Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	ancient_a	church_n	father_n	2,262	5	4.7708	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40795	A discourse of infallibility with Mr. Thomas White's answer to it, and a reply to him / by Sir Lucius Cary late Lord Viscount of Falkland ; also Mr. Walter Mountague (Abbot of Nanteul) his letter against Protestantism and his Lordship's answer thereunto, with Mr. John Pearson's preface.	Falkland, Lucius Cary, Viscount, 1610?-1643.; Pearson, John, 1613-1686.; Chillingworth, William, 1602-1644.; Montagu, Walter, 1603?-1677.; Triplett, Thomas, 1602 or 3-1670.; White, Thomas, 1593-1676. Answer to the Lord Faulklands discourse of infallibility.	1660 (1660)	Wing F318; ESTC R7179	188,589	363

with that indifference and equalitie which is fit for a Judge and with which I both began and continue it Yet least there might some un-mark't prejudice lye lurking in me and least I might harbour some secret inclination to those Tenets which I had first been raught I have ever lean'd and set my Byas to the other side and have both more discoursed of matters of Religion with those of the Church of Rome then with their Adversaries and read more of their writings though none either so often or so carefully as this which I am now answering both because it was intended for my Instruction and confutation as also because the beauty of the stile and language in which you have apparrelled your conceptions although Non haec Auxilio tibi sunt Decor est quaesitus ab istis yet showes the Author a considerable Person and I may say of the splendour and outside of what you have said for my opinion that it wants soliditie and that the Logick of it is inferiour to the Rhetorick is seen by my writing against it what Tacitus sayes of Vitellius his Armie Phalerae torquesque splendebant non Vitellio principe dignus exercitus for as he would have had that glorious Army been imployed in the defence of a better and braver Prince so I wish your eloquence had guilded the better cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And having learn't moreover from the Pagan Divinitie of Hierocles which in this is conformable to that of most Christians that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all our search is but the stretching forth of our hands and that our finding proceeds from Gods delivering the Truth unto us and that prayer is the best meanes to joyn the latter to the former I have not only with my utmost endeavours done my part but also besought God with my most earnest fervency to doe his and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 joyning Prayer to search like form to Matter I doubt not but God who hath given me a will to seek his Will also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and if I have not the truth already I shall be taught the truth by him and by you as his Instrument or shall be excused if I find it not assuring you that I was never more ready to part with my clothes when they were torn then with my opinions when they were confuted and appeared to me to be so To begin then with your Treatise you can say nothing for Tradition which I will not willingly allow Scripture it self being a Traditum and by that way comming to our knowledge for I am confident that those who would know it by the Spirit run themselves into the same Circle between Scripture and Spirit out of which some of your side have but unsuccessefully laboured to get out between Scripture and Church but that this way which you propound should be convenient to know what was Tradition at first I can by no means agree Which to consider the better I will comprehend all the strength of what you have said in a little room and shut up your Oration into the compasse of some 3. Sillogismes thus you argue What company soever of Christians alone pretend to teach nothing but what they have received from their Fathers as received from theirs as so come down from the Apostles that company alone must hold the truth But that company of Christians which are in communion with the Church of Rome only pretend this Therefore they alone hold the truth and the Church The Major you prove thus If such a company of Christians could teach falshoods then since it is granted that what was at first delivered was true some age must either have erred in understanding their Ancestors or have joyned to deceive their posterity But neither of these are beleevable Therefore neither is it beleevable that such a company of Christians should teach falshoods The Minor you prove thus I mean that they alone pretend it for that they I mean all they pretend it you take for granted If it be incompatible with the Church of Romes doing it that any else should doe it then she does it alone But it is incompatible which is denied and not yet proved Therefore she doth it alone The severall parts of this Argument I mean first to Answer and secondly Whatsoever lyes scatter'd in your discourse any thing to this purpose or any other unanswer'd in the first part and thirdly I will reply to those Answers which you have been pleased to make to part of that Nothing which I writ wishing that this last work might have bin longer I mean that by answering it all and in order you had given me occasion to have dwelt more upon my Reply Now if I doe not shew that all of the Church of Rome do not nor cannot pretend this that for two to pretend it is not incompatible as having been so heretofore that those who alone pretend this may pretend it falsely that some men and in time all may mistake their Ancestors and have a mind in some cases to deceive their posterity and that it is not necessary for a whole age at once to joyn in doing it though it be done if I say I shew not this then let me not bee beleeved and if you can shew me that I have not shewed it I will promise to beleeve you First That the Church of Rome doth not nor cannot pretend that all their doctrine was received by them from their fathers as come down from the Apostles it appeares because when questions have risen about such things whereof there was before no speech yet if a Councell have determined them they are received with the same assent as if they had come from the Apostles and they professe now the same readinesse to receive alwayes any such definition though about a question now unknown and it is likely they have done what they professe they are ready to doe at least they shew that yours is not the ground upon which they build And I pray aske your selfe whether those that teach the common people who are the greatest part of your Church use to be askt about it by them or use to tell them that this they received from their Fathers as descended from the Apostles by a continuall verball Tradition For suppose they told them that this Tradition tels us yet they are not able to distinguish between such as is but Ecclesiasticall and Apostolicall or whether this be known to them onely by deductions or from ancient bookes and no such uncontinued line of teaching and not rather perswade them in generall to beleeve it what by Arguments drawne from Scripture what from reason what from Fathers Councels or Decretals I am not certaine what is their course but I am sure the most ordinary amongst the Ancients whom they pretend to follow was that when they had told the people that such a proposition was true they added neither is it I that say so

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

A DISCOURSE OF INFALLIBILITY With Mr. Thomas White 's Answer to it and a Reply to him By Sr. Lucius Cary late Lord Viscount of Falkland Also Mr. Walter Mountague Abbot of Nanteul his Letter against Protestantism and his Lordship's answer thereunto with Mr John Pearson's Preface The Second Edition To which are now added two discourses of Episcopacy by the said Viscount Falkland and his Friend Mr. William Chillingworth Published according to the Original Copies LONDON Printed for William Nealand Bookseller in Cambridge and are to be sold there and at the Crown in Duck-lane 1660. A SPEECH CONCERNING EPISCOPACY Mr. Speaker WHosoever desires this totall change of our present Government desires it either out of a conceit that is unlawfull or inconvenient To both these I shall say something To the first being able to make no such arguments to prove it so my self as I conceive likely to be made within the walls of so wise a House I can make no answer to them till I hear them from some other which then if they perswade me not by the liberty of a Committee I shall do But this in generall In the mean time I shall say that the ground of this government of Episcopacy being so ancient and so generall so uncontradicted in the first and best times that our most laborious Antiquaries can find no Nation no City no Church nor Houses under any other that our first Ecclesiasticall Authors tell us that the Apostles not onely allow'd but founded Bishops so that the tradition for some Books of Scripture which we receive as Canonicall is both lesse ancient lesse generall and lesse uncontradicted I must ask leave to say that though the Mysterie of iniquity began suddenly to work yet it did not instantly prevail it could not ayme at the end of the race as soon as it was started nor could Antichristianism in so short a time have become so Catholique To the second this I say that in this Government there is no inconvenience which might not be sufficiently remedied without destroying the whole and though we had not par'd their Nails or rather their Tongues I mean the High-Commission though we should neither give them the direction of strict rules nor the addition of choyce Assisters both which we may do and suddenly I hope we shall yet the fear sunk into them of this Parliament and the expectation of a Trienniall one would be such banks to these rivers that we need fear their inundations no more Next I say that if some inconvenience did appear in this yet since it may also appear that the change will breed greater I desire those who are led to change by inconveniences onely that they will suspend their opinions till they see what is to be laid in the other ballance which I will endeavour The inconveniences of the change are double some that it should be yet done others that it should be at all done The first again double 1. Because we have not done what we should do first and 2. Because others have not done what they should do first That which we should do first is to agree of a succeeding Form of Government that every man when he gives his Vote to the destruction of this may be sure that he destroys not that which he likes better than that which shall succeed it I conceive no man will at this time give this Vote who doth not believe this Government to be the worst that can possibly be devised and for mypart if this be thus proposterously done and we left in this blind uncertainty what shall become of us I shall not onely doubt all the inconveniences which any Government ment hath but which any Government may have This I insist on the rather because if we should find cause to wish for this back again we could not have it the means being disperst To restore it again would be a miracle in State like that of the resurrection to Nature That which others should do first is to be gone For if you will do this yet things standing as they do no great cause appearing for so great a change I fear a great Army may be thought to be the cause And I therefore desire to be sure that Newcastle may not be suspected to have any influence upon London that this may not be done till our Brethren be returned to their Patrimony We are now past the inconveniences in poynt of Time I now proceed And my first inconvenience of this change is the inconvenience of change it self which is so great an inconvenience when the Change is great and suddain that in such cases when it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change To a person formerly intemperate I have known the first prescription of an excellent Physitian to forbear too good a diet for a good while We have lived long happily and gloriously under this Form of Government Episcopacy hath very well agreed with the constitution of our Laws with the disposition of our People how any other will do I the lesse know because I know not of any other of which so much as any other Monarchy hath had any experience they all having as I conceive at least Superintendents for life and the meer word Bishop I suppose is no man's aime to destroy nor no man's aim to defend Next Sir I am of opinion that most men desire not this change or else I am certain there hath been very suddenly a great change in men Severall Petitions indeed desire it but knowing how concern'd and how united that party is how few would be wanting to so good a work even those hands which value their number to others are an argument of their paucity to me The numberlesse number of those of a different sense appear not so publiquekly and cry not so loud being persons more quiet as secure in the goodnesse of their Lawes and the wisdom of their Law-makers And because men petition for what they have not and not for what they have perhaps that the Bishops may not know how many friends their Order hath lest they be incouraged to abuse their authority if they knew it to be so generally approved Now Sir though we are trusted by those that sent us in cases wherein their opinions were unknown yet truly if I knew the opinion of the major part of my Town I doubt whether it were the intention of those that trusted me that I should follow my own opinion against theirs At least let us stay till the next Session and consult more particularly with them about it Next Sir it will be the destruction of many estates in which many who may be very innocent persons are legally vested and of many persons who undoubtedly are innocent whose dependances are upon those estates The Apostle faith he that provides not for his family is worse then an Infidel This belongs in some analogy to us and truly Sir we provide ill for our Family the Common-wealth if

do all that are in all parts Orthodox Christians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Irenaeus sets it down directly for a Tradition and relates the very words that Christ used when he taught this which is plainner then any other Tradition is proved or said to be out of antiquity by them if I say these could be so deceived why might not other of the ancients as well be deceived in other points and then what certaintie shall the learned have when after much labour they think they can make it appeare that the ancients thought any thing Tradition that indeed it was so and that either the folly or the knavery of some pappias deceived them not I confesse it makes me think of some that Tully speakes of who arcem amittunt dum propugnacula defendunt loose the Fort whilst they defend the out-works For whilst they answer this way the Arguments of Tradition for the opinions of the Chiliasts they make unusefull to themselves the force of Tradition to prove any else by For which cause it was rather wisely then honestly done of them who before Fevardentius set him forth left out that part of Irenaeus which we alleadge though we need it not much for many of the Fathers take notice of this beleef of his yet he justifies himself for doing it by saying that if they leave out all errors in the books they publish that is I suppose all opinions contrary to the Church of Rome bona pars scriptorum Patrum Orthodoxorum evanesceret a great part of the writings of the Orthodox Fathers must vanish away But the Tradition that can be found out of Ancients since their witnessing may dceeive us hath much lesse strength when they argue onely thus sure so many would not say this is true if there were no Tradition for them I would have you remember they can deliver their opinions possibly but either before the controversie arise in the Church upon some chance or after If before it is confessed that they writ not often cautiously enough and so they answer all they seem to say for Arrius and Pelagius his Faith before themselves and so consequently their controversie though it may be not their opinion arose If after Then they answer often if any thing be by them at that time spoken against them that the heat of disputation brought it from them and their resolution to oppose hereticks enough I desire it may be lawfull for us to answer so too either one of these former waies or that it was as often they say too some Hyperbole when they presse us with the opinions of Fathers At least I am sure if they may deceive us with saying a thing is Tradition when it is not we may be sooner deceived if we will conclude it for a Tradition when they speak it onely as a Truth and for ought appeares their particular opinion Befides If Salvian comparing the Arrians with evill livers and that after they were condemned by a Councell extenuates by reason of their beleeving themselves in the right with much instance the fault of the Arrians and saith how they shall be punished in the day of Judgement none can know but the Judge If I say They confesse it to be his opinion they must also confesse the Doctrine of the Church to differ from that of Salvians time because he was allowed a member of that for all this saying whereas he of the Church of Rome that should now say so of us would be counted sesqui-haereticus ̄ Heretick and halfe or else they must say which they can onely say and not prove that he was so earnest against ill men that for the aggravation of their crime he lessened that of the Hereticks and said what at another time he would not have said which if they do will it not overthrow wholly the authority of the Fathers Since we can never infallibly know what they thought at all times from what they were moved to say at some one time by some Collatericall considerations Next To this certaine and undoubted damning of all out of the Church of Rome which averteth me from it comes their putting all to death that are so where they have power which is an effect though not a necessary one of the first opinion and that averteth me yet more for I do not beleeve all to be damned that they damne but I conceive all to be killed that they kill I am sure if you look upon Constantines Epistle written to perswade concord upon their first disagreement between Alexander and Arrius you will find that he thought and if the Bishops about him had then thought otherwise he would have been sure better informed that neither side deserved either death or damnation and yet sure you will say this Question was as great as ever rose since for having spoken of the opinions as things so indifferent that the Reader might almost think that they had been fallen out at spurn-point or kittlepins he adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that which is necessary is one thing that all agree and keep the same Faith about divine Providence I am sure in the same Author Moses a man praised by him refusing to be made Bishop by Lucius because he was an Arrian and he answering that he did ill to refuse it because he knew not what his Faith was answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The banishing of Bishops shew enough thy Faith So that it is plaine that he thought punishing for opinions to be a mark which might serve to know false opinions by And I beleeve throughout Antiquitie you will find no putting any to death unlesse it be such as begin to kill first as the Circumcellians or such like I am sure Christian Religions chiefest glory being that it encreaseth by being persecuted and having that advantage of the Mahumetan which came in by force me thinks especially since Synesius had told us and Reason told men so before Synesius that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every thing is destroyed by the contrary to what setled and composed it It should be to take ill care of Christianity to hold it up by Turkish meanes at least it must breed doubts that if the Religion had alwaies remained the same it would not be now defended by waies so contrary to those by which at first it was propagated I desire recrimination may not be used for though it be true that Calvin had done it and the Church of England a little which is a little too much for negare manifesta non audeo excusare immodica non possum yet she confessing she may erre is not so chargeable with any fault as those which pretend they cannot and so will be sure never to mend it and besides I will be bound to defend no more then I have undertaken which is to give reason why the Church of Rome is infallible I confess this opinion of damning so many and this custome of burning so many this breeding up those who knew nothing else

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

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