perswaded their opinion was the same with the Fathers and had a real and true evidence of it wheras Heretiks not esteeming Antiquity for it self but only for fear of scandalizing the generality of Christians who are stil brought up in a high reverence of it were bound to seek those waies that might satisfy as wel as deceive the people without any inward and hearty respect to the Fathers themselvs a charge this very Author justifies not to be uncharitably apply'd to such Innovators whilst his own chief endeavours strive to make us think the Fathers are like Epicurus's Gods Fine things in themselvs but hung so high their sound cannot reach us mortals here below upon Earth Neither indeed is the case of Ambition much unlike that of Heresie for those who encroach upon publik practices of former Ages are forc'd to use their utmost skil in falsifying all they can to obscure the evidence of what passed in the daies of their Ancestors One other particular wil challenge me if I go on without taking at least some little notice of it and
height of those Mysteries the Fathers saw just cause to conceal then in cavilling at their compendious expressions which suted best with their circumstances And certainly 't is most agreeable to reason that the mind of such as wrote before the Controversy began should be judged by those Fathers who for the easier defence of truth and fuller confutation of the Innovators were forc'd to break the Seal of secrecy and who being their immediate Disciples without doubt must necessarily best know their minds and consequently were most able to repeat the lessons they had so lately learnt of their Masters He afterwards reckons up certain Grammar weaknesses of some Fathers and the excellencies of others and out of both draws venom to his comb So that whether a Father write down right natural construction or by abilities of explicating himself polish his stile all breeds darkness to this great Illuminator or Calumniator rather of the Fathers Nay the very vices they cry out against in evil Preachers must be the faults of the Princes of antiquity by this Interpreters benevolence But he knocks all on the head by the example of St. Hierom who having related what had passed in him during his sleep in another place defends it was but a dream And can you believe the Objector was awake when he fumbled out this piece of impertinency Yet he urges it for a convincing evidence and bearing a special good wil to St. Hierom he very kindly perswades himself that the Stories of Malchus St. Paul the Eremit and St. Hillarion were Romances the first because his maligners calumniated it the other two though never question'd because he shew'd wit in them It seems too he would beget in his Reader this dutiful conceit of the Fathers that they were wont to deliver Romances for Articles of Faith concluding with this desperate and ungracious demand Who shall assure us that they have not made use of these same Arts in their discourses concerning the Eucharist and afterwards renews again the like impudent quaere discovering too openly the prophaness of his heart as if he suspected the Fathers might perhaps have cozen'd the people with some fals glasses to magnifie the power of Prelates Next he objects the Fathers often affirm or deny obsolutely what they mean only comparatively and if you wil not believe him he produces examples out of St. Hierom St. Chrysostom Amphilochius and Asterius But St. Hierom is plainly in the very words comparative The rest are both explicated to the same sense by the bordering Ages who might easily know the practice of their lives in that controversie and in his very citation have nothing capable of being urg'd against that explication besides the phrase it self is favourable What great difficulty is there to pick out the English of this sentence Praemia pudicitiae nuptiae possidere non possunt c. with the rest too trivial to be repeated He makes a second review of the Fathers speeches concerning some Heresy not yet debated upon another design to shew that while they speak against one Heresie they seem to fall into the contrary But there is no new difficulty brought unlesse it be of those terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both which this Author abuses by a wrong interpretation the first he renders let fall in heat of disputation instead of giving it the true sense which Englishes it thus suppos'd for disputation sake for so 't is contradistinguish'd to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which St. Basil opposes it the later he explicates done or said by dispensation whereas the proper signification is by discretion St. Athanasius's meaning being that he deliverd what was fittest in that occasion and for the person to whom or in whose name he spake for his words give us some hints inclining to either of those senses that He intended only to personate an objection against himself or else to draw some answer out of another without engaging to declare his own judgment But 't is worthy our pains to look into the sweet interpretation he makes and compare it with the Greek which himself puts in the margin he reads therfore thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is men ought not maliciously to take or understand and draw it to be his proper meaning what one writes or does as now it s cal'd ad hominem for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies according to the art and understanding to apply every thing to the particular circumstances which offer themselvs Lastly he tels us the use of words is chang'd since Antiquity but specifies so simply that without question he hoped none but blind men would look into his book as if the World now thought that Papa signifies not a spiritual Authority but a temporal Garbo that Confessio signifies some outward ceremony Missa all the prayers now used c. THE FIFTH SURVEY Of the six Chapters following wherin he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers HItherto our Oratour has opened those Pleas which in a manner of necessity follow'd that multitude of books the Fathers have written and would if we could believe him perswade us Nothing is to be learn'd or understood out of Books but every three words wil never fail to have some reason or other to make them so obscure that no light or satisfaction can be derived out of them Nor is all this enough unless he gives them a touch of wilfulness which he does upon three Heads First from their writing Commentaries where he notes that many times they recite others opinions without naming the parties whence he would infer that out of their Commentaries nothing can be gather'd concerning their own judgment in the point they handle I cannot deny but such kind of commenting is sometimes used nor do I understand why it should be reprehensible to propose to the Reader choice judgments of divers eminent learned Persons even of Hereticks somtimes at least in St. Hieroms days when there were not so many Catholick writers that all good explications might be found in them though this honest man who otherwise is no enemy of liberty in Authors and opinions be at present for his interest offended with it But we can come to no assurance of the Authors mind what then If we do not see directly what he inclines to though ordinarily some liking is shew'd more to one opinion then another yet we may know he proposes all interpretations for the reader to chuse as he pleases which implys that he saw no apparent inconvenience in any But why is this manner of commenting made a calumny against all the rest being a particular kind and not much used why brought for a prejudice against such places where only one opinion is mentioned why is St. Hieroms indefinite doctrin which imports no more then that such is the nature of some Commentaries turn'd to an Universal as if none should do otherwise Let him reflect upon Beza's or other of his own parties glosses and see whether
reduc'd to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion especially since an hundred yeers experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true Besides why does not this good Orator spend some time to shew us that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture as against the Fathers I confess he has hinted it sometimes like one that saw the objection so obvious it could not be forgotten yet was unwilling to wade the Ford for fear he should find it too deep To supply therfore his omission I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers as far as concerns these objections Which consists in this that the Fathers works are many and copious The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carry's her Mistresses Book to Church Whence it follows that as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelvs and Rocks and Whirlpools and whatever else is frightful to Sea men and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain either not at all endammaged by these perillous adventures or only so that they are easily avoyded by a careful Pilot wheras in a narrow Channel or Frith if we meet but half the number there will be no sailing without manifest danger So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture Every exception this Caviller alledges or at least provs may be true of their works and yet more then sufficient left to convince Hereticks but if Scripture be half as much disabled it wil utterly lose its Protestant pretended power of deciding controversys A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence the many Explications leave nothing untouch'd the Comparisons of one place to another may be more then there are words in the Text the places brought by one side and the other so short that Equivocation has force upon every one the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew whose titles breed a difference or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties the Method and Stile the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion much less to be the sole Judg to determin all contentions about faith Yes wil he say but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few I confess it but yet dare affirm there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversy's This is true but so do the Scriptures That there are supposititious works of the Fathers Hereticks pretend the same against our Scriptures That the Fathers speak according to others minds But the like is found in Scripture And so going on it will easily appear the same objections or equivalent might have bin made against Scripture if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down Now when these Books are put into a Vulgar language as is necessary to them who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture by being first Judge of the sense of it that is of what is Scripture for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose can it be less then madnes to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture And yet as I have before noted this Patron of Presbytery assures us that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion but what we know to be certainly true which is evident in his way to be nothing at all At last his own good nature has perswaded him to propose one profitable question What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies And his first resolution is in the design of his Book conformable to the fore-layd grounds that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions and not for our own A wonderful wise conclusion especially considering he says the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all For my part I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written which when I have found little imported what t was or whether I knew it or no this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study to know what such or such books say without any farther end Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in not that they are better even at this then their Adversaries but because they have no other As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledg to be sought after but being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words hang in the air not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground At least to maintain the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings as that such a position is not found in the Fathers Ergo not necessary to be believ'd and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles which they unanimonsly deliver But he has forgot his own arguments for since we have so few of their works how can we tel the greater part did not teach somwhat necessary to be believ'd which these have omitted since corruption enter'd into the Church immediatly after the Apostles decease why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy since the Fathers are so hard to be understood why may there not be many doctrins of importance which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them and since they oppose one another in so many things why may not at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith I cannot give over this discours concerning the testimony of the Fathers without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's and too great an easiness in our own party which once discover'd and perfectly understood makes our cause so evident that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity The business is this Wheras their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible ther 's not the least colour to doubt it we let our selvs by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions and so lose the face of Antiquity by disputing of some nice point As for example when the Presbyterian has ruin'd the whole fabrick of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation we unwarily suffer our selvs to be engag'd into the discussion of this partieular quaere Whether Bishops be de jure divino which cannot be determin'd by the vast body of Antiquity as the right and proper