Observation of the Lords Day by Pius both Bishops of Rome which is a thing Eusebius never so much as dreamt of as may appear out of some Manuscripts of him where you shall find him wholly muâ—e as to these Points wherewith the Moderns so much please themselves But to return and to take the Times all along as they lie we may observe that this Licence grew stronger daily as the Times grew worse because that the greater the distance of time was from the Author 's own Age the more difficult the discovery of these Forgeries must necessarily be the Example also of some of the most eminent Persons among the Ancients who had sometimes made use of these sleights adding on the other side boldness to every one and courage to venture upon what they had done before them For I pray you is it not a strange thing that the Legats of Pope Leo in the year 451. in the midst of the Council of Chalcedon where were assembled 600 Bishops the very Flower and Choice of the whole Clergy should have the confidence to alledge the VI Canon of the Council of Nice in these very Words That the Church of Rome hath always had the Primacy Words which are no more found in any Greek Copies of the Councils than are those other pretended Canons of Pope Zozimus neither do they yet appear in any Greek or Latin Copies nor so much as in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus who lived about fifty years after this Council When I consider that the Legats of so holy a Pope would at that time have fastned such a Wen upon the Body of so Venerable a Canon I am almost ready to think that we scarcely have any thing of Antiquity left us that is entire and uncorrupt except it be in Matters of Indifferency or which could not have been corrupted without much noise and to take this Proceeding of theirs which is come to our knowledge as an advertisement purposely given us by Divine Providence to let us see with how much consideration and advisedness we ought to receive for the Council of Nice and of Constantinople and for Cyprian and Hieroâ—o's Writings that which goes at this day for such About seventy four years after the Council of Chalcedon Dionysius Exiguus whom we before mentioned made his Collection at Rome which is 〈◊〉 printed at Paris Cum Privilegio Regiâ— out of very ancient Manuscripts Whosoever shall but look diligently Into this Collection shall find divers alterations in it one whereof I shall instance in only to shew how ancient this Artifice hath been among Christians The last Canon of the Council of Laâ—dicea which is the 163. of the Greek Code of the Church Universal forbidding to read in Churches any other Books than those which are Canonical gives us withal a long Catalogue of them Dionysius Exiguus although he hath indeed inserted in his Collection Num. 162. the beginning of the said Canon which forbiddeth to read any other Books in the Churches besides the sacred Volumes of the Old and New Testament yet hath he wholly omitted the Catalogue or List of the said Books fearing as I conceive lest the Tail of this Catalogue might scandalize the Church of Rome where many years before Pope Innocent had by an express Decree to that purpose put into the Canon of the Old Testament the Maccabees the Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiasticus Tobit Judith c. of which Books the Fathers of the Council of Laodicea make no mention at all naming but XXII Books of the Old Testament and in the Catalogue of the New utterly omitting the Apocalypse If any Man can shew me any better reason of this suppression let him speak as for my part I conceive this the most probable that can be given however we are not at all bound to divine what the motive should be that made Dionysius out off that part of the Canon For whatsoever the reason were it serves the turn well enough to make it appear that at that time they made no great conscience to curtal if need were the very Text of the Canons themselves So that if we had not had the good luck to have had this Canon entire and perfect in divers other Monuments of Antiquity as namely in the Collections of the Greeks and also in the Councils of the French Church we should at this Day have been wholly ignorant what the judgment of the Fathers of Lâ—â—odices was touching the Canon of the holy Scripturâ—s which is one of the principal Controversies of these times It is true I confess that the Latins have their revenge upon the Greeks reproaching them in like manner because that in their Translation of the Code of the Canons of the African Church they have left the Books of the Maccabees quite out of the Roll of the Books of the Scripture which is set down in the 24. Canon of their Collection expresly against the Faith of all the Latin copies of this Collection both Printed and Manuscript as Cardinal Perron affirmeth and yet there are some others who assure us that no Book of Maccabees appears at all in this Canon in the Collection of Cresâ—bnius a Bishop of Africk not yet printed The Greek Cudâ— represents unto us VII Canons of the I Council of Constantinople which are in like manner found both in Balsamon and in Zonaras and also in the Greek and Latin Edition of the General Councils printed at Rome The three last of these do not appear at all in the Latine Code of 〈◊〉 though they are very considerable ones as to the business they relate to which is That Order in Proceeding in passing Judgment upon Bishops accused and in receiving such persons who forsaking their Communion with Hereticks desire to be admitted into the Church 〈…〉 very hard to say what should move the 〈…〉 this Council thus But this I am 〈…〉 in the VI. Canon which is one of those 〈…〉 hath omitted and which treateth of judging of Bishops accused there is not the least mention made of Appealing to Rome nor of any Reserved Cases wherein it is not permitted to any save only to the Pope himself to judge a Bishop the power of hearing and determining all such matters being here wholly and absolutely referred to the Provincial and Dioceâ—an Synods Now whether the Greeks added this tail to the Council of Constantinople which yet is not very probable or whether Dionysius or the Church of Rome curtalled this Council it will still that way also appear clearly that this boldness in gâ—lding or making Additions to Ecclesiastical Writings is not at all in use in these dayes After the Canons of Constantinople there follow in the Greek Code VIII Canons of the General Council of Ephâ—sus set down also both by Balsamon and Zonaras and printed with the Acts of the said Council of Ephesus in the First Tome of the Roman Edition But Dionysius Exiguus hath discarded them all not giving us any one of
sense and meaning of these words lest otherwise by misinterpreting the same you might chance to fall into the one or the other of these two Precipices If you have recourse to the Fathers in this case you shall have some of them referring it to the Vnion of the Affection and of the Will and others again to the Vnity of Essence and of Nature So likewise this other passage in the same Evangelist My Father is greater than I is very considerable also in the Question touching the Divinity of Jesus Christ And yet there are some among the Fathers who understand the words as spoken indefinitely of the Son of God although the rest of them do ordinarily restrain them to his Humanity These words also of St. John The Word was made Flesh are of no small consideration in the Disputes against Nestorius and Eutyches Now if you bring the business before the Fathers you shall have some of them expounding these words by comparing them with those passages in St. Paul where it is said that Christ was made sin and a Curse for us but St. Cyril saith that we must take heed how we interpret the words so It would be an endless Task if I should here go about to reckon up all the Differences and Contrarieties of Judgment that are to be found in the Fathers Those that have a mind to see any more of them may have recourse to some of our late Commentators whose usual course is to bring in all together the several Interpretations of the Fathers upon those Books which they Comment upon as Maldonate hath done upon the Gospels Cardinal Tolet upon St. John Bened. Justinianus upon the Epistles of St. Paul and others where they will find that there is scarcely any one Verse that the Ancients have understood all of them after one and the â—ame manner And which is yet worse than this besides this Contrariety and Difference of Interpretation you will often meet with very many cold and empty Expositions and it is very seldom that you shall find there that solid simplicity which we ought to expect from all those who take upon them the Interpretation of the Holy Scriptures For as much therefore as we many times meet with Contrariety of Judgment as well in their Expositions of the Scriptures as in their Opinions we may safely conclude that they are not of sufficient Authority to be admitted as the Supreme Judges of our Controversies that Contradiction which is often found amongst them evidently shewing that they are not Infallible Judges such as it is requisite that they should be for the making good of all those Points which are at this day maintained by the Church of Rome against the Protestants CHAP. VI. Reason VI. That neither those of the Church of Rome nor the Protestants do acknowledge the Fathers for their Judges in Points of Religion but do both of them reject such of their Opinions and Practices as are not for their Gust An Answer to two Objections that may be made against what hath been here delivered in this Discourse THus far have we laboured to prove that the Writings of the Fathers have not Authority enough in themselves for to be received as Definitive Sentences passed upon our Differences in Religion Let us now in the last place see how much they have in respect of us For although a Sentence of Judgment should be good and valid in it self as being pronounced by one who is a competent and lawful Judge duly and according to the Forms of Law yet notwithstanding would not this serve to determine the Controversie if so be the Authority of this Judge be denied by either of the Parties unless as it is in worldly Affairs the Law be armed with such a Power as is able to force those that are obstinate to submit to Reason for as much as the Question is here touching Religion which is a Holy and Divine thing to the embracing whereof men ought to be perswaded and not compelled since force hath no place here For although perhaps they could compel men outwardly to render some such respect to the Writings of the Fathers yet notwithstanding would not this serve to make any impression of the Belief of the same in the heart of any one The same Divisions would still remain in the minds of men which you are first of all to pull up by the roots if ever you intend to reconcile them to each other and to make them agree in Point of Religion For the certain determination therefore of all Differences of this nature it is necessary that both Parties be perswaded that the Judge who is to pronounce Sentence upon the same hath as much Authority as it requisite for that purpose Notwithstanding therefore that the Fathers should have clearly and positively pronounced what they had thought touching the Point in hand which yet they have not done as we have proved before Let us suppose further that they had been endued with all those qualities which are requisite for the rendring a man fit to be a Supreme Judge and from whom there can be no Appeal which yet is not so as we have already clearly proved yet notwithstanding would all this be to no purpose unless this Authority were acknowledged by both Parties The Old Testament is a Book which was written by Divine Inspiration and is endued with so supreme an Authority as that every part of it ought to be believed Yet doth not this work any whit at all with a Pagan because he doth not acknowledge any such excellent worth to be in it In like manner is it between the New Testament and the Jew neither can it decide the Differences betwixt the Jews and us not because it is not of sufficient Authority in it self but because it is not so to the Jew And indeed he were worthy to be laughed at whosoever should alledge in disputing against the Pagans the Authority of the Old Testament or that of the New for the bringing of a Jew over to our Belief Suppose therefore that the Writings of the Fathers were clear upon our Questions nay which is more let it be granted moreover if you please that they were written by Divine Inspiration and are of themselves of a full and undeniable Authority I say still that they cannot decide our Debates if so be that either of the Parties shall refuse to acknowledge this great and admirable dignity to be in them much less if both Parties shall refuse to allow them to have this Priviledge Let us now therefore see in what account the several Parties have the Fathers and whether they acknowledge them as the Supreme Judges of their Religion or at least as Arbitrators whose definitive Sentence ought to stand firm and inviolable As for our Protestants of France whom their Adversaries would fain perswade if they could to receive the Fathers for Judges in Religion and to whom consequently they ought not
we have a Synodical Epistle of Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem wherein as the usual Custom was he explaineth the Faith in a very large and particular manner and yet notwithstanding you shall no there meet with any of those Points which are now controverted amongst us Those that shall search more narrowly into the Business will be apt positively to conclude from this their silence that these Points were not at that time any part of the Belief of the Church and certainly this their way of Argumentation seems not to want Reason But as for my own particular it is sufficient for me that it confirmeth the Truth of my Assertion which is That it is if not an impossible yet at least a very hard thing to discover in what degree either of Necessity or Probability the Ancient Fathers held each of those Points which are now debated amongst us seeing that they appear not at all neither in the Expositions of their Faith nor yet in the Determinations of their Councils which are as it were the Catalogues of those Points which they accounted Necessary CHAP. IX Reason IX We ought to know what hath been the Opinion not of one or more of the Fathers but of the whole Ancient Church which is a very hard matter to be found out THose who make most account of the Writings of the Fathers and who urge them the oftnest in their Disputations do inform us That the weight of their Sayings in these Matters proceeds from hence that they are as so many Testimonies of the General Sense and Judgment of the Church to which alone these men attribute the Supreme Power of Judging in Controversies of Religion For if we should consider them severally each by himself and as they stand by their own strength onely they confess that they may chance to erre So that it will follow hence That to the end we may make use of the Testimonies of the Fathers it is not sufficient for us to know whether such or such Sayings be truly theirs and if so what the meaning of them is but we ought further also to be very well assured that they are conformable to the Belief of the Church in their time in like manner as in a Court of Judicature the Opinion of any single Person of the Bench is of no weight at all as to the passing of Judgment unless it be conformable to the Opinion of all the rest or at least of the Major Part of the Company And now see how we are fallen again into new Difficulties For whence and by what means may we learn whether the whole Church in the time of Justin Martyr or of S. Augustine or of S. Hierome maintained the same Opinions in every particular that these Men severally did or not I confess that the Charity of these Men was very great and that they very heartily and constantly embraced the Body and Substance of the Belief of the Church in all Particulars that they saw apparently to be such But where the Church did not at all deliver it self and expresly declare what its Sense was they could not possibly how great soever their desire of so doing might have been follow its Authority as the Rule of their Opinions Wheresoever therefore they treat of Points which were long since decided believed and received expresly and positively by the whole Christian Church either of their own Age or of any of the preceding Ages it is very probable that they did conform to what was believed by the Church so that in these Cases their Saying may very well pass for a Testimony of the Judgment and Sense of the Church it being very improbable that they could be either ignorant what was the Publick Doctrine of the Church or that knowing the same they would not follow it As for example when Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine and others discourse touching the Son of God they speak nothing but what is conformable to the Belief of the Church in General because that the Belief of the Church had then been clearly and expresly delivered upon this Point so that whatsoever they say as to this Particular may safely be received as a Testimony of the Churches Belief And the like may be done in all the other Points which have either been positively determined in any of the General Councils or delivered in any of the Creeds or that any other way appeareth to have been the publick Belief of the Church If the Fathers had but contained themselves within these Bounds and had not taken liberty to treat of any thing save what the Church had clearly delivered its Judgment upon this Rule might then have been received as a General one and what opinion soever we found in them we might safely have concluded it to have been the Sense of the Church that was in their time But the curiosity of Mans Nature together with the Impudence of the Hereticks and the Tenderness of Conscience whether of their own or of others and divers other Reasons perhaps having partly made them willingly and partly forced and as it were constrained them to go on further and to proceed to the search of the Truth of several Points which had not as yet been established by the universal and publick Consent of all Christians it could not be avoided but that necessarily they must in these Inquiries make use of their own proper Light and must deliver upon the same their own private Opinions which the Church which came after them hath since either embraced or rejected I shall not here stand to prove this my Assertion since it is a thing that is confessed on all hands and whereof the Romanists make special use upon all occasions in answering several Objections brought against them out of the Fathers As for example where Cardinal Bellarmine excuseth the Error of Pope John XXII touching the state of the Departed Souls before the Resurrection by saying that the Church in his time had not as yet determined any thing touching this Particular And so likewise where he applies the same Plaister to that in his Judgment so unsound Opinion of Pope Nicolas I who maintained That Baptism administred in the Name of Jesus Christ onely without expressing the other Persons of the Holy Trinity was not withstanding valid and effectual This is a Point saith Bellarmine touching which we find not the Church to have determined any thing And how dangerous and almost Heretical soever the Opinion of those Men seem to him to be who hold That the Pope of Rome may fall into Heresie yet doth he permit Pope Adrian to hold the same not daring to rank him among the Hereticks because that the Church had not as yet clearly and definitively delivered it self touching this Point The same Bellarmine in another Controversie of great importance touching the Canonical Books of the Old Testament finding himself hardly put to it by his Adversaries urging against him the Authority of S. Hierome who casts
its opinion publickly touching the Points at this day controverted it is as impossible that many together that lived in the same time should represent it unto us as that one single person should How could they possibly have seen that which lay as yet concealed How could they possibly measure their Belief by such a Rule as was not yet visible to the World The Chiliasts alledge the Testimonies not of one not of two but of a very great number of the most eminent and the most ancient among the Fathers who were all of their opinion as we shall see hereafter The Answer that is ordinarily made to the Objection is That the Church having not as yet declared its sence touching this Point the Testimonies of these Men bind us not to believe the same which is an evident Argument that a great number in this case signifies no more than a small in the representing unto us what the Belief of the Church hath been and that it is necessary that either by some General Council or else by some other publick way it must have declared its judgment touching any Question in debate that so we may know whether the Fathers have been of the same judgment or no. So that according to this Account we are to raise up again the whole Ancient Church and to call it to account touching every of these particular Points now debated touching which the Testimonies of the Fathers are alledged it being impossible otherwise to give any certain judgment whether that which they say be their own private or else the publick Opinion that is to say whether it be fit to be believed or not So that any man that is but of the meanest judgment may easily perceive how that it is not only a difficult but also almost an impossible thing to gather out of the Writings of the Fathers so much light as is necessary we should have for our satisfaction in matters of so great importance CHAP. X. Reason 10. That it is a very hard matter to know whether the Opinions of the Fathers touching the Controversies of these Times were received by the Church Vniversal or but by some part of it only which yet is necessarily to be known before we can make use of any Allegations out of them BUT suppose that a Father relieving us in this difficult or rather impossible business should tell us in express terms that what he proposeth is the sense and opinion of the Church in his time yet would not this quite deliver us out of the doubtful condition we are in For besides that their words are many times in such cases as these liable to exception suppose that it were certainly and undoubtedly so yet would it concern us then to examine what that Church was whereof he speaketh whether it were the Church Vniversal or only some Particular Church and whether it were that of the whole World or that of some City Province or Country only Now that this is a matter of no small importance is evident from hence because that the opinions of the Church Vniversal in Points of Faith are accounted infallible and necessarily true whereas those of Particular Churches are not so but are confessed to be subject to Errour So that the Question being here touching the Faith which ought not to be grounded upon any thing save what is infallibly true it will concern us to know what the judgment of the Church Vniversal hath been seeing the opinion of no Particular Church can do us any service in this case And that this distinction is also otherwise very necessary appears evidently by this because that the opinions and customs which have been commonly received by the greatest part of Christendom have not always presently taken place in each Particular Church and again those which have been received in some certain Particular Churches have not been entertained by all the rest Thus we find in story that the Churches of Asia minor kept the Feast of Easter upon a different day from all the other parts of Christendom and although the business it self seems to be of no very great importance yet did it nevertheless cause a world of stir in the Church Victor Bishop of Rome by reason of this little difference excommunicating all Asia minor Now each party here alledged their Reasons and Apostolical Tradition for what they did speaking with so great confidence in the justification of their own opinion as that hearing them severally a man would verily believe that each of their opinions was the very sense of the whole Church which notwithstanding was but the opinion of one part of it only The greatest part of Christendom held the Baptism of Hereticks to be good and effectual and received all those who forsaking their Heresie desired to be admitted into the Communion of the Church without re-baptizing them as appears out of St. Cyprian who confesseth that this had also been the custom formerly even in the African Churches themselves And yet notwithstanding Firmilianus Archbishop of Caesaria in Cappadocia testifies that the Churches of Cappadocia had time out of mind believed and practised the contrary and had also in his time so declared and ordained together with the Churches of Galatia and Cilicia in a full Synod held at the City Iconium And about the same time also St. Cyprian and the Bishops of Africk fell upon the same business and embraced this opinion of Re-baptization of Hereticks The Acts of the Council held at Carthage are yet extant where you have 87 Bishops who with one unanimous consent established the same The Custom at Rome in Tertullians time was to receive into the Communion of the Church all Fornicators and Adulterers after some certain Penances which they enjoyned them Tertullian who was a Montanist exclaimed fearfully against this custom and wrote a Book expresly against it which is also extant among his works at this day Who now that should read this Piece of his would not believe that it was the general Opinion of all Catholicks that such sinners were not to be excluded from Penance and the Communion of the Church And yet for all this it is evident out of a certain Epistle of St. Cyprian that even some of the Catholick Bishops of Africa were of the contrary perswasion and the Jesuit Petavius is further of opinion that this Indulgency was not allowed nor practised in the Churches of Spain till a long time after and that the Ancient Rigour which excluded for ever such Offenders from the Communion of the Church was in practice among them till the time of Pacianus Bishop of Barcellona who left not any hopes of Ecclesiastical Absolution either to Idolaters Murtherers or Adulterers as may be seen in his Exhortation to Repentance In the year of our Lord 364. the Council of Laodicea ordained that none but the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament should be read in Churches giving us withal a Catalogue of the said Books
which amount in all in the Old Testament to the number of twenty two only without making any mention at all of those other Books which Cardinal Perron calls Posthumous namely Ecclesiasticus the Book of Wisdom the Maccabâ—es Judith and Tobit All the Canons of this Council were afterwards inserted into the Code of the Church Universal where you have this very Canon also Num. 163. that is as much as to say they were received as Rules of the Catholick Church Who would believe now but that this Declaration of the Canon of the Scriptures was at that time received by all Christian Churches And yet notwithstanding you have the Churches of Africk meeting together in the Synod at Carthage about the year of our Lord 397. and ordaining quite contrary to the former Resolution of Laodicea that among those Books which were allowed to be read in Churches the Maccabees Judith Tobit Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom which two last they also reckon among the Books written by Solomon should be taken into the number Who knoweth not the difference that there was in the first Ages of Christianity betwixt the Eastern and the Western Churches touching the Fasting upon Saturdays the Church of Rome maintaining it is lawful and all the rest of the World accounting it unlawful Whence it was that we had that so bold Canon passed in the Council at Constantinople in Trullo in these words Vnderstanding that in the City of Rome in the time of the Holy Fast of Lent they fast on Saturdays contrary to the Custom and Tradition of the Church it seemeth good to this Holy Council that in the Roman Church they inviolably also observe that Canon which saith that whosoever shall be found to fast either upon the Lords day or upon the Saturday excepting only that one Saturday if he be a Clergie-man he shall be deposed but if be be of the Laity he shall be excommunicated Who knoweth not after how many several ways the Fast of Lent was Anciently observed in divers Churches an account whereof is given you by Irenaeus in that Pious Epistle of his which he wrote to Victor part whereof Eusebius setteth down in his Ecclesiastical History Who doth not also know that the opinions and expressions of the Greek Church touching Free-will and Predestination are extremely different from what the Church believed and taught in S. Augustines time and so downward And as concerning the Discipline of the Church do but hear Anastasius Bibliothecarius upon the VI Canon of the VII General Council which enjoyneth all Metropolitans to hold Provincial Synods once a year Neither let it at all trouble thee saith he that we have not this Decree seeing that there are some others found among the Canons whose Authority nevertheless we not admit of For some of them are in force and are observed in the Greek Church and others again in certain other Provinces only As for example the XVI and XVII Canons of the Council of Laodicea are observed only among the Greeks and the VI and the VIII Canons of the Council of Africk are received by none but the Africans only I could here produce divers other Examples but these may suffice to shew that the Opinions and Customs which have been received in one Part of the Church have not always been entertained in all the rest Whence it evidently follows that all that is acknowledged as the opinion or observation of the Church ought not therefore presently to pass for an Universal Law The Protestant alledgeth for the justifying his Canon of the Scriptures the Council of Laodicea before mentioned Thou answerest him perhaps that this indeed was the opinion of the Churches but it was only of some particular Churches I shall not here enter into an Examination whether this Answer be well grounded or not it is sufficient for me that I can safely then conclude from hence that according to this account before you can make use of any Opinion or Testimony out of any of the Fathers it is necessary that you first make it appear not only that it was the Opinion of the Church at that time but you must further also clearly demonstrate unto us what Churches opinion it was whether of the Church Universal or else of some Particular Church only It is objected against the Protestants that Epiphanius testifieth that the Church admitted not into the higher Orders of the Ministry any save those that were Virgins or professed Continency Now to make good this Allegation it is necessary that it be first proved that the Church he there speaks of was the Church Universal For will the Protestant reply upon you as Laodicea hath had as it seems a particular Opinion touching the Canon of the Scriptures possibly also Cyprus may in like manner have had its particular Resolutions touching the Ordination of the Clergy The like may be said of the greatest part of those other Observations and Opinions of the Ancient Church Now how difficult a business it will be to clear these Matters which are so full of perplexity and to distinguish of Antiquity at this so great a distance of time severing that which was Publick from what was Particular and that which was Provincial from what was National and what was National from that which was Vniversal any Man may be able to give some kind of guess but none can throughly understand save he that hath made trial of it Do but fancy to your selves a City that hath lain ruinated a thousand years no part whereof remains save onely the Ruines of Houses lying all along here and there confusedly all the rest being covered all over with Thorns and Bushes Imagine then that you have met with one that will undertake to shew you precisely where the Publick Buildings of the City stood and where the Private which were the Stones that belonged to the one and which belonged to the other and in a word who in these confused Heaps where the Whole lies all together will notwithstanding separate ye the one from the other The very same Task in a manner doth he undertake who ever shall go about truly and precisely to distinguish the Opinions of the Ancient Church This Antiquity is now of Eleven or Twelve hundred years standing and the Ruines of it are now onely left us in the Books of the Writers of that Time which also have met with none of the best entertainment in their Passage through the several Ages down to our time as we have shewed before How then dare we entertain the least hope that amidst this so great Confusion we should be able yet to distinguish the Pieces and to tell which of them honoured the Publick Temple and which went to the furnishing of Private Chappels onely especially considering that the Private ones have each of them ambitiously endeavoured to make their own pass for Publick For where is the Province or the City or the Doctor that hath not boastingly cried up
what hath been so temperately learnedly and judiciously written by Monsieur Daille our Protestan-Perron And what the same Lord in a Treatise which will shortly be publisht saith concerning the Popish Perron viz. Him I can scarce ever laudare in one sense that is quote but I must laudare in the other that is praise who hath helpt the Church to all the advantages which wit learning industry judgment and eloquence could add unto her is as true of this our Protestant I shall add but one Lords Testimony more viz. the Lord George Digbies in his late Letters concerning Religion in these words p. 27 28. The reasons prevalent with me whereon an inquiring and judicious person should be obliged to rely and acquiesce are so amply and so learnedly set down by Monsieur Daillé in his Employ des Peâ—â—s that I think little which is material or weighty can be said on this subject that his rare and piercing observation hath not anticipated Were it needful to wander to Foreigners for Testimonies I could tell you how highly this Author is esteemed by the Learned and Famous Doctor Andr. Rivet upon whole importunity his Book des Images and other Tracts have been translated but writing to Englishmen I will only name the judicious Doctor Jer. Taylor Libert of Proph. Sect. 8. n. 4. in these words I shall chuse such a topick as makes no invasion upon the great reputation of the Fathers which I desire should be preserved sacred as it ought For other things let who please read Mr. Daillé du vrai usage des Peres Et siquis eueulo locus inter Oscines I must ingenuously profess that it was the reading of this rational Book which first convinced me that my study in the French Language was not ill employed which hath also enabled me to commend this to the World as faithfully translated by a judicious hand And that if there were no other use of the Fathers there is very much while Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur accipere contra se is a rule in reason as well as Civil Law and that the works of Cord. Perron for whose monstrous understanding they are the words of Viscount Faulkland p. 59. Bellarmine and Bironius might with most advantage to their party and no disgrace to them have been employed in seeking citations being built upon the principle That whatever the Fathers witness to be tradition and the doctrine of the Church must be received of all for such and so relied on And this principle being here throughly examined You have here as sufficient a constitation of Perrons Book against K. J. and by consequence of the Marquess of Worcesters against K. C. and Dr. Vanes and other Epitonizers of the Cardinal as you have of Mr. Cressys in the Preface to the Lord Faulkland by the learned I. P. Chr. Coll. Aug. 1. 1651. T. S. THE PREFACE ALl the Difference in Religion which is at this day betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants lies in some certain Points which the Church of Rome maintaineth as important and necessary Articles of the Christian Faith Whereas the Protestants on the contrary neither believe nor will receive them for such For as for those things which the Protestants believe for their part and which they conceive to be the Fundamentals of Religion they are so evidently and undeniably such as that even their Adversaries themselves do also allow of and receive them as well as they for as much as they are both clearly delivered in the Scriptures and expresly set down by the Ancient Councils and Fathers and are indeed unanimously received by the greatest part of Christians in all Ages and Parts of the World Such for example are these Maxims following Namely That there is a God who is Supreme over all and who created the Heavens and the Earth That having created Man after his own Image this Man revolting from his Obedience is faln together with his whole Posterity into most extreme and eternal misery and become infected with Sin as with a mortal Leprosie and is therefore obnoxious to the Wrath of God and liable to his Curse That the Merciful Creator pitying Mans Estate graciously sent his Son Jesus Christ into the World That his Son is God Eternal with him and that having taken Flesh upon himself in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and become Man He hath done and suffered in this Flesh all things necessary for our Salvation having by this means sufficiently expiated for our Sins by his Blood and that having finished all this he is ascended again into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father from whence He shall one day come to judge all Mankind rendering to every one according to their Works That to enable us to communicate of his Salvation by His Merits He sendeth us down His Holy Spirit proceeding both from the Father and the Son and who is also one and the same God with Them in such sort as that these Three Persons are notwithstanding but One GOD who is Blessed for ever That this Spirit enlightens our Vnderstanding and begets Faith in us whereby we are justified That after all this the LORD sent his Apostles to Preach this Doctrine of Salvation throughout the whole World That These have planted Churches and placed in each of them Pastors and Teachers whom we are to hear with all reverence and to receive from them Baptism the Sacrament of our Regeneration and the Holy Eucharist or Lords Supper which is the Sacrament of our Communion with Jesus Christ That we are likewise all of us bound to love GOD and our Neighbour very fervently observing diligently that Holy Doctrine which is laid down unto us in the Books of the New Testament which have been inspired by His Spirit of Truth as also those other of the Old there being nothing either in the one or in the other but what is most true These Articles and some other few the like which there perhaps may be are the substance of the Protestants whole Belief and if all other Christians would but content themselves with these there would never be any Schism in the Church But now their Adversaries add to these many other Points which they press and command Men to believe as necessary ones and such as without believing of which there is no possible hope of Salvation As for example That the Pope of Rome is the Head and Supreme Monarch of the whole Christian Church throughout the World That He or at least the Church which he acknowledgeth a true one cannot possibly erre in matter of Faith That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored as being really Jesus Christ and not a piece of Bread That the Mass is a Sacrifice that really expiates the Sins of the Faithful That Christians may and ought to have in their Churches the Images of God and of Saints to which they are to use Religious Worship bowing down before them That it is
lawful and also very useful to pray to Saints departed and to Angels That our Souls after death before they enter into Heaven are to pass through a certain Fire and there to endure grievous Torments thus satisfying for their Sins That one neither may nor ought to receive the holy Eucharist without having first confessed himself in private to a Priest That none but the Priest himself that consecrated the Eucharist is bound by right to receive it in both kinds And a great number of other Opinions which their Adversaries protest plainly That they cannot with a safe conscience believe And these Points are the ground of the whole Difference betwixt them the one Party pretending That they have been believed and received by the Church of Christ in all Ages as revealed by him and the other maintaining the contrary Now seeing that none of these Tenets having any ground from any Passage in the New Testament which is the most Ancient and Authentick Rule of Christianity the Maintainers are fain to fly to the Writings of the Doctors of the Church which lived within the four or five first Centuries after the Apostles who are commonly called the Fathers my purpose is in this Treatise to examine whether or no this be a good and sufficient means for the decision of these Differences And for this purpose I must first presuppose two things which any reasonable Person will easily grant me The first is That the Question being here about laying a Foundation for certain Articles of Faith upon the Testimonies or Opinions of the Fathers it is very necessary that the Passages which are produced out of them be clear and not to be doubted of that is to say such as we cannot reasonably scruple at either touching the Author out of whom they are alledged or the Sense of the Place whether it signifie what is pretended to For a Deposition of a Witness and the Sentence of a Judge being of no value at all save onely for the reputation of the Witness or Judge it is most evident that if either proceed from Persons unknown or suspected they are invalid and prove nothing at all In like manner if the Deposition of a Witness or Sentence of a Judge be obscure and in doubtful Terms it is clear that in this case the Business must rest undecided there being another Doubt first to be cleared namely What the meaning of either of them was The second Point that I shall here lay down for a Foundation to the ensuing Discourse is no less evident than the former namely That to allow a sufficiency to the Writings of the Fathers for the deciding of these Controversies we must necessarily attribute to their Persons very great Authority and such as may oblige us to follow their Judgment in Matters of Religion For if this Authority be wanting how clear and express soever their Opinions be in the Articles now controverted it will do nothing at all toward their Decision We have therefore here two things to examine in this Business The first is Whether or not we may be able now certainly and clearly to know what the Opinion of the Fathers hath been touching the Differences now in hand The second Whether their Authority be such as that whatever faithful Person shall clearly and certainly know what their Opinion hath been in any one Article of Christian Religion he is thereby bound to receive that Article for True For if the Church of Rome be but able to prove both these Points it is then without all dispute that their Proceeding is good and agreeable to the End proposed there being so many of the Ancient Fathers Writings alledged at this day by them But if on the contrary side either of these Two things or both of them be indeed found to be doubtful I should think that any Man of a very mean Judgment should be able to conclude of himself That this way of Proof which they have hitherto made use of is very insufficient and that therefore they of necessity ought to have recourse to some other more proper and solid way in the Proof of the Truth of the said Opinions which the Protestants will not by any means receive THE FIRST BOOK CHAP. I. REASON I. Touching the Difficulty of knowing the Sense of the Fathers in reference to the present Controversies in Religion drawn from hence Namely Because there is very little extant of Their Writings for the Three First Centuries IF we should in this particular take the same course which some Writers of the Church of Rome make use of against the Holy Scriptures it would be a very easie matter to bring in question and render very doubtful and suspected all the Writings of the Fathers For when any one alledgeth the Old or New Testament these Gentlemen presently demand How or by what means they know that any such Books were truly written by those Prophets and Apostles under whose Names they go If therefore in like manner when these Men urge Justin Irenaeus Ambrose Augustine and the like one should take them short and demand of them How and by what means they are assured that these Fathers were the Authors of those Writings which at this day go under their Names it is very much to be doubted but that they would find a harder Task of it than their Adversaries in justifying the Inscriptions of the Books of Holy Writ the Truth whereof is much more easie to be demonstrated than of any Humane Writings whatsoever But I pass by this too-artificial way of Proceeding and onely say That it is no very easie matter to find out by the Writings of the Fathers what hath really beeen their Opinion in any of those Controversies which are now in debate betwixt the Protestant and the Church of Rome The Considerations which render the knowledge of this so difficult are many I shall therefore in this First Part handle some of them onely referring the rest to the Later examining them one after another The first Reason therefore which I shall lay down for the proving of this Difficulty is The little we have extant of the Writings of the Ancient Fathers especially of the First Second and Third Centuries which are those we are most especially to regard For seeing that one of the principal Reasons that moveth the Church of Rome to alledge the Writings of the Fathers is to shew the Truth of their Tenets by the Antiquity which they reckon as a Mark of it it is most evident that the most Ancient ought to be the most taken notice of And indeed there is no question to be made but that the Christian Religion was more pure and without mixture in its beginnings and Infancy than it was afterwards in its Growth and Progress it being the ordinary course of Things to contract Corruptions more or less according as they are more or less removed from their first Institution As we see by experience in States Laws Arts and Languages the Natural Propriety of
Their Names how much more likely is it that they would not stick to make as bold with the Fathers And indeed this kind of Imposture hath always been very ordinary Thus we read That the Nestorians sometime published an Epistle under the Name of S. Cyril of Alexandria in the defence of Theodorus Bishop of Mopsuestia who was the Author and first Broacher of their Heresie and likewise that the Eutychists also vented certain Books of Apollinaris under the Title of The Orthodox Doctors onely to abuse the simple People Leontius hath written an express Tract on this Subject wherein he shews That these Men abused particularly the Names of S. Gregory of Neocaesarea of Julius Bishop of Rome and of Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria and he also saith particularly That the Book entituled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A particular Exposition of the Faith which is delivered unto us by Turrianus the Jesuite Gerardus Vossius and the last Edition of Gregorius Neocaesariensis for a true and legitimate Piece of the said S. Gregory is not truly his but the Bastard Issue of the Heretick Apollinaris And the like Judgment do the Publishers of the Bibliotheca Patrum give of the XII Anathema's which are commonly attributed to the same S. Gregory The Monothelites also taking the same course forged an Oration under the Name of Menas Patriarch of Constantinople and directed to Vigilius Bishop of Rome and two other Books under the Name of the same Vigilius directed to Justinian and Theodora wherein their Heresie is in express terms delivered and these three Pieces were afterward inserted into the Body of the Fifth Council and kept in the Library of the Patriarch's Palace in Constantinople But this Imposture was discovered and convinced in the VI Council for otherwise who would not have been deceived by it seeing these false Pieces in so Authentick a Copy I bring but these few Examples to give the Reader but a taste onely of what the Hereticks not onely dared but were able also to do in this particular and all these things were done before the end of the Seventh Century that is to say above nine hundred years ago Since which time in all the Disputes about the Images in Churches and in the differences betwixt the Greek and Latine Churches and indeed in the most part of all other Ecclesiastical Contestations you shall find nothing more frequent than the mutual Reproaches that the several Parties cast at each other accusing each other of forging the Pieces of Authors which they produced each of them in defence of their own Cause Judge you therefore whether or not the Hereticks using the same Artifice and the same Diligence now for the space of so many Centuries since though in different Causes may not in all probability have furnished us with a sufficient stock of spurious Pieces sent abroad under the Names of the Ancient Fathers by their professed Enemies And do but think whether or no we may not chance to converse with an Heretick sometimes when we think we have a Father before us and a professed Enemy disguised under the mask of a Friend So that it will hence follow That it may justly be feared that we sometimes receive and deliver for Maxims and Opinions of the Ancient Church no better than the very Dreams of the Ancient Hereticks For we must conceive that they were not so foolish as to discover their Venom at the first dash in the height of their Heretical Positions but rather that they onely cunningly cast in here and there some sprinklings of it laying the foundation of their Heresie as it were afar off onely which makes the Knavery the more hard to be discovered and so consequently the more dangerous But supposing that this Jugling Trick of the Hereticks may have very much corrupted the Old Books yet notwithstanding had we no other spurious Pieces than what had been forged by them it would be no very hard matter to distinguish the True from the False But that which renders the Evil almost uncurable is that even in the Church it self this kind of Forgery hath been both very Ordinary and very Ancient I impute a great part of the cause of this Mischief to those Men who before the Invention of Printing were the Transcribers and Copiers out of Manuscripts of whose negligence and boldness in corrupting of Books S. Hierome very much complained even in his time Scribunt saith he non quod inveniunt sed quod intelligunt dum alienos errores emendare nituntur ostendunt suos That is They write not what they find but what they understand and whilst they endeavour to correct other Mens Errors they shew their own We may very well presume that what liberty these Men took in corrupting they took the same in forging Books too especially since this last course was beneficial to them which the other was not For by altering or corrupting the Books they wrote they could not make any advantage to themselves whereas in forging new Books and venting them under great and eminent Names they put them off both faster and dearer So likewise if there came to their hands any Book that had either no Authors Name or having any it was but an obscure or a tainted one to the end that these evil Marks might not prejudice the venting of it they would rase it out without any more ado and inscribe it presently with some one of the most Eminent and Venerable Names that was in the Church that so the Reputation and Favour that That Name had found in the World might be a means of the better putting off their false Wares As for example The Name of Novatianus who was the Head of a Schism against the Roman Church became justly to be odious to Christian ears as that of Tertullian was the more esteemed both for the Age Wit and Learning of the Person Now the Transcriber considering this with himself without any other design or end than onely of his own private Gain hath in my judgment made an exchange attributing to Tertullian that Book of the Trinity which is indeed Novatianus his as we are given to understand also by S. Hierome And I am of opinion that both the birth and fortune of that other Piece De Poenitentia hath been if not the very same yet at least not much unlike that of the other So likewise that Book which beareth Title De Operibus Cardinalibus Christi which was composed and sent by the Author of it to one of the Popes without setting down his Name as himself there testifies hath been vented abroad under the Name of S. Cyprian onely because by this means it is the more profitable to the Manuscript-monger and it hath formerly always passed and doth still pass for his notwithstanding that in my judgment it is clear enough that it cannot be his as is ingenuously confessed by very many of the Learned both of the one and of
them and you will hardly be able to give a handsome guess what his reason should be unless perhaps it were because that the business of the eighth Canon displeased him which is that the Bishops of Cyprus had their Ordinations within themselves without admitting the Patriarch of Antioch to have any thing to do with it and that the same course ought to be observed in all other Provinces and Diocesses so that no Bishop should have power to intrude into a Province which had not from the beginning been under His and His Predecessors jurisdiction For fear that under the pretence of the Administration of Sacred Offices the pride of a Secular Power should thrust it self into the Church and so by this means we should lose said these good Fathers by little and little before we were aware the Liberty that our Lord Jesus Christ the Redeemer of all mankind hath purchased for us with his own Blood I know not whether this Constitution and these words have put the Latines into any fright or not or whether any other reason hath moved them not to receive the Canons of the Council of Ephesus into their Code But this is certain that they do not appear any where among them and it is now at the least seven hundred and fifty years and upward that Aâ—astasius Bibliothecarius the Popes Library Keeper testified that these Canons were not any where to be found in the most Ancient Latine Copies withal accusing the Greeks of having forged them But let them try out this dispute among themselves yet whether these Canons were forged by the Greeks or whether they have been blotted out of this Council and smothered by the Latins it is still a clear case that the Cheat is very near of eight hundred years standing But in the next example that follows the business is evidently clear without any more ado For whereas the Greek Code Numb â—06 sets before us in the XXVIII Canon of the General Council of Chalcedon a Decree of those Fathers by which conformably to the First Council of Constantinople they ordained that Seeing that the City of Constantinople was the seat of the Senate and of the Empire and enjoyed the same Priviledges with the City of Rome that therefore it should in like manner be advanced to the same Height and Greatness in Ecclesiastical Affairs being the second Church in order after Rome and that the Bishop of it should have the Ordaining of Metropolitans in the Three Diocesses of Pontus Asia and Thrace which Canon is found both in Balsamon and Zonaras and also hath the Testimony of the greatest part of the Ecclesiastical Historians both Greek and Latine that it is a Legitimate Canon of the Council of Chalcedon in the Acts of which Council at this day also Extant it is set down at large yet notwithstanding in the Collection of Dionysius Exiguus this Canon appears not at all no more than as if there had never been any such thing thought of at Chalcedon We know very well that Pope Leo and some others of his Successors rejected it but he that promised us that he would make an orderly Digestion of the Canons of the Councils and translate them out of the Greek why or how did he or ought he to omit this so remarkable a Canon If all other Evidences had been lost how should we have been able so much as to have ghessed that any such thing was ever treated of at Chalcedon Where or by what means could we have learnt what the opinion was of the DCXXX Fathers which met here together touching this Point which is the most important one of all those that are at this day controverted betwixt us And it is now eleven hundred years and upward since this Omission was first on foot And who will pass his word to us that among so many other Writings whether of Councils or particular Mens Works whether Greek or Latine the like liberty hath not been at any time used Rather by these Forgeries which have come to our knowledge who can doubt but that there have been many other the like which we are ignorant of Thou hast gone along innocently perhaps reading these Books of the Ancients and believing thou there findest the pure sense of Antiquity and yet thou seest here that from the beginning of the Sixth Century they have made no scruple of cutting off from the most Sacred Books they had whatsoever was not agreeable to the gust of the Times And therefore though we had no more against them than this it were in my judgment a sufficient reason to move us to go on here very warily and as they say With a stiff Rein through this whole business In the next place there is a very observable Corruption in the Epistle of Adrian I. to the Emperour Constantine in the time of the Second Council of Nice For in the Latine Collection of Anastasius made about seven hundred and fifty years since Adrian is there made to speak very highly and magnificently of the supremacy of his See and he rebukes the Greeks very shrewdly for having conferred upon Tarasius the Patriarch of Constantinople the Title of Vniversal Bishop And all this while there is not so much as one word of this to be found neither in the Greek Edition of the said VII Council nor yet in the common Latine ones The Romanists accuse the Greeks of having suppressed these two Clauses and the Greeks again accuse the Romanists of having foisted them in neither is it easie to determine on which side the guilt lies However it is sufficient for me that wheresoever the fault lies it evidently appeareth hence that this curtalling and adding to Authors according to the interest of the present Times hath now a very long time been in practice amongst Christians Which appears also very evidently in the next piece following in the same Council namely the Epistle of Adrian to Tarasius which is quite another thing in the Greek from what it is in Anastasius his Latin Translation and that in Points too of as high importance as those other before mentioned And so in the V. Act likewise where both in the Greek Text and also in the Old Latin Translation Tarasius is called Vniversal Bishop this Title appears not at all in Anastasius his Translation In the same Act the Fathers accuse the Iconoclasts of having cut out many Leaves out of a certain Book in the Library at Constantinople and that at a certain City called Photia they had burned to the number of Thirty Volumes and that besides all this they had rased the Annotations out of a certain Book and all this out of the malice they bore against Images which these Books spake well and favourably of But yet I do not see how we can excuse the Romanists from being guilty of corrupting Anastasius in those passages above noted nor yet of the injury they do Eusebius in the Exposition which they give of some
formerly determined by the Orthodox Doct. as appears plainly not only by the Manuscripts but also by the most ancient Editions of this Author and even by Card. Baronius his alledging of this Passage also in the Tenth Tome of his Annals An. Dom. 869. These are they who have quite rased out this following Passage out of Oecumenius For they who defended and favoured the Law introduced also the worshipping of Angels and that because the Law had been given by them And this Custom continued long in Phrygia insomuch that the Council of Laodicea made a Decree forbidding to make any Addresses to Angels or to pray to them whence also it is that we find many Temples among them erected to Michael the Archangel Which Passage David Hâ—eschelius in his Notes upon the Books of Origen against Celsus p. 483. witnesseth That himself had seen and read in the Manuscripts of Oecumenius and yet there is no such thing to be found in any of the Printed Copies Who would believe but that the Breviaries and Missals should have escaped their Razour Yet as it hath been observed by Persons of eminent both Learning and Honesty where it was read in the Collect on S. Peter's day heretofore thus Deus qui B. Petro Apostolo tuo collatis clavibus regni coelestis animas ligandi solvendi Pontificium tradidisti that is O God who hast committed to thy Apostle S. Peter by giving him the Keys of the Heavenly Kingdom the Episcopal Power of Binding and Loosing Souls in the later Editions of these Breviaries and Missals they have wholly left out the word Animas Souls to the end that People should not think that the Popes Autority extended only to Spiritual Affairs and not to Temporal also And so likewise in the Gospel upon the Tuesday following the Third Sunday in Lent they have Printed Dixit Jesus Discipulis suis that is Jesus said to his Disciples whereas it was in the old Books Respiciens Jesus in Discipulos dixit Simoni Petro si peccaverit in te frater tuus Jesus looking back upon his Disciples said unto Simon Peter If thy Brother have offended against thee c. cunningly omitting those words relating to Simon Peter for fear it might be thought that our Saviour Christ had made S. Peter that is to say the Pope subject to the Tribunal of the Church to which he there sends him And if the Council of Trent would but have hearkned to Thomas Passio a Canon of Valencia they should have blotted out of the Pontifical all such Passages as make any mention of the Peoples giving their Suffrage and Consent in the Ordination of the Ministers of the Church and among the rest that where the Bishop at the Ordination of a Priest saith That it was not without good reason that the Fathers had ordained That the Advice of the People should be taken touching the Election of those Persons who were to serve at the Altar to the end that having given their Assent to their Ordination they might the more readily yield Obedience to those who were so Ordained The meaning of this honest Canon was that to take away all such Authorities from the Hereticks the best way would be to blot them all out of the Pontifical to the end that there might be no trace or footstep of them left remaining for the future But they have not contented themselves with corrupting onely in this manner some certain Books out of which perhaps we might have been able to discover what the Opinion and Sense of the Ancients have been but they have also wholly abolished a very great number of others And for the better understanding hereof we are to take notice that the Emperours of the first Ages took all possible care for the stifling and abolishing all such Writings as were declared prejudicial to the True Faith as namely the Books of the Arrians and Nestorians and others which were under a great penalty forbidden to be read but were to be wholly supprest and abolished by the Appointment of these ancient Princes The Church it self also did sometimes call in the Books of such Persons as had been dead long before by a common consent of the Catholick Party as soon as they perceived any thing in them that was not consonant to the present Opinion of the Church as it did at the Fifth General Council in the Business of Theodorus Theodoreius and Ibas all three Bishops the one of Mopsuestia the other of Cyprus and the third of Edissa anathematizing each of their several Writings notwithstanding there Persons had been all dead long before dealing also even in the quiet times of the Church with Origen in the same manner after he had been now dead about three hundred years The Pope then hath not failed to imitate now for the space of many Ages both the one and the other of these rigorous Courses withal encreasing the harshness of them from time to time in so much that in case any of the Opinions of the Ancients hath been by chance found at any time to contradict his we are not to make any doubt but that he hath very carefully and diligently suppressed such Pieces without sparing any though they were written perhaps two three four or five hundred years before more than the others As for example It is at this day disputed whether or no the Primitive Church had in their Temples and worshipped the Images of Christ and of Saints This Controversie hath been sometime very eagerly and with much heaâ— and for a long time together debated in the Greek Church That Party which maintained the Affirmative bringing the business before the VII Council held at Nicaea it was there ordained That it should be unlawful for any Man to have the Books of the other Party withal charging every Man to bring what Books they had of that Party to the Patriarch of Constantinople to do with them as we must conceive according as had been required by the Legats of Pope Adrian that is tâ—at they should burn all those Books which had been written against the Venerable Images including no doubt within the same Condemnation all such Writings of the Ancients also as seemed not to favour Images as namely the Epistle of Eusebius to Constantia and that of Epiphanius to John of Hierusalem and others which are not now extant but were in all probability at that time abolished For as for the Epistle of Epiphanius that which we now have is only S. Hieromes Translation of it which happened to be preserved in the Western parts where the passion in the behalf of Images was much less violent than it was in the Eastern but the Original Greek of it is no where to be found Adrian II. in his Council ordained in like manner that the Council held by Photius against the Church of Rome should be burnt together with his other Books and all the Books of those of his Party which
had been written against the See of Rome and he commanded the very same thing also in the VIII Council which is accounted by the Latines for a General Council It is impossible but that in these Fires very many Pieces must needs have perished which might have been of good use to us for the discovering what the opinion of the Ancients was whether touching Images which was the business of the VII Council or that other Controversie touching the Power of the Pope which was the principal Point debated in the Synod held by Photius some of whose Pieces they for the self same reason do at this day keep at Rome under Lock and Key which doubtless they would long ere this have published had they but made as much for the Pope as in all probability they make against him This rigorous proceeding against Books came at length to that height as that Leo X. at the Council of Lateran which brake up An. 1518. decreed That no Book should be printed but what had first been diligently examined at Rome by the Master of the Palace in other places by the Bishop or some other person deputed by him to the same purpose and by the Inquisitor under this penalty That all Book sellers offending herein should forfeit their Books which should be presently burnt in publick and should pay a hundred Ducats when it should be demanded towards the Fabrick of S. Peter a kind of punishment this which we find no examples of in all the Canons of the Ancient Church and should also be suspended from exercising his Function for the space of a whole year This is a General Sentence and which comprehendeth as well the Works of the Fathers as of any others as appeareth plainly by this that the Bishop of Malfi having given in his opinion saying that he concurred with them in relation to New Authors but not to the Old all the rest of the Fathers voted simply for all neither was there any Limitation at all added to this Decree of the Council This very Decree hath been since strongly confirmed by the Council of Trent which appointed also certain persons to take a Review of the Books and Censures and to make a Report of them to the Company To the end that there might be a separation made betwixt the good Grain of Christian Verity and the Darnel of strange Doctrines That is in plain terms that they might blot out of all manner of Books whatsoever relished not well with the gust of the Church of Rome But these Fathers having not the leisure themselves to look to this Pious Work appointed certain Commissaries who should give an account of this matter to the Pope whence afterward it came to pass that Pope Pius IV. first and afterward Sixtus V. and Clement VIII published certain Rules and Indexes of such Authors and Books as they thought fit should be either quite abolished or purged only and have given such strict order for the printing of Books as that in those Countries where this order is observed there is little danger that ever any thing should be published that is either contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome or which maketh any thing for their Adversaries All these Instructions which are too long to be inserted here may be seen at the end of the Council of Trent where they are usually set down at large And in order to these Rules they have since put forth their Indices Expurgatorii as they call them namely that of the Low Countries and of Spain and other places where these Gallants come with their Razor in their hand and sit in judgment upon all manner of Books rasing out and altering as they please Periods Chapters and whole Treatises also often times and that too in the Works of those Men who for the most part were born and bred up and dyed also in the Communion of their own Church If the Church for eight or nine hundred years since had so sharp Razors as these men now have it is then a vain thing for us to search any higher what the judgment of the Primitive Christians was touching any particular Point for whatsoever it was it could not have escaped the hands of such Masters And if the Ancient Church had not heretofore any such Institution as this why then do we who pretend to be such Observers of Antiquity practise these Novelties I know very well that these men make profession of reforming only the Writings of the Moderns but who sees not that this is but a Cloak which they throw over themselves lest they should be accused as guilty of the same cruelty that Jupiter is among the Poets for having behaved himself so insolently against his own Father Those Pieces which they raze so exactly in the Books of the Moderns are the cause of the greater mischief to themselves when they are found in the Writings of the Ancients as sometimes they are For what a senseless thing is it to leave them in where they hurt most and to raze them out where they do little hurt The Inquisition at Madrid puts out these words in the Index of Athanasius Adorari solius Dei est that is God alone is to be worshipped and yet notwithstanding these words are still expresly found in the Text of Athanasius The same Father saith That there were some other Books besides those which he had before set down which in truth were not of the Canon and which the Fathers had ordained should be read to those who were newly come into the Christian Communion and desired to be instructed in the word of Piety reckoning in this number the Wisdom of Solomon Ecclesiâ—sticus Judith Esther Tobit and some other Nevertheless these very Censâ—rs put out in the †Index of Athanasius his Works those words which affirm that the said Books are not at all Canonical In the Index of St. Augustine they put out these wâ—rds Christ hâ—th given the sign of his Body which yet are evidently to be seen in the Text of this Father in his Book against Adimantus Chap. 12. They put out in like manner these words Augustine accounted the Eucharist necessary to be administred to Infants which opinion of S. Augustine is very frequently found expressed either in these very words or the like throughout his Works as we shall see hereafter They likewise put out these words We ought not to build Temples to Angels and yet the very Text of S. Augustine saith If we should erect a Temple of Wood or of Stone to any of the holy Angels should we not be Anathematized And this is the practice of the Censors both in the Low Countries and in Spain in many other particulars which we shall not here set down Now if thou cuttest off such Sentences as these out of the Indexes of these Holy Fathers why dost thou not as well raze them out of the Text also Or if thou leavest
the Truth when as in his old age taking Pen in hand he reviewed and corrected all that he had ever written during his whole Life faithfully and ingenuously noting whatsoever he thought worthy of reprehension and giving us all those his Animadversions collected together in the Books of his Retractations which in my judgment is the most glorious and most excellent of all those many Monuments which he hath left to Posterity whether you consider here the Learning or the Modesty and Sincerity of the Man S. Hierome reporteth that Origen also long before had in his old age written an Epistle to Fabianus Bishop of Rome wherein he confesseth That he repented him of many things which he had taught and written Neither is there any doubt but that some such like thing may have hapned to most of the other Fathers and that they may have sometime disallowed of that which they had formerly believed as true Now from this consideration there falls in our way a new Difficulty which we are to grapple with in this our Inquiry into the true genuine sense of the Fathers touching our present Controversies For seeing that the Condition and Nature of their Writings is such it is most evident that when we would make use of any of their Opinions it will concern us to be very well assured that they have not only sometime either held or written the same but that they have moreover persevered in them to the end Whence Vincentius Lirinensis in that Passage of his which is so often urged for the making use of the Ancient Authors in deciding our present Controversies thinks it not fit that we should be bound to receive whatsoever they have said for certain and undoubted Truth unless they have assured and confirmed it unto us by their Perseverance in the same as he there speaketh Cardinal Perron also evidently sheweth us the same way by his own practice for disputing about the Canon of the Holy Scriptures which he pretendeth to have been always the very same in the Western Church with that which is delivered unto us by the III Council of Carthage where the Maccabees are reckoâ—ed in among the rest and finding himself hardly pressed by some certain Passages alledged by the Protestants out of S. Hierome to the contrary he answereth the Objection by saying among other things That this Father when he wrote the said Passages was not yet come to the ripeness of his Judgment and perfection of his Studies whereas afterwards when he was now more fully instructed in the truth of the Sense of the Church he changed his Opinion and retracted as this Cardinal saith both in general and in particular whatsoever he had before written in those three Prologues where he had excluded the Maccabees out of the Canon And so likewise to another Objection brought to the same purpose out of the Commentaries of S. Gregory the Great he gives the like answer saying That S. Gregory when he wrote that Piece was not yet come to be Pope but was a plain Deacon only being at that time employed at Constantinople as the Popes Nuncio to the Greeks Now these Answers of his are either insufficient or else it will necessarily follow from hence That we ought not to rest certainly satisfied in the Testimony of any Father except we first be assured that not only he never afterwards retracted that Opinion of his but that besides he wrote it in the strength and ripeness of his Judgment And see now how we are fallen into a new Labyrinth For first of all from whence and by what means may we be able to come truly and certainly to the knowledge of this Secret when as we can hardly meet with any light Conjectures tending to the making of this Discovery namely Whether a Father hath in his old age changed his Opinion touching that Point for which it is produced against us or not If they had all of them been either able or willing to have imitated the Modesty of S. Augustine we should then have had little left to trouble us But you will hardly find any either of the Ancients or of those of Later times that have followed this example unless it be Cardinal Bellarmine who hath lately thought good to revive this Piece of Modesty which had lain dead and buried for the space of so many Ages together by writing a Book of Retractations which Book of his is very diversly received by the Learned as well of the one as of the other Religion But yet if you will stand stiff upon it with Cardinal Perron and not allow the saying of a Father to be of any value unless it were written by him after the Ripeness of his Studies I shall then despair of our ever making any Progress so much as one step forward by this means in the business in hand For will the one and the other Party say upon every Testimony that shall be produced against them how do we know whether this Father had yet arrived to the Ripeness of his Judgment when he wrote this Book or not Who can tell whether or no those days of his Life that he enjoyed after the Writing hereof might not have bestowed as well clearness on his Understanding as Whiteness on his Head and have changed his Judgment as well as his Hair We suppose here that no such thing appeareth in any of his other Writings How many Authors are there who have changed their Opinions and yet have not retracted what they had formerly written But suppose now that we should have lost that particular Tract wherein the Author had given Testimony of the changing of his Opinion what should we do in this cafe If Time should have deprived us of S. Augustine's Retractations and some other of his later Writings as it hath of an infinite number of other Pieces both of his and other of the Fathers which would have been of as great importance to us we must certainly have thought that he had believed that the Cause of Predestination is the Prescience or Foreseeing of the Faith of Men reading but what he saith in one of the Books which he first wrote namely That God hath not elected the Works of any Man according to his Prescience seeing that it is He himself that gives the same to a Man But that he hath elected his Faith by His Presâ—ience that is He hath elected those who He foresaw would believe his Word that is to say He made choice of them to bestow His Holy Spirit upon that so by doing Good Works they might attain everlasting Life Now would the Pelagians and Semipelagians have brought this Passage as an infallible Argument that S. Augustine was of their Opinion but that his Retractations and his other Books which were written afterwards in his later time clearly make it appear that this Argument is of no force at all forasmuch as this Learned Father having afterwards better considered of this Point wholly altered
from the Father to the Son this doubt I say of his manifestly proveth that the Church had not as yet at that time embraced or concluded upon the former of these Opinions it being a thing utterly improbable that so modest a Man as S. Augustine was would have cast off the general Opinion of the Church and have taken up a particular Fancy of his own But the Passion wherewith S. Hierome was at that time carried away against Ruffinus a great part of the Learned Men of his time being also of the said Opinion easily wrought in him a belief that it was the Common Judgment and Opinion of the whole Christian Church From the same Root also sprung that Errour of John Bishop of Thessalonica if at least it be an Errour who affirmed That the Opinion of the Church was That Angels are not wholly Incorporeal and Invisible but that they have Bodies though of a very Rare and thin Substance not much unlike those of the Fire or the Air. For those who published the General Councils at Rome conceive this to have been his own private Opinion onely And if so neither shall we need at present to examine the Truth of this their Conceit you then plainly see that the Affection this Author bare to his own Opinion carried him so far away as to make him father upon the whole Church what was indeed but his own particular Opinion though otherwise he were a Man who was highly esteemed by the VII Council which not onely citeth him among the Fathers but honours him also with the Title of a Father Epiphanius must also be excused in the same manner where he assures us That the Church held by Apostolical Tradition the Custom which it had of meeting together thrice a Week for the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist which yet Petavius maketh evidently appear not to have been of Apostolical Institution The Mistakes of Venerable Bede noted and censured elsewhere by Petavius are of the fame nature also The Belief of the Church if I mistake not saith he is That our Saviour Christ lived in the Flesh Thirty three Years or there about till the time of his Passion And he saith moreover That the Church of Rome testifieth that this is Its Belief by the Marks which they yearly set upon their Tapers upon Good Friday whereon they always inscribe a Number of Tears which is less by Thirty three than the common Aera of the Christians He likewise saith in the same place That it is not lawful for any Catholick to doubt whether Jesus Christ suffered on the Cross the XV day of the Moon or not Now Petavius hath proved at large that both these Opinions which Beda delivers unto us as the Churches Belief are nothing less than what he would have them The curious Reader may observe many the like Carriages in the Writings of the Fathers but these here already set down in my judgment do sufficiently justifie the doubt which I have made namely that we ought not to receive as Certain Truths the Testimony which the Fathers give touching the Belief of the Church in their Time Nevertheless that we may not seem to make a breach upon the Honour and Reputation of the Fathers I say that though we should grant that all their Depositions and Testimonies in this Particular were certainly and undoubtedly True yet notwithstanding would they be of little use to us as to our present purpose For first of all there are but very few Passages wherein they testifie plainly and in direct Terms what the Belief of the Church in their Time hath been touching the Points now controverted amongst us This is the Business of an Historian rather than of a Doctor of the Church whose Office is to teach to prove and to exhort the People committed to his Charge and to correct their Vices and Errours telling them what they ought to do or believe rather than troubling them with Discourses of what is done or believed by others But yet when they do give their Testimony what the Belief and Discipline of the Church in their time was this Testimony of theirs ought not to extend save onely to what was apparently such and which besides was apparent to themselves too Now as we have formerly proved they could not possibly know the Sense and Opinions of every particular Christian that lived in their time nor yet of all the Pastors and Ministers who were set over them but of some certain Particular Christians onely Forasmuch therefore as it is confessed even by those very Men who have the Church in greatest esteem that the Belief of Particular Churches is not infallible we may very easily perceive that such Testimonies of the Fathers as these can standus in very little or no stead seeing they represent unto us such Opinions as are not always certainly and undoubtedly True and which consequently are so far from confirming and proving ours as that they rather stand in need of being examined aud proved themselves But yet suppose that the Church of Rome did hold that the Beliefs of Particular Churches were Infallible which yet it doth not yet would not this make any thing at all against the Protestants forasmuch as they are of the clean contrary Opinion Now it is taken for granted on all hands that Proofs ought to be fetched from such things as are confessed and acknowledged by your Adversary whom you endeavour to convince otherwise you will never be able to move him or make him quit his former Opinion Seeing therefore that the Testimonies of the Farthers touching the State of the Faith and Ecclesiastical Discipline of their Times are of this Nature it remaineth that we now consider their other Discourses wherein they have delivered themselves not as Witnesses deposing what they had seen but as Doctors instructing us in what they believed And certainly how Holy and Able soever they were it cannot be denied but that they were still Men and consequently were subject to Error especially in matters of Faith which is a Business so much transcending Humane Apprehension The Spirit of God onely was able to direct their Understandings and their Pens in the Truth and to withhold them from falling into any Error in like manner as it directed the Holy Prophets and Apostles while they wrote the Books of the Old and New Testament Now we cannot be any way assured that the Spirit of God was present always with them to enlighten their Understandings and to make them see the Truth of all those things whereof they wrote They neither pretend to this themselves nor yet doth any one that I know of attribute unto them this Assistance unless it be perhaps the Author of the Gloss upon the Decrees who is of Opinion that we ought to stand to all that the Fathers have written even to the least tittle who yet is very justly called to a round account for this by Alphonsus Ã
to give me leave to set down here the whole Passage at length As for these kind of Books saith he speaking of those Books which we Write not with Authority of Commanding but only out of a Design of exercising our selves to benefit others we are so to read them as not being bound necessarily to believe them but as having a liberty left us of judging of what we read Yet notwithstanding that we may not quite shut out these Books and deprive posterity of the most profitable labour of exercising their Language and Stile in the handling and treating of hard Questions we make a Distinction betwixt these Books of Later Writers and the Excellency of the Canonical Authority of the Old and New Testament which having been confirmed in the Apostles time hath since by the Bishops who succeeded them and the Churches which have been propagated throughout the World been placed as it were upon a high Throne there to be reverenced and adored by every Faithful and Godly Vnderstanding And if we chance here to meet with any thing that troubleth us and seemeth Absurd we must not say that the Author of the Book was ignorant of the truth but rather that either our Copy is false or the Interpreter is mistaken in the sense of the place or else that we understand not him aright And as for the Writings of those other Authors who have come after Them the number whereof is almost infinite though coming very far short of this most sacred Excellency of the Canonical Scriptures a man may sometimes find in them the very same truth though it shall not be of equal Authority And therefore if by chance we here meet with such things as seem contrary to the Truth by reason perhaps of our not understanding them only we have our Liberty either in reading or hearing the same to approve of what we like and to reject that which we conceive not to be so right So that except all such passages be made good either by some certain reason or else by the Canonical Authority of the Scriptures and that it be made appear that the thing asserted either really it or else at least that it might have been he that shall reject or not assent to the same ought not in any wise to be reprehended And thus far have we S. Augustine testifying on our side as well here as in many other places which would be too long to be inserted here that those opinions which we find delivered by the Fathers in their Writings are grounded not upon their bare Authority but upon their Reasons and that they bind not our belief otherwise than so far forth as they are consonant either to the Scripture or to Reason and that they ought to be examined by the one and the other as proceeding from persons that are not infallible but possibly may have erred So that it appears from hence that the course which is at this day observed in the World is not of sufficiency enough for the discovery and demonstration of the truth For we are now in doubt suppose what the sense and meaning is of such a piece of Scripture Here shall you presently have the judgment of a Father brought upon the said place quite contrary to the Rule S. Augustine giveth us who would have us examine the Fathers by the Scriptures and not the Scriptures by the Fathers Certainly according to the judgment of this Father the Protestant though a Passage as clear and express as any of the Canons of the Council of Trent should be brought against him out of any of the Fathers ought not to be blamed if he should answer that he cannot by any means assent unto it unless the truth of it be first proved unto him either by some certain Reason or else by the Authority of the Canonical Scriptures and that then and not till then he shall be ready to assent unto it So that according to this Account we are to alledge not the Names but the Reasons of Books to take notice not of the Quality of their Authors but of the Solidity of their Proofs to consider what it is they give us and not the face or hand of him that gives it us and in a word to reduce the dispute from Persons to Things And S. Jerome also seemeth to commend unto us this manner of Proceeding where in the Preface to his second Commentary upon Hosea he hath these words Then saith he that is after the Authors of Books are once departed this life we judge of their worth and parts only not considering at all the Dignity of their Name and the Reader hath regard only to what he reads and not to the Author whose it is So that whether he were a Bishop or a Lay-man a General and a Lord or a common Souldier and a Servant whether he lie in Purple and in Silk or in the vilest and coursest rags he shall be judged not according to his degree of honour but according to the merit and worth of his Works Now he here speaks either of matter of Right or of Fact and his meaning is that either we ought to take this course in our Judgments or else it is a plain Affirmation that it is the practice of the World so to do If his words are to be taken in the first sense he then clearly takes away all Authority from the bare Names of Writers and so would have us to consider the Quality only and weight of their Writings that is to say their Reasons and the force of the Arguments they use If he be to be understood in the second sense he seemeth not to speak truth it being evident that the ordinary course of the world is to be more taken with the titles and names of Books than with the things therein contained But supposing however that this was S. Hieroms meaning we may notwithstanding very safely believe that he approveth of the said course for as much as having this occasion of speaking of it he doth not at all reprehend it If therefore thou hast any mind to stand to his judgment lay me aside the Names of Augustine and of Hierome of Chrysostome and of Cyril and forget for this once the Rochet of the first and the Chair of the second together with the Patriarchal Robe of the two last and observe what they say and not what they were the ground and reason of their opinions and not the dignity of their persons But that which makes me very much wonder is that some of those who have been the most conversant in Antiquity should trouble themselves in stuffing up their Books with declamatory expressions in praise of the Authors they produce not forbearing to recount to you so much as the Nobleness of their Extraction the choiceness of their Education the gallantry of their Parts the eminency of their See and the greatness of their State This manner of writing may perhaps suit well enough with
perhaps that his Hyperbolical way of Expression of a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories all which joyned together he in too disdainful a manner casts down beneath the feet of one single Pope But this height of Expression may be somewhat excused in him considering that such Excesses as these are very ordinary with all high and free-spirited Persons But the Practice of the Church of Rome it self will be able to inform us more truly and clearly what esteem they have of Antiquity For if we ought to stand to the Fathers and not to depart from any thing that they have Authorized nor to Ordain any thing that they were ignorant of how comes it to pass that we at this day see so many several Observations and Customs which were observed by the Ancients now quite laid aside And whence is it that we find in Antiquity no mention at all of many things which are now in great request amongst us There are as it were three principal Parts in Religion namely Points of Belief of Ceremony and of Discipline We shall run them over lightly all three and so far as is necessary only for our present purpose that so we may let the world see that in every one of these three parts they have both abolished and established very many things expresly against the Authority of the Ancients As for the first of these we have formerly given the Reader some Tasts only in the preceding Chapters For we have seen that the Opinion of the greatest part of the Ancient Church touching the State of the Soul till the time of the Resurrection which besides is at this day also maintained by the Greek Church was condemned not much above two hundred years since by the Church of Rome at the Council of Florence and a quite contrary Belief there established as an Article of the Christian Faith We have seen besides that the Opinion of the Fathers of the Primitive Church and even down as far as to the end of the sixth Century after our Saviour Christ and afterwards was that the Eucharist was as necessary to Salvation as Baptism and that consequently it was therefore to be administred to little Children And yet for all this the Council of Trent hath condemned this Opinion as an Error in Faith withal Anathematizing by a Canon made expresly for that purpose all those who ever should maintain the same Let him be Accursed say they whoever shall say that the Eucharist is necessary for little Children before they are come to years of discretion Only that the Fathers might not take offence hereat as having so fearful an Affront put upon them these men have endeavoured to perswade both them and others that they never did believe that which themselves have most clearly and in express Terms protested that they did believe as we have before made it appear which is to double the injury upon them rather than to make them any reparations for it seeing that they deal with them now not as Hereticks only but as Fools also whom a man may at pleasure perswade that they do not believe that which they really do believe We have abundantly heard out of St. Hierome's mouth how that the Opinion of the Chilasts was of old maintained by several of the Ancient Fathers which yet is now condemned as an Error in Faith And indeed the number of these kind of differences in Opinions is almost infinite It was accounted no Error in those days to believe that the Soul was derived from the Father down to the Son according to the ordinary course of Generation but this Opinion would now be accounted an Heresie The Ancients held That it would be an opposing of the Authority of the Scriptures if we should bang up the Picture of any Man in the Church and that we ought not to have any Pictures in our Churches that That which we worship and adore be not painted upon a Wall But now the Council of Trent hath Ordained the quite contrary and says That we ought to have and to keep especially in our Churches the Images of Christ of the Virgin the Mother of God and of the other Saints and that we are to yield unto them all due Honour and Veneration All the Ancient Fathers as far as we can learn out of their Writings believed That the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin If now the Fathers of the Council of Trent accounted them to be the Judges of Faith what moved them then to imagine that we ought not to believe that they maintained any such Opinion For having delivered their Definitive Sentence in a Decree there passed to this purpose and declared That this Sin which hath spread it self over the whole Mass of Mankind by Propagation and not by Imitation hath seised on every Person in particular They at length conclude That their Intention is not to comprehend within this number the Blessed and Vnspotted Virgin Mary the Mother of God Which Words of theirs it is impossible so to expound as that they shall not in plain Terms give the Lie to All the Fathers For if they mean by these Words that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Sin they flatly establish an Opinion which is contradictory to that of the Fathers which is the grossest manner of giving them the Lie that can be If they mean here no more than this which Sense yet their Words will hardly be ever made to bear that it is not known as a certain Truth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Sin they however honestly say in plain Terms That these Good Men affirmed as True that which is yet Doubtful and maintained as Certain that which was but Problematical onely and Questionable The Council of Laodicea which is inserted into the Code of the Church Universal putteth not into the Canon of the Old Testament any more than Twenty two Books onely excluding by this means out of this number the Book of Tobit of Judith the Book of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the two Books of the Maccabees Melito Bishop of Sardis Origen Cyril of Hierusalem Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary and Epiphanius do all of them the same Athanasius Ruffinus and S. Hierome expresly reject these very Books and cast them out of the Canon And yet notwithstanding the aforesaid Council of Trent Anathematizeth all those who will not receive as Holy and Canonical all these Books with every part of the same as they are wont to be read in the Church and as they are found in the Old Latin Edition commonly called the Vulgar Translation Where besides the Affront which they have offered to so many of the Ancient and most Eminent among the Fathers and indeed to the Whole Primitive Church it self which received this Conon of Laodicea in amongst its Vniversal Rules they have also established a Position here which was not till then so much as ever heard
Tobit the Book of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees out of the Canon contrary to the Judgment of the Church of Rome which receiveth them in rids his hands of this Objection after the same manner I confess saith he that S. Hierome held this Opinion because that no General Council had as yet ordained any thing touching these Books Seeing therefore it is most clear both from the Confession of our Adversaries and also by the consideration of the thing it self that the Fathers have venâ—ed in their Writings very many of their own particular Opinions digested out of their own private Meditations and which they had not learnt in the School of the Church who sees not that before we give any certain credit unto their Sayings we ought first to be assured of what Nature they are Whether they were their own particular Opinions onely or the publick Sense of their Age Since it is confessed by all That those of the former sort are not always obligatory necessarily but are such as oftentimes may and sometimes ought to be rejected without any scruple at all You will object perhaps to a Protestant That S. Hierome worshipped the Reliques of Departed Saints How shall I know will he reply upon you again whether this was his private Opinion onely or not If the Authority of this Father for want of being grounded upon some Publick Declaration of the Church could not bind Bellarmine to receive his Opinion touching the Canon of the Old Testament why should this Opinion of his which is not any whit better grounded than the other perswade me to the Worship of Reliques The same will he reply upon you and many times with much more appearance of Reason concerning divers other Testimonies produced out of the Fathers So that whether you would confirm your own Faith or whether you would wrest out of your Adversaries hand this manner of Reply and make good all such Allegations it will concern you to make it clear concerning any Passage whatsoever that you shall urge out of a Father that it is not his own private Opinion but was the Opinion of the Church it self wherein he lived which in my Judgment is a thing that is as hard or harder to be demonstrated than any one of all those things we have yet discoursed of For those means by which we might easily attain to this Knowledge are wanting unto us and those which we have left us are very weak and very little concluding If the Fathers themselves had but taken so much pains as to have distinguished betwixt these two sorts of Opinions informing us in every particular Case which were their own private Opinions only and which were taught by the whole Church or at least had but proposed some of them as Doubtful and others again as Assured Truths in like manner as Origen hath sometimes done they would indeed have eased us very much though to say the truth they would not have wholly cured us of our Grief forasmuch as sometimes as we shall hereafter make it appear they attribute to the Church those things which it is most evident that it never held But they very seldom use to make any such Distinction but commonly â—ent their own private Opinions in the very same manner as they do the publick and sometimes also by reason of the Passion which these Authors may chance naturally to have been subject unto be the thing what it will we shall have them recommending unto us with more eagerness that which they have conceived and brought forth themselves than that which they have received from any other hand so that we shall meet with very little in them that may give us any light in this Particular There would be left us yet another help in this business by comparing that which they say here and there throughout their Writings with the Publick Opinions of the Church which would be a pretty safe and certain Rule to go by had we any where else besides their Books any clear and certain evidence what the Belief of the Church hath been in each several Age touching all Points of Religion and if this were so we should not then need to trouble our selves with the studying the Writings of the Fathers seeing that we read them for no other purpose but only to discover out of them what the opinion of Christendom hath been touching those Points which are at this day controverted betwixt us But now there is no man but knows but this help is wanting to us For setting aside the Creeds and the Determinations of the six first General Councils and of some few of the Provincial you will not meet with any Piece of this nature throughout the whole stock of Antiquity Now as we have already made it appear in the preceding Chapter the Ancient Church hath not any where declared neither in its Creeds nor in the aforesaid Councils what the opinion and sense of it hath been touching the greatest part of those Points which are now in dispute amongst us It followeth therefore that by this means we shall never be able to distinguish in the Writings of the Fathers which were their own private opinions and which they held in common with the rest of the Church If we could indeed learn from any creditable Author that the present Controversies had ever been decided by the Ancient Church we should then readily believe that the Fathers would have followed this their Decision and then although the Coâ—stitutions themselves should not perhaps have come down to our hands yet notwithstanding should we be in some sort obliged to believe that the Fathers who had both seen and assented to the same would also have delivered over the sense of them unto us in their Writings But we meet with no such thing in any Author but it rather appears evidently to the contrary through the whole course of Ecclesiastical Story that these Matters were never so much as started in the first Ages of Christianity so far have they been from being then decided So that it manifestly appeareth from hence that if the Fathers of those Primitive times have by chance said any thing of them they fetched not what they said from the Determinations of the Church which had not as yet declared it self touching the same but vented rather their own private thoughts and opinions Neither will it be to any purpose to object here that the Testimonies of many Fathers together do represent unto us the sence of the Church although the voice of one or two single persons only is not sufficient to do the same For not to answer that that which hath hapned to one may have hapned to many others and that if some particular persons chance to have fallen upon some particular Opinions possibly others may either have accompanied or else have followed them in the same I say further that this Objection is of no force at all in this Particular For seeing that the Church had not as yet declared