not let it be known when she has defin'd of it self falls flat to the ground both because I take not that way and if I did since we are not troubled about knowing our Churches Definitions who have the burthen of obeying and do it in practice the Objectors are confuted as Diogenes did Zeno when he disputed against motion by walking before him For all this the Church of Rome must not escape yet And so we are told that if she were design'd for the Pharos to know the rest of the Church by somwhat had been advan'd for otherwise say they we can assign no mark of the true Church the Roman being deny'd to be such as we make her First I answer we have no need of recourse to the Church of Rome it being the infallible distinctive sign of the Church to lay claim to the handed Doctrin or Tradition which evidently appears cannot be claim'd by two For if two agree in a point to day and one dissent to morrow it were madness to say the disagreer can lay claim to yesterdays opinion Secondly we say if we would fly to the Roman Church the oppositions force us not from it For why is not Cardinal Perrons answer to Plessis invincible that the whole Church condemn'd St. Cyprians proceedings Likewise the Asian Bishops were condemn'd in the Council of Nice The African Bishops question was about the enacting a Law which nevertheless was carried for the Bishop of Rome If the Fathers remit us to the Apostolical Churches whose successions were then visible and evident what 's that to us now when all successions are interrupted save only that of the Roman Church The definition of the Council of Calcedon is known to be only the conspiracy of a Cabal never approved as legitimate but revers'd afterwards So that all these angry darts turn their points against their Authors the judgment in every instance having past in favour of the Church they oppose But this question concerning the Church of Rome is of greater extent and importance then to be huddled up in one sheet of Paper Therfore let us leave Her to the acknowledg'd Majesty she possesses in the Christian world and not by slight objections and answers rather seem to undervalue her Dignity then either oppose or defend her Authority You present us therfore next with what is kept for the closing of our stomacks and they are two dishes One that at last we Catholicks resolve into Reason as well as Protestants To this I answer if you mean we must see Reason why we give credit to Authority I agree with you But then since Reason is on both sides Why say you must it be a Wall to us and a Bulrush to others I le tell you Reason has two parts Demonstration and Sophistry and in Demonstrations that evidence which governs our Lives is the most familiar to us and consequently besides its firmness 't is the most clear and least denyable Now this proposition that we ought to believe a knowing person in that wherin our selvs are ignorant is of this nature a Maxime that governs all our life publick and private wherfore our ground or Reason is a wall a rock or if any thing be yet more solid On the other side of all parts of Sophistry that which is built on broken ends of obscure sentences of dead men who cannot declare themselvs is the most weak and contemptible and this being that you rely on Reason therfore to you is weaker and more deceitful then any Bul-rush The second dish is that whatever is deliver'd in defence of the Church of Rome only proves that as yet she is the true Church not that she cannot leave the way she is in and fall to reform as her adversaries cal it or that there may not happen some Shism among the Churches now adhering to her where both parts may claim Tradition and then where is the guide To this I answer I will not weigh the proofs of others for the eternity of the particular Church of Rome since there is no contest betwixt us here about that but those who are acquainted with controversies cannot be ignorant that our writers intend to prove Her indefectibility All I 'le say is did you but agree with us that she is at present the true Church it would be argument enough for you to submit til the cases happen which you suppose possible and I should think my self too grating and severe towards a Person in other respects extreamly recommendable if I should press harder then so upon him nor could I desire a repast more delightful to my soul then to have seen that in practice concerning him which is now too late to be hoped THE FOURTEENTH ENCOUNTER Four other Arguments revers'd SUch is the condition of Religion when the liberty of chusing is permitted to all that have the boldness to challeng it who having no other Scales to poise any arguments propos'd them then the affection to their own wils or prejudice against others reasons suffer every light objection to overballance the most weighty and solid Demonstration Therfore am I forc'd to follow certain other Adversaries my chase not being confin'd only to the noble game into every by-turn and beat every little bush where either the necessity of a desperate cause the fables of some wild Reporter or the craft of any jugling Hypocrite can drive them to hide their weak heads in As for reason in our present business they tel you every one is born in liberty to Religion and til it be demonstrated he is bound to acknowledg some Teacher the presumption stands for liberty and 't is meerly of curtesy and graciousness they take the pains to bring arguments for the Negative This I shal answer as the Caprich of some pragmatical Chaplain not having incivility enough to entertain the least suspition that so great a Wit stored with Art in so busy a time about questions of government should bring forth so mishapen a Monster But alas what cannot an unruly fancy that bites the bridle of reason Say then my young Divines of Politick of Paternal government what you say of Religion Is not the absurdity so palpable it wil make you asham'd That no child is bound to honour Father and Mother till it be demonstrated to him he ought to do so No Subject to obey the Magistrate til after a long dispute his power be evidently proved legitimate Pass from these to Arts and say every one may play the Physitian the Pilot the Judg for Doctor of Divinity you freely give your licence to all the world without having any Master or Teacher what a goodly Common-wealth you wil make But 't is reply'd Nullum tempus occurrit veritati no more then Regi since veritas fortior est Rege I Sir but in your major you put veritas and in your minor falsitas For what is your truth when you come to declare your self but probable arguments of which nothing is more certain then that
we may add Salmeron who has the boldness to say Doctores quo juniores eo perspicaciores Poza is no les audacious in citing opinions defin'd against the Fathers Erasmus says myriades Articulorum proruperunt Fisher Bishop and Martyr and as learned as any in his age consents that Purgatory was brought in by little and little and Indulgences after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro puts in the rank of newly receiv'd Doctrines Indulgences Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost But beyond all is the fact of Clement the eighth a grave and wise Pope who desirous to end the controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits accused by them of Pelagianism neither sent for learned men by way of a Council to know what their Forefathers had taught them nor examin'd with which of them the purest Ages sided but refer'd the whole matter to what St. Austin said and so it had been defin'd had not Cardinal Perrons advice prevail'd And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion that he knew not himself what he held wheras before him all the ancients sided with the Jesuits Thus far that Book I know this term Defining is frequently used by our Divines in matters of the Churches determinations nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word if the thing be understood to wit that Defining is nothing els but the acknowledging and clearing a Tradition from the dirt and rubbidg opposers had cast upon it For the rest that some Fathers have had their eys ty'd in particular points so far as not to see the force of Tradition by which the Church had notice of the truth of some position is a thing not to be doubted And if it were fit or necessary I could bring instances of bold Divines in our days so blinded by arguments that they see not the light of Tradition in some particular questions and so the expressions only changed hold condemned heresies So short is the sphear of our discours if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our Logick or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the ability of our Reason But what consequence any can draw out of these sayings against Tradition I understand not unless this be taken for a Maxim that every one must necessarily know of a special point that it is deriv'd by Tradition because really 't is so an inconsequence I hope already sufficiently demonstrated Now if these two can stand together that truly the Church has a Tradition for a point and nevertheless some learned man may be ignorant of it this argument has no force at all As to the positions he cites for newly adopted into the family of faith he fairly shews the priviledg he and his Master had to speak any thing that sounded to his purpose and let his adversaries take care whether true or no For nothing is more clear then that the validity of Baptism by Hereticks was a Tradition and decided by it so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgment the spirituality of Angels are not yet held matters of Faith but only Theological conclusions as likewise the souls being concreated to the perfecting of the body Then for the blessed Virgin 's being free from actual sin as also her Assumption and her delivery without pain which others add these either are known by Tradition or not matters of Catholick Faith and so no ways advance our Adversaries pretences For Alphonsus de Castro 't is plain by his very expressions either he means the manner only or at most some circumstances unessential to the things and therefore certainly not cited without some violence offerd to his words Poza is a condemned Authour and Salmeron's saying not to be followed or to be understood as it is whence he took it in such things as later disputes have beaten out more plainly Erasmus was learned in Criticism and one whom if not others his very English Patrons Warham of Canterbury Fisher of Rochester and More in the Chancery exempt from all calumny of being a desertor of the ancient Faith besides his own Books especially his Epistle Ad Fratres inferioris Germaniae by effects demonstrate his loyalty whatever bad impressions a certain liberty of practising his wit too freely may have made in some even great and eminent persons But what he speaks concerning Articles of Faith he either took from the scoldings of some ignorant Divines who are ready to call every word they found not in their books when they were Schollers Heresie or else because truly he understood not what belong'd to Decisions in that kind There remain two Authorities really considerable one of the holy Bishop Fisher the other of the prudent Pope As for the first I conceive there is a great equivocation through want of care and warinesse in distinguishing For let us take either the Council of Florence or Trent in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points those Councils defin'd are either denied by the Greeks or brought in by private revelations or new interpretations of Scripture For how could he be ignorant that the Greeks had agreed to the Latin Church about the definition of Purgatory in the Council of Florence or forget himself so far as not to remember a publick practice Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of the Penal injunctions laid upon sinners Besides he says the Latins did not receive Purgatory at once but by little and little Whence 't is evident by the name Purgatory he means not only so much as is established in the Council but the manner also and circumstances were introduced by revelations of private persons and argumentations of Divines The like he expresses of Indulgences saying They began after men had trembled a while at the pains of purgatory Whence it is plain he contented not himself with the precise subject of the Councils Definitions or the sense of the Church but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them So that by speaking in general terms and not distinguishing the substance of Purgatory from the Accidents and dressing of it as likewise in Iudulgences not separating what the Church has alwaies practiz'd from the interpretative extention which Divines attribute to them he is mistaken to suppose new Articles of Faith may be brought into the Church Neither imports it that he uses those words No Orthodox man now doubts for that 's true of such Conclusions as are term'd Theological and generally receiv'd in the Schools yet are not arriv'd to the pitch of making a point of Catholick belief besides he expresses himself that this generality extends no farther then That there is a Purgatory In Clement the eighth's action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the Definition he went about to make And upon the immediate step we both joyntly
clear in his comment upon St. Matthew and upon Ezekiel where he cals it a Jewish Fable l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of argues nothing of Tradition but the numerosity of that sort of believers occasion'd by the writings of the Heretick Apollinaris as the same Saint testifies Comment 10. in Esaiam Neither doth St. Austin stick to condemn it since those words c. 7. 24. de Civit. Dei esset utcunque tolerabilis signifie that it is not tolerable Yet truly I cannot but admire that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been deriv'd duely and really from the Apostles by verbal Tradition should conceive that either St. Hierom or St. Austin could think such a Tradition to be no sign of the Churches doctrin or not care whether it were or no which seems to me the same as to impute to these Saints a neglect of what they thought to be the Churches opinion or els to the Church a neglect of what was Christs doctrin if She would not accept what She knew was descended verbally from Him or at least that St. Austin and St. Hierom lay this great slander of neglecting the known doctrin of Christ upon the Church THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice THe Chiliad errour seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian which speaks far louder for it self And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence whose testimony is that The Arians would gladly have been try'd by the writings yet remaining of those Authors who lived before the Council of Nice for in them will be found certain propositions which now since the Church-Language is more examin'd would make the Speaker thought an Arian From whence the Opposers infer that before the Council of Nice there was no Tradition for the mystery of the blessed Trinity But to maintain this consequence I see no proof for the Cardinal's words clearly import that the Fathers before that Council though being Catholiks they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity yet in somephrases spake like Arians How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent that these Fathers believ'd not the Trinity or had not receiv'd by Tradition the knowledg of that Mystery I confess my self unable to see the least probability in such an inference If it be permitted to guess what they aim at that make this objection I believe it is that some propositions concerning the Trinity by disputation and discussion have been either deduced or clear'd which before were not remark'd do draw so much consequence upon the mystery as since is found they do out of which they think it follows that such propositions were not delivered by Tradition and so not our whole Faith To this the answer is ready that as he who says a mystery was taught by the Apostles does not intend to say the Apostles taught what the words were in every Language which were to signify this Mystery so neither is his meaning that they taught how many ways the phrase in one language might be varied keeping the same sense But as they left the former to the natural Idiom of the speaker or writer so the latter to the Rules of Grammar as likewise they left it to the speakers skil in Logick to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they deliver'd the Mysteries It is not therfore to be expected that men who had receiv'd the Mystery simply and plainly should without both art and attention know how in different cases to explicate it according to the exact rules of Science And thus the defect of the argument or arguer is that he supposes not only the main verity should be formally convey'd by Tradition but all manner of explication and in all terms which the subtlety or importunity of Hereticks could afterward drive the Catholicks to express this Mystery by a task both impossible to be perform'd and most unreasonable to require and perhaps unprofitable if it were done Nor therfore does it follow that somthing is to be believ'd which came not down by Tradition For as he that says Peter is a man says he is a living creature a body a substance though he uses not those words because all is comprehended in the term Man so he that delivers One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost delivers that those persons are not Alia but Alij and that truly the Son is not an Instrument a commanded servant c. Yet as it may happen that one man sees another to be but knows not what the definition of him is nor needs he ordinarily know it because he knows the thing defined so may it also chance that some Fathers who knew well enough the mystery might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of Logick and 't is no good consequence The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity therfore they held it not or had not learn'd it by Tradition Yet I must also intimate these differences of speech proceeded many times from the various usage of the words as the Greeks generally say the Father is cause of the Son the Latines abhor it calling him Principium which difference is not in the meaning but in the equivocation of the expression So we read in St. Athanasius that he found an opposition in some people one sort saying there were in the Trinity three Hypostases and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Hypostasis and St. Hierom though perfect in the Greek Tongue was so exceedingly troubled with this question that he sent to St. Damasus for the resolution of it yet he wel knew there was no difference in the sense but only in the terms however he fear'd lest by the wrong use of the words he might unawares be drawn into a wrong meaning So likewise did St. Athanasius find that the two former parties of which we spake agreed in the Catholick sense though their words were opposite The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis which primarily and radically signify the same thing Aristotle telling us that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it appears this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura to which the word substantia by use is now appropriated when we speak of this mystery but only in a secondary sense Again the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando or Subsistendo and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia Now applying this to the mystery of the Trinity Because in God there is one common Nature abstrahible from three proprieties therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis et tres Ousiae For
question St. Dennis tels us no Priestly function was compleat without the administration of the blessed Sacrament Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptiz'd This custom reached even to Infants but neither universally that is in all Churches nor indispensably For it was only then used when Bishops were present at Baptism as is apparent both because Communion was never administred anciently but after Confirmation and because it was always held for the complement of all Priestly Benedictions as is before declared Besides in some Churches there is not the least sign that ever it was given to Infants Another thing to be understood is that St. Austin uses to explicate the Communion to be an incorporation into Christs mystical Body of which no doubt but the Sacramental body is both a figure and cause This St. Austin himself upon the sixth of St. John plainly delivers and in his phrase takes the eating and drinking of Christs Body to be Faith or Baptism So do Orosius Prosper Fulgentius and Facundus either explicating or following him This equivocal manner of speaking makes those who are either not attentive enough or not willing to have him speak orthodoxly construe his words Grammatically that are spoken Allegorically which last his best Interpreters and most expert in his works accompt to be his opinion But to conclude this History After their loud and full cry as if the prey were in their sight which I believe wii never come within their reach for a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels let us see how necessary the African Church an objection more strongly urged thought Baptism it self was to Infants that is in how perpetual use And presently Tertullian the mainly cited and glorify'd for St. Cyprians Master tells us lib. de Bap. c. 18. Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismâ— utilior est St. Austin Disciple to the other two reports what hapned to himself having ask'd Baptism in his Childhood by reason of a sudden danger of death which being passed his Baptism was defer'd by his Mother Quia viz. post lavacrum illud major et periculâ—sior in sordibus delictorum eatus foret and adds ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi solus pater And that this was not the Faith of that house only but of the whole Country is evident from these words unde ergo etiam nunc de alijs atque alijs sonat undique in auribus nostris Sine illum faciat quod vult nondum enim Baptizatus est If then Baptism it self was not perpetually administred to Infants can we think the Eucharist was or is here any probability it was so us'd to children as not to be also often omitted and that lawfully Maldonatus a grave man otherwise exceeded and I wonder he is tolerated speaking so directly against the Council of Trent after the publishing of it But his assertion is manifestly fals Since 't is known Communion was not used to be given but after Confirmation and Baptism without Confirmation was held sufficient for salvation as is beyond cavil expressed by St. Hierom in Dialog cont Lucifer about the middle The last instance is of Prayer to Saints which is proved not to have proceeded by Tradition from the Apostles time by four arguments First because divers Fathers held that the souls of Saints were not receiv'd into Heaven till the day of Judgment therfore certainly they would teach no prayer to Saints The Antecedent I will not dispute not that I believe it but that I know not what it is to our question For suppose they are not may they not nevertheless pray for us we Catholicks think that Jeremy the Prophet was not in the Macchabees days admitted into Heaven yet we make no difficulty to believe that he did multum orare pro populo sancta civitate Those Fathers that are cited for the Receptacles are acknowledg'd to place the Saints in Sinu Abrahae and our Saviour teaches us that Dives prayed to Abraham The Protestants as well as we allow prayer to living Saints wherever then the dead Saints are are they worse then when they were living that they may not be prayed to But the principal answer to destroy utterly this objection is that those who say we learn by Tradition that Saints are to be prayed to say likewise we have learn'd by Tradition that Saints go to heaven that is are admitted to the fight of God before the day of Judgment The next proof is that prayer to Saints began with a doubting preface of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which I find my self no ways engaged to frame a particular answer having no farther ground from my Adversary who cites not any Author to explicate the meaning of this objection I remember Cardinal Richelieu at his death is reported to have taken his kinsman Marshal de Meilleray by the hand and told him that if the next world were such as was figured to us here I deliver what I conceiv to be the sense not the words he would not fail to pray for him Now some who had a hard opinion of that great Person would press out of this speech that he beleev'd not the Immortality of the Soul Whether this also be pretended to be the meaning of that Optative term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot judg for then I should easily admit it has some force against the Tradition of praying to Saints But if it be but an Oratorial expression and obtestation such as is in St. Paul when he presses men to good works by the like phrase I know not how it reaches any way to his intent and much less against the receiving of this use by Tradition except the objector suppose that truly the first Prayer he finds in writing was the first that ever was made which is neither proved nor probable The third opposition is out of Nicephorus Calixtus who reports that Prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus a Heretick The consequence I should make out of this antecedent is that seeing the Author 's being a Heretik a condemnd and hated Person could not hinder this institution to take root and be approved 't is a sign it had a deeper foundation then of his beginning not that it was before in the Liturgie but that it was an ordinary practice among Christians which use because we know no origin it has in Scripture must have been out of Tradition and not of a short time how our Adversary wil prove the contrary I am not able to make any likely conjecture The last argument is drawn out of the confession of our own Doctours who affirm there is no Precept for praying to Saints in the Church of God for so much is meant by those words sub Evangelio and yeild the reason that Pagans might not think themselves brought again to the worship of men Which Antecedent having two parts
reduc'd to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion especially since an hundred yeers experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true Besides why does not this good Orator spend some time to shew us that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture as against the Fathers I confess he has hinted it sometimes like one that saw the objection so obvious it could not be forgotten yet was unwilling to wade the Ford for fear he should find it too deep To supply therfore his omission I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers as far as concerns these objections Which consists in this that the Fathers works are many and copious The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carry's her Mistresses Book to Church Whence it follows that as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelvs and Rocks and Whirlpools and whatever else is frightful to Sea men and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain either not at all endammaged by these perillous adventures or only so that they are easily avoyded by a careful Pilot wheras in a narrow Channel or Frith if we meet but half the number there will be no sailing without manifest danger So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture Every exception this Caviller alledges or at least provs may be true of their works and yet more then sufficient left to convince Hereticks but if Scripture be half as much disabled it wil utterly lose its Protestant pretended power of deciding controversys A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence the many Explications leave nothing untouch'd the Comparisons of one place to another may be more then there are words in the Text the places brought by one side and the other so short that Equivocation has force upon every one the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew whose titles breed a difference or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties the Method and Stile the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion much less to be the sole Judg to determin all contentions about faith Yes wil he say but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few I confess it but yet dare affirm there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversy's This is true but so do the Scriptures That there are supposititious works of the Fathers Hereticks pretend the same against our Scriptures That the Fathers speak according to others minds But the like is found in Scripture And so going on it will easily appear the same objections or equivalent might have bin made against Scripture if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down Now when these Books are put into a Vulgar language as is necessary to them who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture by being first Judge of the sense of it that is of what is Scripture for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose can it be less then madnes to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture And yet as I have before noted this Patron of Presbytery assures us that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion but what we know to be certainly true which is evident in his way to be nothing at all At last his own good nature has perswaded him to propose one profitable question What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies And his first resolution is in the design of his Book conformable to the fore-layd grounds that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions and not for our own A wonderful wise conclusion especially considering he says the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all For my part I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written which when I have found little imported what t was or whether I knew it or no this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study to know what such or such books say without any farther end Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in not that they are better even at this then their Adversaries but because they have no other As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledg to be sought after but being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words hang in the air not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground At least to maintain the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings as that such a position is not found in the Fathers Ergo not necessary to be believ'd and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles which they unanimonsly deliver But he has forgot his own arguments for since we have so few of their works how can we tel the greater part did not teach somwhat necessary to be believ'd which these have omitted since corruption enter'd into the Church immediatly after the Apostles decease why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy since the Fathers are so hard to be understood why may there not be many doctrins of importance which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them and since they oppose one another in so many things why may not at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith I cannot give over this discours concerning the testimony of the Fathers without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's and too great an easiness in our own party which once discover'd and perfectly understood makes our cause so evident that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity The business is this Wheras their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible ther 's not the least colour to doubt it we let our selvs by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions and so lose the face of Antiquity by disputing of some nice point As for example when the Presbyterian has ruin'd the whole fabrick of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation we unwarily suffer our selvs to be engag'd into the discussion of this partieular quaere Whether Bishops be de jure divino which cannot be determin'd by the vast body of Antiquity as the right and proper
question may to wit what is the true government of the Church but by minute canvasing of private Texts which is a far more difficult and altogether unnecessary method Just so it happens in almost all Controversy's For no doubt but Decision of matters of Faith was anciently perform'd in Councils if the scandal grew so high as to force such general meetings These Hereticks absolutely renounce preferring their private conceits before the judgment of all the Bishops in the world and then if you press them with the palpable absurdity of so insolent and destructive a tenet they presently cast a figure and instead of handling the plain duty of obedience to the supream Ecclesiastical Authority transform the question into a meer speculative subtlety as Wherin consists the infallibility of Councils For the Mass our Reformers take it quite away everywhere breaking down the Altars and abolishing the whole Glory of Gods service which is unquestionably ancient so many Liturgy's to this day and the general practice of the Church stil continuing This done they wil dispute of the antiquity of the word Missa or Transubstantiatio For the Popes authority they at one stroak cut a pieces the ligue and common bond of Christianity in the unity of one head and force us to wrangle either about his infallibility or whether his power of Appeals be from Church-Laws or Christs commands and the like They blot out the memories of Martyrs both in their solemn Feasts and Tombs things undisputable in the glorious flourishing of the Church and quarrel about what honour is due to their Lives Reliques and Pictures They disclaim the publick practice of praying for the dead everywhere frequented they deny the universal profession of Purgatory in all ages avow'd and then turn their exception upon How and When our prayers obtain their effect They pul down Monasteries and Nunnery's and abandon the extraordinary and exemplary way of holy life which no impudence can deny to have been practis'd all the time the Church it self has bin publick and then dispute whether St. John Baptist or the Esseni were Religious men or no or when Vows came first in Hypocrits if you reverence Antiquity restore the face of Antiquity If you truly honour Jesus Christ and his Saints and vertuous life and any thing but an Ear-itch to be claw'd by the phrase of Scripture embrace what has been Christian life from the beginning If not fill up the measure of your first Reformers till the Judgments of God overtake you and make you pay the whol reckoning for theirs and your own dissembling I fear I have already wearied the patience of my Reader I am sure I have long since quite tir'd my own being unwillingly drawn by the many turns and windings of the subtle Fox I pursue far beyond the cours intended at the beginning To conclude then at last I doubt not but he who has not perus'd Mr. Daille's Book will nevertheless out of what I say see plainly those Noble Lords whose Elogies are posted before it had great reason highly to esteem him For truly his nimble Wit his exact Method his polite Style his interlarding all with poignant and bitter Jeers his knowledg in Greek his cunning in Topicks of all which those eminent Wits were perfect Judges being qualities themselvs were excellently endow'd with could not chuse but draw extraordinary praises from those eloquent Pens whose Masters had not the leasure by tedious turning over Books and deep reflections upon the occasion of the cited places to ponder the weight of the proofs or see thorow the malice of the Project which was of no less perniâ—lous consequence then to slander and disparage the most glorious Persons of the World to blast the credit of all true Vertue and Honour in their chief supports to disable the sole Mistress of good life here and so wholly to obstruct the only way to eternal happiness hereafter FINIS Sr. K. D. L. Digby L. Falkl.