Christs doctrine we mean that which was generally preach'd by the Apostles and contains all such points as are necessary to the salvation of the World not only in particular to single persons but for government of the Church and bringing multitudes with convenience to perfection in this life and felicity in the next Which being establisht they immediately proceed to this general Position that All Christ taught or the Holy Ghost suggested to the Apostles of this nature is by a direct uninterrupted liue entirely and fully descended to the present Church which communicates with and acknowledges subjection to the Roman Adding also the convers of that proposition viz. Nothing is so descended but such Truths nor any thing held by this tenure but what is so descended which being cast up amounts to this great Conclusion No errour was ever or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of faith The proof consists in this Since 't is confessed the Catholik Church goes upon this Maxim that Her Doctrine is received from Christ and still handed along to the present generation they who cavil at this assertion should assign some Age when they conceive an errour crept in and the maintainer should prove it enter'd not in that Age Because that Age held nothing was to be admitted as of Faith except what was deliver'd to it by the former but the Objectors themselves say this supposed errour was not deliver'd by the former since they put it to be now first believ'd therfore the Age in which they imagin this errour crept in could not be the first that believ'd it And lest some might reply though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed maxim yet anciently it did not the same argument may be thus reiterated If this principle which now governs the Church had not always done so it must have been introduced in some Age since the Apostles name therfore the Age and immediatly 't is urged either the Church had assurance in that Age all she held was descended lineally as we spake from the Apostles or not If so then questionless she held her doctrin upon that maxim For it is the only undoubted and self-evident principle If not then she wilfully belyed her self and conspired to damn all her posterity voluntarily taking up this new Rule of faith and commanding it to be accepted by all the world as the necessary doctrin of Christ and his Apostles descended upon the present age by universal Tradition from their Ancestors and for such to be deliver'd to their children and all this against the express evidence of her own conscience Thus far reaches the argument He that shall compare this perpetuation of the Church with the constancy of propagating mankind and proportion the love of happiness and natural inclination to truth which is in the superiour part of mankind and commands powerfully in it to the material appetite of procuring corporal succession and weigh what accidents are able and necessary to interrupt the progress of one and the other will find the propagation of Religion far stronger and less defectible then that of mankind supposing them once rooted alike in universality and setledness Since therfore the means of conducting nature to its true and chief end Felicity are more principally intended then those by which it is simply preserv'd in being this Contemplator will clearly discern that if humane nature continue to the last and dreadful day this succession also of a true Church must be carried on through the same extent of time there appearing indeed no purpose why the world should endure a minute longer if this once come to fail that part of mankind which arrives to bliss being the end why the rest was made as mankind is the end for which all the other material Creatures are set on work Again if a rational discourser should plot in his head how with condescendence to the weakness of our nature he might bring mankind to bliss and to this end plant in it a perpetual and constant knowledg of the true and straight way thither did observe that Man in his immature age is naturally subject to believe and after his ful growth tenacious of what he had suck'd in with his milk could he chuse but see that to make the Mothers flatter into their Children the first elements of the acquisition of Beatitude and continually go on nursing them up in the maxims of piety till their stronger years gave a steddy setledness to their minds must needs be the most sweet and connatural way that can be imagin'd to beget a firm and undoubted assent to those happy principles If he think on and chance to light on this truth that the greatest part of mankind some through dulness of understanding some by the distractions of seeking necessaries for their subsistence or at least conveniences for their accommodation and others for the diffluence of nature to Pleasures and Vanities are to their very departing hour wholly incapable of searching out their Religion either by their own contemplation or the learned books of others I cannot doubt but such a considerer would without the least difficulty or hesitation conclude that were it his design to set up a Religion which he would have constantly and universally propagated he must of necessity pitch upon this way And so with a resolute and pious confidence pronounce if God has not already taken this course certainly he should have done it To these considerations give my pen leave to add the confession of our Adversaries who boldly acknowledge the Roman Church has had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since St. Gregories days which is now a thousand years and very near two parts of the three that Christian Religion has endured They confess those Doctrins which are common to us and them remain in our Church uncorrupted and have still descended from Father to Son by vertue of Tradition since the very times of the Apostles They will not deny the Ages betwixt Constantine and St. Gregory flourisht with an infinity of Persons famous both for piety and learning and the Church never more vigilant never more jealous being continually alarm'd by such Troops of powerful and subtle Hereticks so that there is no likelihood gross errours such as Idolatry and Superstition import could creep in undiscern'd in those days And perhaps much less betwixt Constantine and the Apostles the time being so short that it scarce exceeds the retrospection of those who liv'd with Constantine At least that age could evidently know what was the faith of Christendom in the age of the Apostles great Grand-children and they again be certainly assured of the Doctrin of the Apostles disciples their Grandfathers Which is an evidence beyond all testimony of writers that since Constantines time it was known by a kind of self-sight what the Grandchildren of the Apostles held and it could not be doubted of them but they knew and held the doctrin of the
Apostles that I say in Constantines time the publike doctrin of Christianity was the doctrin of the Apostles Besides the communication of Christians being very difficult and infrequent during those persecutions the contagion also of heresies scatter'd it self slowly among Christians in those times And here I shall note a ridiculous cavil very common not only in the mouths of the more rash and shallow Protestants but even in the writings of many of their gravest and most solemn Doctors who cry out against the Ignorance of our Church as the cause of our errors and yet put the Ages in which they insult that Frigebat Scriptura cum vetustis Autoribus some hundreds of years after the time wherin they acknowledg the doctrins term'd errours were already flourishing as if they could proceed from a defect which follow'd them A slander so palpably absur'd that all the charity I have can scarce perswade me to think they are not blinded rather with malice then ignorance that dare vent such gross contradictions And now having abridg'd as 't were the whole sense of Rushworths Dialogues concerning Tradition into this short compendium I will apply my pen to answer what exceptions are taken against either the forme or matter of that Discourse THE SECOND ENCOUNTER Defeating three oppositions made against Tradition THe first objection against the form is that I put my Adversary to prove his position instead of going about to maintain my own This they imagin because I bid them assign the Age which they take to be as much as a demand of them to prove that in such a time came in the error but 't is a plain mistake For I do not require they should prove the errour began in such an Age but only exact of them for Argument sake to name the Age in which they find most difficulty for me to conclude or wherin they conceive the sinnews of my discours will be most slack and feeble for the force of the main argument is indifferent to any Age they can pitch upon equally demonstrative in all and so by striking at every one concludes against all This I say not any way to disclaim the advantage we Catholicks have whilst we press our adversary to prove his Thesis being no less a just then strong and secure retreat and which I reserve my self the liberty of retiring to perhaps at another time but now I only urge him to name one Age at hazzard meerly to give way to the prosecution of the argument a Justice I might do for my self if I would without his courtesie and have all the laws of disputation bear me out in it It is therefore to litle purpose to demand whether I ask of the first man that held such an opinion or when it came to be universal though the question be plainly of this later for we hold it was ever so nor is there any art necessary to answer it the argument made being indifferent to all The skill therefore required is only to know what belongs to the form of demonstrating for the most part indeed not found in the quaint discourses of Rhetoricians But the Adversary thinks when the Question is put concerning a Doctrine's being Vniversal it must suppose none to hold the contrary opinion as if we could not know what is the publick Faith of France because perhaps a few conceal'd persons may believe somwhat different Wherin he reflects not that Heresie signifies the cleaving to a private opinion so that when there were any such in former ages that very thing made them Hereticks how good wits or great learning so ever they had if they dissented from the doctrine deliver'd by their forefathers He presses Catholiks cannot tell when the communicating of Children began since St. Austin thinks it an Apostolical Tradition We answer we are of that mind too but with this qualification that it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some Countries not all in some circumstances not all And therfore 't was neither superstition to use it nor sacriledg to leave it off how strongly soever the opponent avers one of these two to be unavoydable The second opposition made against the form is that 't is a fallacy of that kind called Soritae in which the Scepticks found so great difficulty that they used to press them against the Stoicks and other dogmatists as insoluble and manifestly demonstrating there was no science But to understand the meaning of this objection the demonstration propos'd is to begin from the Apostles time and so it must be supposed that the next Age after the Apostles in any controversy against new doctrins examin'd no farther then on which side stood the verdict of the Apostles wherof they could not be ignorant The Argument therfore pressed that the next that is the third Age must of necessity take the same method against its Novellists convincing them of falsity because their doctrine was contrary to that of those who had heard the Disciples of the Apostles speak And so since the Tradition of Faith was convey'd from age to age stil with this caution that the latter was to believe such a doctrin because receiv'd from the former upon this warrant that it descended lineally from Christ in the same manner to them as they deliver'd it to their posterity it necessarily follows that this doctrin could not but continue pure even to our present time unless some age should prevaricate all bounds of truth and nature and deliver somthing to the following age as traditionally deriv'd from Christ which had not been so receiv'd This argument so propos'd though I know not whether so understood seem'd to the opponent like the ratiocination of one Mr. Thinn a melancholy Philosopher who perswaded himself a person might be found that could leap from off Pauls for sure he needed a high standing to Rome because 't was possible some man might leap full twenty foot and no doubt but another somwhat more and still another more then he and so without end therfore among all one quick springer would be found who could make his jump from hence to the Capitol But certainly he that weigh'd the two arguments might without extraordinary study have found there was some difference in their form Mr. Thinn being oblig'd to take variety of men undetermined but this argument engaging only sixteen ages and peradventure not needing above six or in rigour some three and those such as have had a real existence wheras the Worlds durance and latitude are not sufficient to find men enough to justify Mr. Thinns Proces This I say was obvious enough to any mean understanding not preoccupated with prejudice against the conclusion But one who had understood how Aristotle unwrapped Zeno's fallacies might easily have known that Infinity it self could not add more then one full foot to Mr. Thinns leapers if the encrease were made by sub-proportional parts wherof the first was one half foot and if by equal quantities as Feet or Inches he
would soon come to an end of his addition unlesse he put mens strength and nimblenesse to be infinite But to sit Judge of Religion of eternal bliss and damnation some curious and unhappy wits dare think requires neither so much indifferency nor reflection as the composition of quantity Yet I cannot but admire it could scape a piercing ey to discern that as the consequent of Mr. Thinns discourse is ridiculous and impossible so that of the proposed demonstration is evident and undeniable For what ingenuous forehead will deny but such verities as all the world allows to remain still untainted in the Church of Rome have descended by this traditionary way to us from Christ Wherfore both the possibility and actuality of this way is not only acknowledg'd by the unanimous confession of all parties but its force and efficacy made evident by the downright violence of reason all the controversie being meerly about the multitude and sufficiency of the things receiv'd not the impotency of the means to convey them to us But to make an end of this petty Question I appeal to all Masters nay even Scholars in Geometry whether this form of arguing be not the same that Euclid Archimedes and Apollonius use in their severest demonstrations As when Euclid undertakes to demonstrate this plain and elementary Theoreme that No Circle can touch another in more then one point himself acts the part of the Denier and according to the law of Mathematicks supposes at random the other point to see whether the Proposition be maintainable and if the Contactus in the point assign'd be proved impossible by an argument applyable to any other that can be offered the Theoreme remains infallibly demonstrated and the Rules of that precise and strict Science perfectly comply'd with The third opposition is drawn out of a conceited impossibility of the case and so they demand how can it come to passe that all the Doctors of one age should meet together to instruct the world of Scholars that are to succeed them in the next an action if not impossible at least so incredible as by no means to be aver'd without legitimate Authority which they say is wanting And further should we undertake that not only all Doctors but all men of one age met with the men of the next to teach them it were an enterprize so highly impossible as not to be thought on even among the wildest capriches of a Romance yet to so hard straits are we driven that we must defend the possibility of this later assertion Which to compasse we distinguish this word Together as capable of signifying an unity either in place or time and if the Opponent mean one Age cannot meet another in a Town or great Hall as Councils use I am easily perswaded such interviews are impossible but if this Assembly needs only the unity of time I think it will require but a moderate stock of faith to believe either that men of the same Age live together in that Age or that Fathers meet with their Children If then we put all Fathers and Mothers all Pastors and Teachers to make one Age and all Children and young persons who come to be instructed and afterward outlive their Tutors to compose the other age I see no great impossibility in this position but a clear one in the contrary For I cannot believe the Opponents think men since Christs time start out of mole-hils with clods on their heads as it seems Empedocles and Horace imagined and the Toscans of their wise Tages high Master of their skill in Augury And this answer cuts off another difficulty urg'd by certain Speculatists that because in some rude times they imagine the learned were few and therfore subject to corruption by hopes or fears they might more easily be prevail'd with to proclaim a fals Tenet in that Age whence this claim of infallibility would remain broken But the former answer saves it for since neither the great multitude of Instructors nor instructed persons can meet in any other assembly then that of the whole and open World all possibility of corruption is evidently avoided THE THIRD ENCOUNTER Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition THe fourth opposition denys the necessity of assigning any Age wherein an errour may be said to have crept in because say they an errour might begin first in one Country and insensibly steal over into another without any notice taken of its novelty so that there is no time wherin its beginning is discoverable For proof they instance in some errour held by divers Hereticks in divers ages and tell you the best Historian knows who was first mentioned to have broacht that errour wheras perhaps a less diligent or careless Writer may cite some middle or late Author attributing to him the original invention of that opinion To this we reply 't is too desperate an Answer to call a hundred years an insensible time to suppose all the Pastors stupify'd and the Doctors asleep for a whole century together At least let us ask this fair question Was there no Doctor or Bishop made it his business to promote that new opinion within a hundred years If you say no how could an innovation of any considerable importance get footing which had no eminent patron If you say yes see whether that was not the occasion of impugning all heresies when extraordinary persons divulged them I but you 'l say it was so transcendent a Doctor that he overtopt all Here I confess my weakness for if some sky-faln Angel indeed should come with tongue and pen more then humane I doubt not but he might perhaps endanger a great part of the Church but if we make our comparison only betwixt men who ever had the like reputation in the Greek Church as Origen yet he was condemned by the same Church Who was more eloquent then Eusebius Caesariensis more cunning then Eusebius Nicomediensis more subtle then Arius Let us add a faction so powerful as to make ten Councils to number three hundred Bishops yet notwithstanding all this the Arians were condemned The Dragon drew but a third part of the Stars and the Apostle has armd us even against the treachery of Angels charging that in spight of them we cleave fast to what we have receiv'd to what was Preach'd to us that is to Tradition For rely but on what in memory of our own age the Church has universally held and deliver'd as from Christ and no subtlety of men or Angels can make you mistake Yet Let it be supposed some unparallel'd Brain had the power to make a doctrin universal could this stand with the still way of creeping in insensibly Is not this position that a Doctor was so great took so much pains to divulge his opinion wrote so many Books in defence of it that he overcame all opposers and at last made it universal and yet all this while the new doctrin stole in unawares the Pastors of the Church
never dreaming any such thing is not this as very a Bull as to say an Army shot off all their Attillery that the Enemy might not discover where they lay or to do as is reported of an acquaintance of mine who being in good company to ride through a Town where he was afraid to be taken notice of at his entrance set spurs to his horse holding his Cane straight before him and Trumpeted Tararara Tararara the whole length of the Town Nevertheless since 't is for our side says the Zelot 't is an invincible demonstration But we desire leave to consider one point farther In what times came in the errours our Adversaries so loudly complain of see whether they be not those ages when there were great quarrels about innovations encroaching on the Church and multitudes of exceptions taken so that had any side entertain'd a new errour not common to both parties especially if the novelties were any way notable they could not have been pass'd over without mutual contradictions or upbraidings The doctrines therfore which in those times pass'd unreprehended and were currantly admitted among all parties as being common to them all without question were not Errata sed Tradita Whence certainly it must needs appear a manifest folly to think any errour could run through the Church so uncontrol'd as to gain without the least sign of opposition an universality and much like the story that the great Turk with an Army of three or four hundred thousand men should steal upon Germany by night and take all the good fellows so fast asleep that not a man should escape nor so much as a Goos gaggle to wake the drowsy neighbours and having thus silently run over the Empire should pass into France and thence into Spain and still catch them all napping without the least notice or resistance wherof if any slow and dull heart should doubt as seeming indeed somwhat an improbable story the reporter should immediatly prove all with a why not since the Greeks had surpriz'd Troy so and perhaps some other great Captain one single Town or Garrison Besides if we venture to throw away a little faith on so extravagant a fable the action will still remain unpossible to be conceal'd Who shall hinder the Conqueror from proclaiming such unparalleld victories to applaud himself and terrifie the rest of the world who can forbid his souldiers to Chronicle their own valours and every-where boast such un-heard of exploits Certainly were there no Catholick testimonies of these late unhappy divisions from the Church yet would succeeding ages find evidence enough as to the matter of fact even in the writings of the Reformers themselvs How often do their Books insult o're the blindness of their Predecessors and triumph in the man of God Martin Luther and the quicker light Jo. Calvin as first discoverers of their new-found Gospel can we think it possible distracted Europe should blot out of her memory the sad effects of schism and heresy before the tears they have caus'd be wiped from her eys for my part I am confident our once happy Island will never forget the graceless disorders of Henry the hights unfortunate intemperance though there were not one English Catholick left in the world to remember them by the smart he endures ever since Add to all this the points wherin Protestants accuse us are the most palpably absurd positions that can fall into a Christians head as making Gods of Saints or Statues which were the dotages of the basest sort of Pagans Nor is the example of errours often sprung and often quell'd again of any advantage to the Opponent For our question concerns opinions remaining till this day and by himself supposed to have gaind the mastery of the Church and never fail'd since their beginning because all doctrins which appear to have a being before any age the Adversary can name are thereby evidently proved perpetual Traditions especially when the Authors were such as lived in Communion with the Catholik Church then extant and remain'd in veneration with the Church succeeding Methinks also since the opposer maintains it was more then a whole Age in working it self up to this universality if the errour were gross it must without doubt have been a long time in one Country before it passed into another else we shall scarce find a reason why it became not general in a shorter period of years and so it would easily appear until such an age that new doctrin was never heard of and in every Country the beginnings would be mentioned by the Historians and other writers as who came out of Greece into France to plant Images who first introduced the Priests power of absolution who invented the doctrine of preferring the judgment of the Church before our own private interpretation of Scripture all which we see exactly perform'd against every considerable Heresy a minute and punctual account being stil upon Record who were the original contrivers who the principal abettors where they found patronage where opposition How long they lived and when they died To evade this reason is fram'd the next crimination by saying what is answer'd has its probability if the errours laid to our charge were contrary to Christian doctrine But they only pretend to accuse us of superfaetations or false and defective additions to the Faith first planted which excrescencies only the Reformers seek to take away And though it be manifest when they come to charge us in particular they instance in doctrines substantially opposite to the Faith of Christ as Superstition and Idolatry could their calumnies be justify'd against us yet because this objection civilly renounces such harsh and uncharitable language let us see what may be intended by Superfaetations Either the disliked additions are of truths or of falsities If of truths we expect they would demonstrate who has forbidden us to learn and advance our knowledg in Christian Religion or matters belonging to it Did God give his Law to Beasts that have no discourse nor capacity by joyning two revealed truths to arrive at the discovery of a third Again where is it prohibited for the Doctour and Preacher to know more then the Ideot and old wife What fault then can even the proud and peevish humour of this age find in this point If Hereticks will raise dust and obscure the clearest articles of Christian faith and that so maliciously as without setling some further explication the people are in danger of being perverted is it a sin to establish such defences and Ramparts against encroaching errours If the addition be of falsities let us examin how the Opposer knows they are false If he reply because they are contrary to clear Scripture then they are also contrary to that Faith which deliver'd Scripture to be true If the points be not against Scripture either they crosse some known Article of Faith or only the Principles of naturall reason If they be purely objects of natural reason though truths they belong not
proceeded from or by the Son only both which terms were then in use for this and nothing els can be signify'd by proper added to from or by then he condemn'd St. Cyrils doctrin Now our sly Interpreter would make Theodoret condemn this saying that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son His last reason is one that makes all the rest impertinent and shews they were dilated only to vilify the Saints and the Church whose Crown they are and the Founder of the Church who glorify'd himself in Them and Her 'T is that the Church of Rome and Protestants agree in the position he seemed to labour at so hard what need or occasion had he then to rave into the Fathers about a point wherin there is not the least difference among us Next he excepts at our Controvertists for alledging the Fathers against them since we know they receive not the Fathers I answer there is by nature planted in all honest dispositions such a respect to their Ancestors that though the malicious part of their congregation and this Sophister in chief cry down Antiquity as loud as they can yet shal they never be able wholly to root out of the hearts and consciences of the generality of Christians that esteem and reverence which they naturally bear in their Breasts towards the Fathers of Christianity So that our Controvertists cite writings of those ancient and holy Doctors not in reference to the ensoured and barbarous party of Hereticks but for their sakes who yet retain some spirits of goodness and Christian humanity in them Then he brings divers sayings of Moderns to prove the Authorities of Fathers are not irresistible especially in the interpretation of Scripture among which one somthing insolent Afterwards he reckons the varieties betwixt the ancient and present Church some in Ceremonies some in Disciplin and some as he pretends in Belief these later we have touch'd before the two former for the most part we make no difficulty to acknowledge since the prudential disposure of such discretionary points fals cleerly within the verge of the Churches jurisdiction But here I particularly invite the Ey of the serious Reader to observe how maliciously he corrupts the Council of Trent in two very considerable passages one where he says It anathematizes whoever shall deny that Bishops are a higher Order then Priests wheras in the Latin which himself has the boldness to cite truly in the Margin ther 's no such word to be found as Order but only that Bishops are superiores Presbyteris a phrase implying no necessiy at all of their being several Orders though in that word consists the whole emphasis of his fals imputation His other abuse is yet more gross and palpable concerning our Ladies immaculate Conception for the Council expresly declaring their intention was not to meddle with the Question he says 't is impossible so to expound their words that they shall in plain terms give the ly to all the Fathers and to render this foul play the more plausible among such as look not wel to his fingers he translates in hoc decreto falsly and perversly in this number as if the Council had positively decreed the Blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those who are born in original sin when their very words directly tel him they on purpose resolv'd to prescind from her particular Case and not determin any thing concerning It in that Decree Certainly had this man either face or conscience an ordinary malice could never have engag'd him into such a desperate absurdity so notorious that its practice cannot be unknown even to him though he shut his Eyes against the light since all disputers upon this point unanimously agree that the Council intended wholy to abstract from the question and leave both sides probable nevertheless this shameless forehead dares in such broad and unmannerly language not only slander a grave and venerable Council but outface the whol Catholick world What trust can be given to so bold a Jugler in matters either of less moment or less evidence when in a Case so important as the Decree of a Council and so palpably manifest that all that can read may easily discover the cheat yet he blushes not to venter on 't can any thing be answered in his defence or any excuse made why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave THE NINTH SURVEY In answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judg we ought to recur The other what use is to be made of the Fathers ALl this while our new Edifyer of the reform'd Temple has us'd only his Sword-hand to keep off those dangerous enemies the Fathers now he begins to manage his trowel and bedawb the face of antiquity with a little fine morter Let 's see at least what work he makes though we have smal reason to expect any good building from him that is not able so much as to pull down Thus then workman-like he enters upon his task demanding of himself this question the Fathers being rejected where shall we now lay our foundation to what Rule or Judge must we have recourse He answers To the Scripture and if in any one place it seem obscure we must then seek out another to clear it Which first supposes that for all points necessary there are some evident and clearing Texts But I must ask on what Authority he believes this doth the Scripture declare it so plainly that ther 's no debate about it He knows the whole Catholik Church denys any such self-evident alsufficiency in Scripture Did they who delivered him and his Brethren the Bible recommend it to them under this qualification No for his party went out of the Catholik Church and receiv'd the Scriptures from none but Her who never taught them any such lesson Perhaps you 'l say all other Christians testify'd the verity of that book and so upon their credit you are the more induc'd to accept it But those Christians are such as your selvs generally condemn such as have been cast out for taking this very proposition to justifie their rebellion against Her whom you acknowledge then to have been the true Owner and Mistris of Christs Doctrin Besides any one that has but half an Ey may see no Scripture-disputation with Heretiks was ever finisht without new reply's but the Church has alwaies been forc'd at last to condemn them upon the score of Tradition Thus you borrow'd this desperate device from those who in all ages were thrust out of the same Church for holding the very same principles But suppose there were some clear Texts in our Controversies as we think there are in disfavour of you may they not be rendred obscure by other places objected against them which we pretend you endeavour to doe If so your remedy is worse then the evil and the comparing of divers places is the very cause that makes all balanceable indifferent and obscure Are we not now
more known and consequently not all deriv'd by Tradition But if we should answer that disputing betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks is on the Catholick part no other then proving and defending those points which were deriv'd by Tradition and found in Christian action and behaviour this argument were cut up by the roots and all pretence and colour of it taken away Which is the very truth of the business this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots the Catholick Religion securely possesses the World and upon such opposition is at first surpriz'd and the Divines perhaps put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads who easily conceit themselvs wiser then their forefathers and scorn authority unless reason proportion'd to their capacity or humour marshal it in Nevertheless because disputing cannot chuse but bring to light some deductions consequent to the first principally-defended Position I shall not deny the Church may come to know somwhat which haply before she never reflected on But then those new truths belong to the science we call Theology not to Faith and even for those the Church rely's on Tradition as far as they themselvs emerge from doctrins deliver'd by Tradition so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin is that by much canvasing more cleer proofs and answers are discovered or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries acquir'd Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope Iohn 22. from being an Heretick though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God before the day of Judgment because the Church had not as yet defin'd any thing concerning it I confess many more might be produc'd deprehended in the like actions and before all St. Austin excusing St. Cyprian on the same score Now to draw a conclusion from hence this is to be added that surely if there had been a Tradition neither the Pope nor St. Cyprian could be ignorant of it and therfore not excusable upon that account But in truth I wonder this point is no harder press'd for if any would take pains and look into our Schoolmen they might find very many of them maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some points not clearly express'd in Scripture whence it seems to follow they build not the whole body of their Faith upon Tradition For satisfaction of this difficulty I must note there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we do so The Platonists and Peripateticks are divided about the manner of vision Aristotle teaching that the object works upon the eye Plato that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm the Platonists saw in one fashion the Peripateticks in another Some as I fear may be experienc'd in too many of our modern Scepticks are of this desperate and unreasonable opinion that we have no maxims evident by Nature but contradictories may be true at once the rest of Philosophers think otherwise yet we see in all natural and civil actions both sides proceed as if those maxims were evident and irresistable So likwise there is a wide distance betwixt these two questions what a man relys on for his assent of Faith what he says or thinks he relys on Look but among the Protestants or other Sectaries they are al taught to answer they rest wholly on the Bible the Bible for their Faith but nine parts of ten seek no farther then the Commands of their own Church that is all those who either cannot read or make it not their study to be cunning in the Scriptures or have so much modesty as to know themselvs unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text who perhaps are not the less numerous but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants Whence farther it is clear that to ask on what a private person grounds his belief and on what the Church is yet a more different question especially if you enquire into what he thinks the Church resolvs her faith For supposing the Church as to some verity should rely on Scripture or Councils a Divine may know the Church holds such a position and yet though of a just size of learning not know or at least not remember on what ground she maintains it and in that case no doubt but his faith stands on the same foundation with that of the Church yet he cannot perhaps suddenly tel whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils To conclude therfore this demand whether Bellarmin himself rely'd on Tradition for all points has not the least resemblance with this other whether he thought the Church did so And to come yet closer to the question 't is evident every believer under that notion as a believer is unlearned and ignorant For as such he rests upon his teacher who in our present case is undoubtedly the Church as Catholick and Apostolick so far therfore the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority As for the other part of the interrogatory on what he thinks the Church rely's for her doctrin it may be enquir'd either in common or particular In common relating generally to the body and substance of Catholick doctrin there is no doubt among Catholicks but their reliance is upon Tradition this being the main profession of great and smal learned and unlearned that Christian Religion is and has been continued in our Church since the days of our Saviour the very same faith the Apostles taught all Nations and upon that score they receive it Speaking thus therfore no Catholick makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition There remains now only what learned men think concerning the ground wheron the Church rely's in some particular cases which we have already shewn concerns not their private belief as 't is the foundation of their spiritual life for so they rely on the Church and what the Church rely's on and by consequence it will prove but a matter of opinion in an unnecessary question belonging purely to Theology not Faith whatever is said in it Whence Divines in this may vary without any prejudice to the Church or salvation either in private or in order to Government seeing the main foundation is surely establisht that every believer as such rely's on the Church immediatly This difficulty therfore is so far resolv'd that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point since it follows not that the Church or any particular member therof rely's on such a ground no not Bellarmin himself though he conceive in some points the Church rely's on Scripture or Councils But since St. Austin marches in the head of this Troop for defence of St. Cyprian let us proceed with more diligence and respect in reconciling the difficulty We are to remember 't is
stand to wit that it was to finde out whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin But if I mistake not my Adversaries make not the same apprehension of it that I do They seem to take St. Austin for one Doctour peradventure a great one peradventure the chief but yet only one I apprehend him as the leading Champion of the Church in the Question of Grace whence it follows that the Doctrin of St. Augustin was the Doctrin of all those Catholick Writers by whose demonstrations and authority the Pelagians were condemned that is it was the faith of the Church in that age and consequently which the Church continued ever after Father because St. Austin neither had the Authority to bring in a new Faith nor pretends it but both proves his dictrin to have descended from his Forefathers and found Pelagius his opinion condemned before he medled with it by some Council that is by the apprehensions of the then present Church and as it spread from Country to Country was stil found contrary to the receiv'd doctrin every where planted in their hearts before Pelagius contradicted it Therefore I say I cannot but esteem that in the point of Grace it is all one to say the Doctrin of St. Austin and the Doctrin of the Apostles planted by them and continued to St. Austins daies illustrated by him and transmitted to his posterity even to our present time If this be true as no Catholik can deny nor prudent person doubt but we esteem it so Pope Clement had great reason to endeavour the decision of that question by the Authority of St. Austin since the doctrin of St. Austin was evidently the faith of that Age and the faith of that Age the faith of the Christian Church from the Apostles to us But we have another quarrel about St. Austins doctrin that It is so uncertain himself knew not what he held Nor do I wonder such a thought should fall into the head of a Gentleman-Divine especially in a Liberty of wit to censure without the least respect or reverence of Antiquity But I tremble to hear that some of whom we are in justice as wel as charity bound to expect more staydness and Religion seem so wedded to their own Sect as to mutter the same My answer I believe is already understood I say therefore such as have made it a principal employment of their lives to be perfect in St. Augustin those who with great attention had read his Polemical Treatises against the Pelagians as I take it some five and thirty times were of another mind And so are all those who at this day study him not to make him speak what they think but to make themselvs speak what he thinks But this question transiit in rem judicatam since when it was handled at Rome before the Congregations when both oppositions and defences were solemnly made by the proof of present books when the maintainainers of the opinion accus'd of Pelagianism were the choicest wits and ancientest Scholers could be pickt out of that so famed Society nevertheless almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against them as is evident both out of the printed Compendium of the Acts of those Congregations and the very manuscript Acts themselves extant at this day But let us hear the Pope himself speak Upon the 8. of July was held the second Congregation His Holiness began with these words Nos personaliter vidimus congeriem locorum quam vos qui Molinam defenditis induxistis ex Augustino nullus inventus est qui faveat immo contrarium tenuit Augustinus Vnde mirum quòd tot artibus utamini And hence it seems they were forc'd to corrupt St. Austin to the Popes face the 30 of September following which being discovered the Authour died of melancholy and disgrace Again in the tenth Congregation the same Pope taxed them Quod Scholasticis maxime suis non Scripturâ Conciliis Patribus uterentur A sign how sound their way of doctrin is how sincere their proceedings to defend it Yet 't is urged farther that the Fathers who lived before St. Austin are generally of the contrary opinion This is a simple assertion without proof and my name is Thomas I would entreat therfore such of my Readers as light on this objection to remember that the question of the force of Grace and liberty of Free will consists of two truths that seem like the Symplegades to butt at one another as long as we look at them afar off but if we make a neerer approach they shew a fair passage betwixt them So then it is not hard that one who studies the question for pleasure especially in such Fathers as wrote before the combating of the truth by Heresies should be deceiv'd by the seeming overlaying of that side which the Fathers had occasion to inculcate though they meant nothing lesse then to prejudice the verity which stands firm on the other side the fretum of this disputation Adde to this that St. Austin himself examin'd the Fathers and found in them the doctrin he maintain'd nor could it be otherwise the general apprehension of the Church being against Pelagius Therfore I shal follow the advice of the Proverb and be fearful to leap before I look especially since a great reader of St. Chrysostom solemnly profess'd he could shew as strong places in him for Grace as in St. Austin though he be the man chiefly set up against St. Austin THE EIGHTH ENCOUNTER Shewing our Ladies immaculate conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith AS for the state of the question about our Ladies being conceiv'd in Original sin some would willingly perswade us the Negative is in great probability to be defin'd whereas certainly there is no Tradition for it if Wadding's sayings be rightly reported But if defining signifies the clearing of Tradition as we explicate it nothing can be more evident then that there is no probability of defining the negative part rather it may be in danger of being at least censured for rashly putting an exception in the generall rule of Scripture which expresly condemns all but our Saviour to Original sin except the defenders can shew good ground for the priviledg they pretend which I much doubt For as far as I can understand the whol warrant of that opinion stands upon a devotion to our Lady arising chiefly from a perswasion that original sin is a disgrace to the person in whom 't is found So that if the people were taught original sin is nothing but a disposition to evil or a natural weakness which unless prevented brings infallibly sin and damnation and that in it self it deservs neither reproach nor punishment as long as it proceeds not to actual sin the heat of vulgar devotion would be cool'd and the question not thought worth the examining However ther 's no great appearance of deciding that point in favour of the negative since the earnest sollicitations of
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
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
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
contrary from three lines of Hegesippus but upon the essential notion of the Church which is to be the conserver of Christs doctrin upon the whole body of Ecclesiastical History which contains nothing but either the propagation of the faith or the expulsion of those that would corrupt it And lastly upon the universality of Christian writers whose profession and businesse it has always been to instruct the Church in the doctrin of Christ and oppose all abuses that offer'd to insinuate themselvs under the name of reformation or whatever other specious mask Heresy has put on to cover the ilfavordness of her face And now we may safely proceed to the second ground that if the testimony of Fathers convince the quiet possession of any doctrin in one age it concludes the same of all ages that are known to communicate with it which is in effect with all precedent and subsequent Ages whom either that acknowledges or who acknowledg that for their Teacher and Mistress This consequence from the former principle is so evident that I may boldly yet without presumption infer if we can prove one Age we prove all But to make it plainer let me borrow out of our Adversaries ingenuity that the same doctrin has endur'd these thousand years which restrains our controversy only to the first six hundred and that common sense cannot say Popery was rank in the sixth Age but it must have been well grown in the fifth which will still contract our strife to the compass of four hundred years wherof three were undoubtedly acknowledg'd Parents and Mistresses of the fourth and the fourth of two or three following one of which is confest to be universally over-run with Popery So that we need no more pains but only to prove that some one Age of the first six hundred years embrac'd any doctrin of a nature substantial and considerable as is above exprest to convince all the rest of the same belief else the Adversary must shew the latter Age disavowing the faith of their Ancestors and anathematizing it as heretical and in the same or equivalent terms as our late Reformers cry out against the Catholik unity or Catholicks against their division For if the younger Ages reverence and plead conformity with the ancienter 't is impossible they should have changed any doctrin of importance or necessity My third ground is that when we speak of the Faith of the Church we intend not to say No single person may think otherwise or be ignorant of it and yet live bodily and exteriourly in the communion of that Church but we speak of the professed and publick belief of all both Clergy and Laity which meet at Gods service in such a Church As all that meet at Charanton are supposed to agree in the Articles which the Kings Edicts permit to be held by the pretenders to Reformation Yet I believe there are few Englishmen who consent to all though they resort thither So that by this position it may stand with the general or universal faith of one part of the contradiction that some few maintain the opposite Judgment By these three grounds you wil finde most of his doubts and pretended difficulties in the five last chapters taken away and the possibility of demonstrating a point out of the Fathers rendred very apparent and practicable wherfore we have now a little leasure to shake out his other bundle of Rags and see whether we can espy any thing there that may entangle a weak Divine THE SEVENTH SURVEY Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherin he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges THis Chapter he begins very modestly and says the Fathers testimonies of the Churches Faith are not alwaies true His first example is in that question Whether our soul comes by creation or from our Parents in which St. Hierom brings the verdict of the Churches against Ruffinus but 't is evident this objection fails because we doubt not some one or few learned men may hold against the tenet of the Church they live in His second exception he cites out of Johannes Thessalon whom he makes in his translation say the Church held Angels had subtile and aery bodies but in his marginal Greek a language few understand and so not many are like to discover his art there is no such thing only this that the Church knows Angels to be intelligent creatures but not whither they are incorporeal or have subtile bodies His third instance is where Petavius reprehends St. Epiphanius for saying It was an Apostolical Tradition to meet thrice a week to communicate I doubt wrongfully For what probability can there be that some Apostle should not have left such a Custom in some Province if it were on foot in St. Epiphanius his time besides this Petavius is noted for an easie censurer of his betters nor does the matter deserve any farther inspection The next he borrows from the same Authour against Venerable Bede and 't is a meer equivocation upon the ambiguity of this word fides which may signifie an Historical perswasion or a Traditional certitude in which last sense Petavius took it whereas Venerable Bede pronounced it in the former His second Chapter tels us the Fathers confess they are not to be believ'd upon thsir own bare words Where I must intreat my Reader to observe that If the Fathers he brings speak of one or few we acknowledge they are not to be trusted on their word and so have no controversie with him But if he would make them speak of the whole Collection he cites nothing to the purpose but all he brings reach no farther then the first sense and have no opposition with the saying of others who command us to follow the doctrin and even the words of our Ancestors He is offended with Sozomen for saying None of the Ancients ever affirm'd the Son of God had any beginning of his generation considering certain passages of theirs which yet himself has confessed before that St. Athanasius Basil and others have cleared from any such sense He calumniats an excellent place of Vincentius Lyrinensis explicating what the universality of Fathers means and how their sentence is of force His first quarrel is that Lyrinensis requirs they must have lived and died both for doctrin and manners in the communion of the Catholik Church which he says cannot be known unless first we are sure their doctrin was sound Not seeing alas that their living and dying with reputation of Sanctity gives them this honourable prejudice To be esteem'd both for life and doctrin sincere and unsuspected Catholiks til the contrary be proved His second quarrel is against the number Lyrinensis assigns to be al or the greatest part which certainly is meant of Authors then extant who had written in some age before the controversie arose wherof such a number as may make us understand what was the belief of that Age is
so to Religion as to be accounted Articles of Faith if they contradict some other fore-taught Article then the Argument before explicated concerning the infallibility of Tradition and the creeping in of Errours against it returns to its force If neither of these why are they false or upon what grounds condemned But peradventure he excepts not against the Truths but the obligation to believe and profess them Admitting then the additional points to be in themselvs true why will not the Opposer assent to them has he a demonstration against them No for then they could not be true Has he such Arguments that nothing opposite is equivalent to their eminent credibility No for setting aside demonstration no argument can be comparable to the Churches Authority The reason therfore if the inward thoughts be faithfully sifted will at length appeare no other then the preferring his own Opinion before the judgement of the Church which being the effect of an obstinate and malepert pride makes no legitimate excuse for not believing THE FOURTH ENCOUNTER That unlearned Catholiks rely upon the infallibility of Tradition THe next exception is of main importance for it undermines the demonstration at the very root denying that the Church of Rome relys on Tradition and having divided the believers into learned and unlearned first undertakes to prove the unlearn'd not to be grounded on Tradition at least not for their whole Faith For if a question arise never thought on before and once a Council determine the Controversie that decree is accepted as if it had come from Christ by Tradition and all professe a readiness to obey and therfore are like to perform their word if occasion be offerd Besides in Catechisms and instructions the Common-people are not taught that the doctrine comes handed down to them from the Apostles In Sermons we see when any proposition of difficulty or concernment is treated proofs are alleag'd out of Scripture and ancient Fathers a practise even the fathers themselvs continually observe who having propos'd a point are ready to adde it is not they alone that teach this doctrin but the Apostles or Christ or some renouned Father never mentioning Tradition unlesse to oppose or disable it when some Hereticks have laid claim to it as the Quartadecimans Chyliasts Communicants of Infants and the like The charge I confess is fierce let us see what powder it bears what shot We agree the Church comprehends both learned and unlearned and so are bound to maintain that both sorts rely on Tradition As for the first objection then concerning the readiness to embrace a Councils definition with the same assent as if the truth were descended by Tradition I can either and indifferently grant or deny it Since if I please to grant it I have this secure retreat that a conditional proposition has no force unless the condition be possible and for the possibility of the condition I distinguish the subject which may be matter of Practice and Obedience or a speculative proposition Of the first I can allow the assent to be the same that is an equal willingness to observe it Of the second I deny it ever was or can be that a Council should define a question otherwise then by Tradition Therefore to rely on the Councils definition taks not away but confirms the relying on Tradition This if need were I could easily justifie by the expresse proceedings of all the principal Councils Thus the condition having never been put nor supposed ever will be all this Argument rests solely on the Objectors credit and is with as much ease rejected as it was proposed Now should I chuse according to my above reserv'd liberty to deny such equality of assent the Opponent has offerd no proof and so the quarrel is ended for though I could produce instances to the contrary I think it not fit to multiply questions when the argument can be solved with a simple denial But how the Opponent can justify the second branch of his exception that in Catechisms this doctrin is not taught I am wholly ignorant As far as my memory will serve me I never heard the Creed explicated but when the Catechist came to the Article of the Catholick Church he told them how Catholick signify'd an universality of place and time and that for this title of Catholick we were to rely on her testimony Likewise in the word Apostolick he noted that the Apostles were the founders of the Church and her doctrin theirs as being first receiv'd from them and conserv'd by the Church ever since and that for this reason we were to believe her Authority Thus you see that famous phrase of the Colliers faith is built on this very principle we maintain True it is Catechists do not ordinarily descend to so minute particularities as to tel ignorant people whether any position may be exempt from this general Law But then we also know the rule Qui nihil excipit omnia includit Sermons upon which the third instance is grounded are of another nature their intention being not so much literally to teach the Articles of Christian doctrin as to perswade and make what is already believ'd sink into the Auditory with a kind of willingness easiness that their faith be quickned into a principle of action to govern their lives the principal end perhaps for which the Scripture was deliver'd and recommended to us Therfore neither the common practice nor proper design or use of Sermons reaches home to make us understand on what grounds the hearts of Catholicks rely who after all disputations retire themselvs to this safe guard To believe what the Catholik Church teaches as none can be ignorant that has had the least convers with such Catholiks as profess not themselvs Divines For the last period of this objection where the Fathers are brought in to cry out against Tradition and Hereticks made the sole pretenders to that title 't is a bare assertion without so much as a thin rag of proof to cover it of which I believe hereafter we shall have particular occasion to discourse more largely Thus cannot all the diligence I am able to use find any ground of difficulty in the belief of the unlearned but that assuredly their faith is establisht on Tradition if they rely on the Church as it is Catholick and Apostolick which all profess from the gray hair to him that but now begins to lisp his Creed THE FIFTH ENCOUNTER That Catholick Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition T is time now to come to the second part and see what is objected against the learneder sort and the long Robe's Resolution of their faith into Tradition And first is brought on the stage a couple of great Cardinals Perron and Bellarmin the former saying out of St. Austin that the Trinity Freewill Penance and the Church were never exactly disputed before the Arians Novatians Pelagians and Donatists Whence is infer'd that as more was disputed so more was concluded therfore
a different question to ask Whether an opinion be Heresy and Whether the Maintainer be an Heretick the opinion becomes heretical by being against Tradition without circumstances but the Person is not an Heretick unless he knows there is such a Tradition Now St. Cyprians case was about a doctrin included in a practice which he saw well was the custome of the African but knew not to be so of the universal Church till some congregation of the whole Christian World had made it evident And herein consists the excuse St. Austin alledges for St. Cyprian 't is true I have no assurance this Apology can be alledged for John 22. but another perhaps may that the multitude of Fathers which he conceiv'd to be on his side might perswade him the opposite opinion could not be a constant Tradition There remains only Bellarmins excuse to be justify'd which is not of so great moment Divines helping themselvs by the way that occurrs best to them and missing in such reasons without any scandal to their neighbours One of these two solutions will generally satisfie all such objections as are drawn from some fathers mistakes against the common Faith For nothing can be more certain then if any Father had known the doctrin contrary to his errour to have been universally taught in the Catholik Church by a derivation from their ancestors beyond the memory of any beginning he would readily without dispute have submitted to such an Authority and so much the sooner as he being neerer the Fountain could less doubt that the stream of which he saw no other rise reach'd home to the Spring-head This therfore is evident that whoever erred knew nothing of such a Tradition whencesoe're that ignorance took its root the severall causes of which depend upon the several cases of their mistakes here not pressed and therfore not examin'd THE SIXTH ENCOUNTER Disabling three other Arguments brought against Tradition THe seventh objection pretends not only different but opposite Traditions might be deriv'd from the Apostles And this they support with these two crutches one consists in a demurrer that the contrary is not proved the other in an Instance that it plainly hapned so in the case of the Quartadecimani who inherited from St. John a certain custom which was condemned by a practice deriv'd from some other Apostles But the weaknesse of this objection appears by its very proposal For since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately and exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostles we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently neither is Tradition And that this word universally may not seem by slight of hand cog'd into the definition on purpose to take away this objection the necessity of it is evident because all that weare the name of Christian unanimously agreeing that in point of truth one Apostle could not contradict another wherever two such Traditions are possible to be found it absolutely follows no point of truth is engaged An inference expresly verified in the example of the Quartadecimans their contention being meerly about a Ceremony not an Article of Faith Wherfore only indifferent and unnecessary practises are subjects of such a double Tradition and by consequence such Traditions are not of Christian beliefe or concerning matters here in controversy this very definition rather directly excluding them The eighth Argument seems to take its rise from our own confessions telling us We acknowledge some points of Faith to have come in later then others and give the cause of it that the Tradition whereon such points rely was at the beginning a particular one but so that yet at the time when it became universal it had a testimony even beyond exception by which it gain'd such a general acknowledgment The example of this is in certain Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps whereof in St. Jerom's time the Greek Churches refus'd the one and the Latin the other yet now both have prevaild into an universal reception To which I return this clear answer 't is the nature of things acted that depend on Physical and mutable causes to have divers degrees in divers parts according to the unequall working of the Causes and so Christ having deliver'd by the hands of his Apostles two things to his Church his Doctrin as the necessary and substantial aliment thereof and his Scriptures ad abundantiam it was convenient the strength of Tradition for one should far exceed its strength for the other yet so that even the weaker should not fail to be assured and certain Upon this reason the Doctrin was deliver'd to all the Apostles and by them to the whol community of Christians the Scriptures to some particular person or Church yet such whose credit was untainted and from them by degrees to be spread through the whol Church and communicated to the Pastors in the Books themselvs to the people by their Pastors reading and explications For who does not know before Printing was invented the Bible was not every mans money Whence it appears Scriptures are derived to us by a lower degree of Tradition then that of Catholik doctrin and consequently our Faith and acceptance due to them is not of so high a nature as what we are bound to in respect of doctrin For the sense of Scripture is to be judged by the doctrin as the Church and custom of Antiquity teaches us alwaies commanding and practising that no man exercise his wits in interpreting the holy Scripture against the receiv'd Faith of the Church as in all matters of science they who are Masters in the Art judge the text of Books written upon such subjects by their unwritten skil and practical experience And here I would willingly ask what such Protestants as object this to us can answer for themselvs since they directly professe not to know Scripture by the Spirit and therfore must necessarily rely on Tradition especially those who take for their rule to accept only such Books for Canonical as were never doubted of for they cannot deny but the Scriptures were receiv'd in one Church before another as the Epistles of St. Paul St. John or St. Marks Gospel c. and how do they admit the Apocalyps so long refused by the Greek Churches whom they use to prefer before the Latin But they presse us farther that if a particular Tradition became universal this depended on the Logick of those Ages to discern what testimony was beyond exception I demand what signifies Logick do they mean common sense sufficient to know three and four make seven or wit enough to comprehend and manage with a just degree of discretion the ordinary occurrences in humane actions If they do I must confess it depends on Logick For I cannot think God Almighty deliver'd the Scriptures to Apes or Elephants who have a meer imitation of reason in their outward carriage but to Men that have truly understanding and a capacity of evidence within
their Souls But if they take Logick for an ability to discourse beyond the reach of ordinary prudence and that human evidence which governs our lives I see no occasion of expecting any such Logick in our present question The ninth attempt consists in a diligent survey of our Fortifications to spy out some breach or weaker place by which errour may creep into the Church This I cannot call an Argument for none are so unwise as to make such a consequence It may be therfore 't is unlesse they bring strong proof of this necessity in some particular instance that may shew it to be an exception from the common maxim à posse ad esse non valet consequentia And yet in this discourse I find not so much as the very posse which I thus declare If any should deny that George could leap over Pauls-steeple and a quaint Oratour to maintain the affirmative should largely discourse how the rise of the last footing the help of a good staffe the cast of his body and many such circumstances give advantage to the leap but never think of comparing these with the height of the Steeple no sensible person would say he had proved the possibility of performing such a wild and extravagant enterprize So he that discourses at large how errours use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of errour to the strength of resisting which consists in this principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition as also without considering the heat and zeal stil preserv'd alive in the Churches bowels from the great fire of Pentecost says no more towards proving an errour 's overrunning the Church then the Oratour we exemplified for Georges leaping over the Steeple Wherfore this attempt is so far from the business it deservs not the honour of being accounted an Argument Yet because we compar'd the propagation of the Catholique Faith to the perpetuation of Human kind let us propose the like discours against it and say that in Affrick or the Land of Senega there are under earth great mines of Arsnick Whereof one may at some time or other vapour a contagious smoak which encountring with a strong wind from the South may breed so great a Plague in all the North Countries that none can escape it and hereupon presently conclude that all on this side the Line are quite dead and those who seem to live and discourse are but phantasms and have nothing of real in them though I believe the instances brought in for declaration of so groundless a conceit may seem better to deserve that name THE SEVENTH ENCOUNTER Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new Beliefs to the Catholick Church THe first is of the Greeks Hieremie Nilus and Barlaam who profess to stand to Tradition and the first seaven General Councils and can be no way disprov'd say's the objector unless by what shall be as forcible against the Catholick cause But truly this instance is so lame it needs a new making before it be answered For the Author expresses not in what points of difference betwixt us and them he intends to urge it If about shavings or fastings and the like we shal have no quarrel against him if about the Procession of the holy Ghost I doubt he will find himself entangled in an equivocation betwixt the matter and manner of that mystery However that all arguments against them will serve against us is but the Authors liberal addition without any proof or means to guess at it That they accuse us to corrupt Tradition by sowing tares among it has two parts one justify's my plea that we rely on Tradition since they charge us with endeavouring to corrupt not disclaim it the other that we do indeed corrupt it is only said not proved and farther shews that the plea of the Greeks is non-Tradition alleadging only this that their Fathers do not deliver the doctrin of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us As little force has the Note cited out of Tertullian to prove that he thought more was to be believ'd then what was drawn from antiquity because he was content private men might begin good customs in their own houses For sure he could not believe that omnis fidelis could constituere for the whole Church or even for his neighbours house So that we need a great deal of Logick to draw from this remark the creeping of an errour into the Church not a word being so much as intimated that this good custom should be against what was already receiv'd which had been enough to make it rejected and not comprehended in Tertullians known judgment There is another instance strongly urg'd and largly dilated but if I guess right of so much less credit the more 't is opened It is out of a history by one Wadding an Irish man concerning two Treaties of two Kings of Spain with two Popes to tear from them a definition for the Immaculateness of our Ladies Conception I follow an Authors words who has read the book and it seems found a great violence in the carriage of the business which made him express it by the word tearing Who this Wadding is I know not for I have heard of more then one but whether this be any of them I am totally ignorant having never seen the Book nor any other signs by which to discover the Author Out of this Book they collect three arguments One from Waddings testimony another from the State of the question he handles a third from his practice joyntly with the practice of divers others of the same degree For the first I am desirous notice should be taken of the Authors condition When he wrote this book he was Secretary to the Bishop of Carthagena and He his Kings Ambassador to move the Pope to define our Ladies Conception without original sin and in solliciting this to use an extraordinary importunity Wherin I see two circumstances that concern the qualification of his Book One that he was to act a business of great heat and if his zeal were not conformable to the eagerness of his senders he was like to have little thanks for his pains The second that he was Secretary to an Ambassador by which he had priviledg to say and publish Dicenda Tacenda whether they were his own opinions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they any way advanc'd his cause Now this encouraged Secretary undertakes to affirm that many things have been defined against the opinions of some Fathers and in the present case he says peradventure it has been defin'd that our Lady was free from all actual sin He adds the validity of Hereticks Baptism the beatifical vision before the day of Judgment the spirituality of Angels the souls being immediatly created and not ex traduce the Assumption of our Lady and her delivery without pain To Wadding
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
two so potent Kings could so little prevail towards it For all that was done had only this design to appeas the seditions sprung up in Sivil by occasion of a Dominicans Conclusions in which he affirm'd that our Lady was Conspurcata with Original sin But the controversy was so uncivilly carried that it scandaliz'd our English Merchants as one of them there present told me not long after meeting him at Dunkirk But because this objection is much urged let us see the probabilities of its being defin'd The first is that the maintainers of the Affirmative are only a few of one Order and some few taught by them But if good account be made I believe these few will prove some thousand or fifteen hundred of the most learned in the Christian world Their Order is known to have always been the flower of the Schools to have had the Inquisition many ages in their hands to have a stile of Divinity of a higher strain then ordinary by their great study and adhesion to the Doctrin of St. Thomas of Aquine Their Monasteries numerous especially in Spain and Italy no great Convent wherin there are not a dozen or more grave and learned Divines almost all the honours amongst them being distributed according to the probate of ability in knowledg so that the Order is no contemptible part of the Learning of the Church Neither is it credible their Schollars can be few much less as this Author passionatly terms them unus et alter He objects farther the subscriptions of many Prelates Orders and Universities the general acclamation of the people the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals That some Universities oblige the Schollars to make vows to maintain the negative and in a word that the Affirmers hold against the whole Church Nor do I doubt that many Prelates Orders and Universities subscribed the Negative and peradventure to the Petition or that the people who follow the greater cry did demand the same but that the Affirmers held against the whole Church I totally deny and shew manifestly the contrary For Buls having been accepted and standing in force by which all Censure against the Affirmative is forbidden and no one syllable obtain'd any way derogatory to the probability of the opinion but generally a caveat to the contrary expresly put into such instruments and the Defenders of the negative submitting to them 't is clear that all the maintainers of the Negative alow the Affirmative to be probable and by consequence not against the consent of the Church since it seems to imply a flat contradiction that the Church should believe a Negative to be true and yet at the same time admit the affirmative may be true Now as for Universities there are entire ones for the Affirmative and that not on the score of St. Thomas but of the Fathers What Universities strive for the Negative so ranckly as to make men take vows I know not The Article of Paris as I hear is only that they shal not teach it in the University els-where every one is free As for hindring scandals 't is a necessary part of Government but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths according to the inclinations of the people push'd on by the clamours of violent Preachers Notwithstanding all this our adversary presumes this very point may prove an Article of Faith especially if a Council should meet about the decision wherin he proceeds with a very high confidence it being as he thinks now ready to topple into a matter necessary to salvation But I am far from that mind for I see the fervours of the Schools are a quite different thing from the judgments of the Church and how little all those tumults moved the Court of Rome and certainly would have made far less impression in a general Council The controversy betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans what a busle makes it in the School and in the world while it stands upon the fairer tongue upon motives esteemable by the people and meer plausibilities Wheras coming to be examin'd before the Pope in Congregations it could not hold water but the weaker part was forc'd to break off the cours of judgment by mingling Princes quarrels into Ecclesiastical questions I dare confidently say if the Point of our Ladies Conception were to be handled either in a Council or grave Congregation the party that free her setting aside the passions of Princes would be distressed to find an argument that themselvs should hope would endure the discussing And so the pretty gradations of our imaginative adversaries who so easily frame a ladder for this opinion to climb up into a matter of Faith is like an odd attempt of an acquaintance of mine who being come out of Lancashire to go beyond-sea and repuls'd at Dover for want of a Pass put off his hose and shooes and began to wade into the sea when being asked what he meant he answer'd he would go on foot since they would not let him pass in the Boat for said he I have often waded through the Beck at my Fathers door when the bridg was taken away By which counterfeiting of simplicity he got to be admitted into the ship wheras those who make their argument from the School-discussions to Church-definitions will if I am not mistaken remain on the wrong side of the water THE NINTH ENCOUNTER Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition THe third argument is drawn from this Waddings proceedings and his consorts with the addition of another not unlearned man according to the cours of these times who puts Scripture and definitions of the Church to be the adaequate ground into which our Faith is resolv'd Besides 't is urg'd that even those who speak of Tradition seek it not in the testimony of the present Church but of the ancient Fathers This being already answer'd in the sixth Objection we need not here add much to it For what imports it if Wadding and his associates understood not upon what grounds the Church uses to resolve and decide controversies and therfore bring Revelations Metaphorical expressions of Scripture the cry of the people a multitude of School Divines and the like arguments so that in their lives and believing or acting as Christians they proceed not out of these grounds but by the Colliers principle rely on the Church and by her on what she rely's Galilaeo dislikes the notions of wet and dry which Aristotle gives do they therfore disagree or not know one anothers meaning when they talk of a wet and dry cloth Among our modern Philosophers great quarrels there are about the explication of time and place yet this hinders not but that in common discours when they speak of years and days Country's and Towns they make a shift to understand one another The reason is because these conceptions used in ordinary discours are planted in them by nature the same objects working the same effect upon souls of one
they think fittest to cleave to For Rushworth has declared his opinion sufficiently and it is clear enough what all they must say Catholiks or Protestants who think the Scripture needs Explicators to make a point certain Neither can we doubt of this if we look into the actions of the Catholik Church where we see an Heretick is term'd so for chusing an Opinion against the Faith certainly received and in possession of the Church from which he separates himself But this separation is at the beginning of the errour and before the interposure of the Church He is therefore an Heretick before any decision makes him so THE TENTH ENCOUNTER That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chiliasts BEsides the objections we have already endeavoured to answer some other instances are urged As of Origen whose doctrin being explicated in such large volumes how an Adversary can draw it into the compass of Tradition or how it can be argued that the condemning of him was a breach of Tradition I know not But chiefly they insist upon the Chiliasts errour as an unquestionable Apostolicall Tradition To try the busines let us remember we cal'd Tradition the handling of a doctrin preach'd and setled in the Church of God by the Apostles down to later ages Now then to prove the Chiliad opinion was of that nature the first point is to evince that it was publish'd and setled by the Apostles the contrary whereof is manifest out of Eusebius History who relates that the root of it was a by-report collected by Papias a good but credulous and simple man His goodness surpris'd St. Irenaeus who as may be infer'd out of his Presbyteri meminerunt learned it of Papias for the plural number does not infer that there was more then one as all know that look into the nature of words or if there were more they may be such as had it from Papias St. Justin the Martyr esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher then the common since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholy of his own mind for no man can think another right in any position wherein he dissentes from him Nay he shews that the Jew against whom he disputes suspected his truth as not believing any Christian held this opinion so rare was it among Christians nor does he ever mention Tradition for it but proves it meerly out of the Prophets Whence it appears there is no ground or probability this was ever a Tradition or any other then the opinion of some Fathers occasioned by Papias and confirm'd by certain places of Scripture not wel understood most errours being indeed bolster'd up by the like misapplications a scandal that ever since the practice of the Tempter upon Christ himself may wel be expected to importune Christians But first is objected in behalf of the Chiliasts that they had no Tradition against them To which I reply A contrary Tradition might be two waies in force against them one formally as if it had been taught by the Apostles directly Christ shall not raign upon earth a thousand yeers as a temporall King The other that something incompossible with such a corporal raign was taught by Them and of this I finde two one general another particular the generall one is that the pleasures and rewards promised to Christians are spiritual and the whol design of the Christian Law aims at the taking away all affections towards corporal Objects whereas this Errour appoints corporal contentments for the reward of Martyrs and by consequence either encreases or at least fosters the affection to bodily pleasures and temporal goods The particular one is that Christ being ascended to Heaven is to remain there till the universal judgment Wherfore it is evident by the later that it is against Tradition and by the former that it is not only so but a Mahumetan or at least a Jewish errour drawing men essentially to damnation as teaching them to fix all their hopes and expectance hereafter on a life agreeable to the appetites of flesh and blood 'T is opposed also that the Fathers of the purest Ages receiv'd it as deliver'd from the Apostles A fair Parade but if we understand by the Fathers One St. Irenaeus and him deluded by the good Zeal of Papias as Eusebius testifies but good even to folly for lesse cannot be said of it where is the force of this so plausible argument Adde to this that the very expression of Ireneus proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a Story not a Tradition a Tradition as we have explicated it being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning There follows Justin Martyr's testimony That All Orthodox Christians in his age held it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they are not so different but one may be taken for the other Neverthelesse there is no such saying in Justin for however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may pass one for the other yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has by Ecclesiastical use an appropriation to the Catholik or Christian right believers which descends not from the Primitive and so cannot be transfer'd to the Derivatives from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither fairly nor truly translated Orthodox No more does it help the Adversaries cause that Justin compares the maintainers of the conrary opinion to the Sadduces among the Jews For he mentions two sorts of persons denying his position wherof one he resembles to the Sadduces the other he acknowledges to be good Christians and says they are many or in the eloquent usage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commonalty of Christians Nor wil the next Objection give us much trouble That none oppos'd the Millenary errour before Dionysius Alexandrinus To which we apply this answer First for any thing we know it was hidden and inconsiderable till his time and then began to make a noise and cause people to look into it Secondly there are probable Motives to perswade it was impugn'd long before For it being clear that both Heretiks and Catholiks sustain'd the contrary we cannot wel suppose it was never contradicted till then though the report of it came not to their ears since who considers the few monuments we have of these first Ages must easily discern the hundred part is not deriv'd to us of what was then done But lastly admit there was no writing against it till Dionysius Alexandrinus does it follow there was no preaching neither As little can be gathered out of St. Hierom's being half afraid to write against it both because he did write against it as is
they have no truth in them a proof as such still carrying its truth in its force of concluding but probable arguments have no force to conclude and consequently no truth For the truth of a saying is different from that of an argument a true argument being that which proves the thing to be a true saying which only affirms it to be And if we look into it we see what I say is but the Law of Nature and naturall constancy for as to not act 't is enough to have no reason but to act we ought to have a positive cause so to remain in the Religion of our Birth and Education there is no other reason requir'd then because we are in it whereas to change we must have efficacious motives to perswade us Here my Adversary wil exult and think at least Protestants cannot become Catholiks without evidence which he conceives impossible And I grant his consequence if he can prove his supposition For to my sight nothing is more clear then that Protestants chang'd their Religion from being Catholiks and that upon but probable grounds whence it is evident no Protestant who is formally such that is holds his Religion on probable arguments against the Catholik Church but stands in a continual formal rebellion against Her who by his own acknowledgment was once his Magistrate and against whom himself confesses he has no more then probable exception Therfore whoever of a Protestant becomes Catholik goes so far with evidence that he reconciles himself to a government under which he once was and had no just reason to depart from it none being sufficient to excuse so great a disorder and so ought under peril of eternal damnation return to his first obedience For where he is he is certain to find no security since his relyance by his own verdict is at most but upon plausible arguments wheras under the other government there may be certainty for ought he knows of which there is this fair motive that they all professe it which is more forcible for the credit of it then what ever he can say in abetment of the contrary Rashly therfore he opposes himself to follow a fals way a way that assuredly leads to unavoydable precipices They reply the Turks also agree in the Law of Mahomet and yet that brings no evidence their Law is true But alas they observe not that in saying so they unawares call themselves no Christians For to us this consent is no argument Mahometanism is true because it carries no farther then that the Law is Mahomets And so far is manifest out of their common agreement therfore in parity 't is evident out of the consent of Christians that the doctrin handed down from the Apostles is Christs and the doubt may perhaps remain with the Objectors but not with us whether Cbrists doctrine be true as neither we nor they doubt that Mahomets preaching was fals And seeing the case is common to all Christians against the Roman Catholik he only relying on Tradition they all renouncing it he only can run his Religion up to the Person of Christ and there leave it securely establisht upon the infallible credit of his word And as no other sort of Christian society can pretend to this priviledge so neither can they with any colour of justice exempt themselves from the Authority of that Church that enjoys it an Authority which if ever she had and such as she claims it is of so unchangeable a nature being constituted by God being the rock on which the salvation of mankind is built and the fundamental stone of the Church no time nor variation of material accidents can prejudice or prescribe against it Wherfore if Protestants at first departed unjustifiably they remain for ever guilty of the same crime til they restore themselves to the Primitive union Again who unles he had renounc'd all morality ever call'd it liberty not to know or not be bound to the rules and principles of good life Sure these objectors either think religion concerns not good life but is a vain and empty Idea in the air little important whether it be known or no or forget themselves so far as to fall into the sequel of this gross absurdity Besides who can be so desperatly passionate as to term it liberty to have no good government and relaps again to the rude state of barbarousnes where murther rapes a thousand intolerable insolencies are publikly permitted For if we cast our eys on the End of Religion we shall see that to want the due Rules is as inconvenient towards the direction of mankind to final beatitude as the Laws of Canibals are destructive to all civil and friendly society So that 't is to be ignorant of all reason to cry up a liberty to have no Religion or to chuse one indifferently as unconcern'd whether it be right or wrong Were it not better plainly to avow the preferrence of the pleasures and profits of this world before hopes so far off as the future life then with these ambushes to ensnare unwary souls into the same inconveniencies under title of a probable Religion And truly if we look upon their lives we shall find that hoc Janus summus ab imo Personat I intend not by this any waies to derogate from the old Roman vertues in this sort of people as if there may not be found Regulus's or Cato's or Seneca's among them for I doubt not but the very vapour of Christianity has this wholsom effect among whom it passes to breed in them as Heroick spirits as ancient Rome ever saw and more too if the like occasions presented themselves But Nature and Generosity and Opinion too often challenge their shares or rather mastery in such actions and how little can justly be ascribed to the hope of heaven I rather suspect then declare To return therfore to our discourse The Jew the Turke the Heathen can pretend a profession of his Religion for all these stick to such conclusions as their principles afford them But the Christian who cals Christs doctrin his and confesses that he or his Sect has deserted those who alone pretend to the successive livery and seisin of it can no way presume to the possession till he plainly demonstrate the clearness of his title Wherfore it avails not any drowsie rather then quiet nature to say his Father and peradventure Grandfather was Protestant before him and therfore he is Possessor bonae fidei whilst he pretends only probable arguments for so long he implies the possession to be unjustly detain'd from the advers party who has the actual receit by succession especially when this so unparalleld a Riot is committed without susficient evidence by the very Actors confession A Protestant then has no better claim to posseâ—sion of Christs Doctrine by his so long continuance in Heresie then the Parricide in Aristotle who having beaten his Father pleaded that his Father had beat his Grandfather and his Grandfather his great
Grandfather as though such a graceless entail could prejudice the law of Nature Though not so absurd yet as weak is another Objection taken from the Jewish Cabala however it seems worthy of thanks to the Suggestor What it was is not hard to guess our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it when he reproach'd the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fathers or Elders to the ruin of Gods commands But to decipher it better I ought to divide it into matter and form The form I call the Rules the matter what was deliver'd or found out by these Rules As for the matter it seems in some way proportion'd to the proceedings of certain of our Divines who pretend to be mysticall and their imployment is in the sublime mysteries of our Faith to invent or imagin what they think congruous circumstances to move the affections to petty devotion which imaginations as they are fram'd out of good intentions so have they many weaknesses and little or no doctrin in them Conformable to this we may conceive that after there were no more Prophets among the Jews who fail'd them not long after the second building of their Temple the Rabbins began to frame explications on their Books of holy Scripture and the mysteries learn'd from the Prophets These interpretations according to the degree of their skil and prudence some perform'd better some worse But as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation not having principles of true knowledg naked before their Eys but wrapt up in Metaphors and Allegories all together went among them for sound Law Til after our Saviours time and the dispersion of that generation some foolish knave to give authority to this mess of good and bad jumbled together invented the story how Moses had deliver'd this doctrin to the Sanhedrin and they had conserv'd it by traditional conveyances from Father to Son A story as impossible and incredible to one who penetrates into the carriage of that Nation as the Fables of Jeoffrey of Monmouth and King Arthur's conquering Hierusalem Now if we look into the form we shal find it more ridiculous then any Gypses canting or the jugling of Hocus Pocus and as pernicious to true Doctrin as any Pseudomancy To make good this censure I shal in short describe their form it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture by three abuses of the Letter which as far as my memory servs me for I have not the books necessary are these One by taking every letter of a word for a whole word beginning with that letter Another by changing letters according to certain rules fram'd by themselvs The third to find numbers of years or other things by the numbers which the letters of the word compound in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers So much being deliver'd in short I cannot conceive any indifferent judgment so blunt that he sees not how far these ridling ways of explication are from the natural intention of a Writer and how destructive to all truth if used otherwise then for pleasure and as a disport of chance and encounter Our Country man Doctor Alablaster invented a far more convenient trick by purely dividing words and joyning the ends of the former to the beginnings of the following as we also do somtimes in English to disguise common words and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks But he found this age too subtle to cozen any considerable number with such trivial bables Wheras the Cahala gain'd upon the Valentinians and Gnosticks to build prodigious errours in very good earnest upon their more ridiculous invention I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased somtime to give way to such toyes through luxury of wit and gayety of humour But it is one thing to play for recreation and a far different to establish a Basis of Faith and doctrin which is abominable on such Chimerical dreams And yet this it is our Opposer would Father upon no less then Moses and the Sanhedrin and all the sacred Magistracy of the old Law Let us give a step farther and see if it were true how like it were to our case The Tradition we speak of is the publick preaching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church setled by the Apostles thorow the World This Cabala a doctrin pretended as deliver'd to few with strict charge to keep it from publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and cozenage as in our case there is impossibility The Moderns therfore who profess Cabala may say they receiv'd it from their predecessors but they can yeild no account why any Age may not have chang'd that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber and so ther 's no possibility of farther assurance then the vote of a Council of State for its being deriv'd any higher But the Arguer demands whether they cannot ask me In what age or year their doctrin was corrupted And I answer they may very boldly But if I assign an age or year can they acquit themselvs in point of proof clearly they cannot for since there was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrin it being forbidden to be divulg'd 't is evident that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age He urges farther the notoriousness of the ly so impudent as few would venture on not reflecting that he speaks of a secret altogether incapable of notoriousness May not they add says he the dispersion of their Churches through so many Countries and Languages I yeild they may but to no purpose unless they continue Sanhedrins in every Country For otherwise this dispersion will prove but the derivation from their Council of Tiberias or such like time which is nothing to the succession from Moses Add to this that the Nation since Christs time is infamous for falsifying doctrins and corrupting Scriptures and even in our Saviours time and long before their Rabbins were justly branded with the foul imputation of frequent forgery their Sects and heresies being grown up to that desperate height as to deny there were any spirits or shall be any Resurrection which is the very top of impiety But what is no less to be consider'd then any thing yet offer'd the very subject of the question is different The Church we speak of is a vast and numerous body spread o're the world and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remain'd perpetually visible from Christs time to ours however some Heretick may pretend the invisible part viz. that the Faith has been interrupted But for the Sanhedrin what assurance nay what probability is there of deriving its pedegree from Moses to the daies of our Saviour In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges in the division of the Tribes in the raign of their Kings in the
persons you may learn not to be affected to your Preachers above what I have written to you about a dozen lines before to wit that they are all ordain'd for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Mysteries to the end one of you do not swell with pride or choller against another in any mans behalf and so breed Schisms and contentions among your selves This is the meaning of the Apostle as will appear to any judicious understanding that can be content to read and diligently weigh the whole composition of the discours And here we are unwillingly constrain'd to observe the desperate shifts of many of our adversaries into which either the rashness of their passions or necessity of their caus engages them for so in the Text we now treat they presently snapt at a piece of a sentence where they found this charming word written and that was enough for them without ever troubling their heads to consider or sense or connexion in order to the framing a legitimate argument For had they but taken the immediatly precedent line These I have disguized into Apollo and my self for you and then brought in the words cited That you may learn in us not to be wise above what is written the nonsense would have declar'd it self and stumbled the Reader who could not but presently have check'd at the inconsequence And the verse following would be likewise incongruous to these that you be not sweld one against another for any man For what connexion can either the words precedent or subsequent have with this that You are to learn your Faith out of the Scripture and yet I have translated the Latin Sapere or Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the true sense for the objectours advantage wheras the true meaning is not to esteem them higher or bear themselvs as if their Masters were higher and thus the very English Translation yeilds it The latter place is out of the first to the Galathians where he warns them that whoever comes to preach any doctrin besides that which He had taught them they should refuse him communion or account him execrable This passage I have always esteem'd very strong and pregnant for Tradition and our Adversaries call it a most illustrious proof against it I confess at first I was at a loss to imagine how they could frame an argument out of so unfavourable a Text but at last I perceiv'd it might perhaps be thus St. Paul said they preach'd nothing but what was written as he testify's to Agrippa so then all he preach'd was Scripture But he commands them to receive no other doctrin but what he deliver'd them Therfore he enjoynd them to make Scripture the Rule of their Faith This is as far as I can find the full epitome of their discourse upon this Text. But considering that what is in Scripture may be deliver'd by preaching without any mention of Scripture me thinks though all St. Paul taught the Galathians had been written yet it follows not He commanded the Galathians to hold the doctrin from Scripture For those two words what we Evangeliz'd to you and what you have receiv'd signify so plainly preaching that I can collect nothing from this place but that they were to hold their Faith because He had preach'd it then which 't is impossible to imagine a more efficacious argument to demonstrate Tradition And to this effect he exaggerates his own quality that he was one who had not receiv'd his doctrin from man nor by the entermise of man but immediatly by revelation from Christ and afterwards upbraiding the Galathians for their inconstancy asks them whether they had receiv'd their Christianity by the works of the Law or ex auditu fidei by hearing of the Gospel So that in effect his command is to the Galathians to stand to his preaching that is to Tradition for their Faith and this not only against all men but even Angels should they come down from Heaven to preach any thing contrary For that the word praeter may signify contrary is too well known to be insisted on But that it signify's so here the particular occasion of this discourse makes evident St. Paul expressing that some intruded themselves seeking to overturn the Gospel of Christ and charging upon them that wheras they had begun in spirit they ended in flesh and the like Wherfore it is plain he spake of doctrin contrary to what he had preach'd But if praeter be taken for besides it will signify besides Tradition not besides Scripture there being not the least mention of Scripture Now how soundly it is proved that St. Paul taught nothing but what was written is before examin'd which yet if admitted true were nothing to the purpose For 't is not the Catholik position that all its doctrins are not contain'd in Scripture but not held from thence nor to be convinced out of the naked letter especially in a pertinacious dispute A question certainly not so much as dream'd of in this place of St. Paul And now to close this whole discourse I shall only add one short period as a prudential reflection upon the different fitness and proportion these two methods have in order to determine controversies That in case where any two parties disgree Tradition is very seldom of much as pretended by both and if at all still in points of less importance wheras Scripture is continually alledg'd by all sides how numerous soever their factions be and how fundamental soever their differences An evident sign the way of resolving by Tradition is incomparably preferrable to that of judging by the bare letter of Scripture especially if still upon examination one of the pretended opposite Traditions prove indeed either not sufficiently universal or not positively contrary to the other but perhaps a particular custom of some Province as Rebaptization or only a meer negative Tradition as that of the Greeks concerning the Holy Ghost THE EIGHTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies I Have omitted the petty quiblets of Criticism which our Adversaries use to press in divers of the places I explicated not only because they are often fals most commonly strain'd and always such pigmy bulrushes that they merit no admission into a grave discours but chiefly because considering largely the Antecedents and consequents to the Texts alledged I found the substance of them wholly mistaken and nothing to our purpose and that such arguments are the abortive issue of immature brains not able to distinguish the force of Canon shot from a Faery's squib or a boys pot-gun And I dare had I good conditions maintain that in all the differences betwixt Protestants and us Catholicks they cannot produce one place of Scripture in which the words can bear a sense that comes home to the state of the question I know many urge those of the Decalogue against Images To which I answer with words analogical to those of
the former ages more pure then the later since we admit no errours in either but make no question that the universality of Fathers in any two ages held the same doctrin and so the Faith of the second Tricentury being known we account that of the former undoubted especially we all believing the latter Fathers receiv'd their doctrin from the former not by reading their Books which belong'd to few but by being instructed from their mouths who had receiv'd it from them But he thinks his Reformers very probably maintain that Christian Religion has long been in a dangerous consumption declining still by little and little and losing in every Age some certain degree of its Primitive vigour and native complexion to which purpose he cites the words of Hegesippus out of Eusebius That this infirmity began as soon as the Apostles were dead This position sounds to me as if the opinions they cry out against for abominations enter'd so early into the Church and have continued in it so long that they can now reckon fifteen Centuries nor can I desire either a more ingenuous confession or stronger proof of the truth of those doctrines which the nature of Christianity has preserv'd with such exact care and constant tenderness that in so many ages not one of them has been forgotten not one of them ever oppos'd by those who in all generations have stil been accounted the sound party of Christians Besides I should expect that so foul a blemish as these bold accusers lay upon the Church viz. that she has been an Idolatrous and abominable Harlot ever since the death of the Apostles ought not to be grounded on bare probable conjectures but evidently convinced under penalty that otherwise the Calumniators should suffer at least as heavy a Censure as they attempt to pass against the Church But because for the maintenance of this odious slander he chiefly rely's on Hâ—gesippus's testimony let the witness be fairly examin'd and that according to the Authors own citation which runs to this effect After the Apostles death the Masters of Seduction began publickly and professedly to vent their falssy named Science against the preaching of the truth which in plain English signifies no more then that Hereticks rose up against the Church and is so far from arguing the Churches corruption that it strongly concludes her purity since the doctrin which falshood contradicts must necessarily be it self true Thus clearly it follows from these words that the wrong imputed corruption was out of the Church and soundnesse of Faith in her Communion But if we look into the Text exactly the meaning of that passage is this After the Apostles death the consistence of Heresie took its beginning that is Hereticks grew into a body daring to shew their heads where before they lurk'd for fear of the Apostles which expression manifestly proves They began to make congregations distinct from the true Church And this being evident we cannot be troubled with those words going before in Higesippus which say till then the Church was a virgin and uncorrupted for it is a phrase natural enough to call the body corrupted whose putrify'd parts are cut off or rotted away as those degenerate members were from the Church of God And so this very Daillè could cite upon another occasion these self-same Innovators under the direct notion of Hereticks when he thought it might better serve his turn THE THIRD SURVEY Of his 3d. and 4 th Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works AS to the third point of Forgery our Monsieur dilates himself exceedingly but how much to the purpose some few notes wil discover First he objects many counterfeit Books that are not now extant nor have been these many Ages and think you not there must necessarily arise a strange obscurity in our Controversies from such forgeries Then he complains that Transcribers have put wrong names to books either for the better selling them or out of ignorance and in some of them the question is about Authors almost of the same age all which is likewise little to the point for where the Ages opinion and not the particular credit of the Author's learning is requir'd the authority of one understanding writer ought generally to weigh as much as anothers and this is the case in controversies where the sense of the Church not that of private Doctors is the subject of our inquiry Neither must I forget his defamation of the ancient Christians as counterfeiters of the Sybils Prophesies out of the calumny of the wicked Celsey which neverthelesse we see Lactantius stands upon to the Heathens faces He omits not for a notorious piece of forgery that the Canons of the Council of Sardica are cited as of the Council of Nice wherin nothing is more certain then that the Canons were true though not admitted by the Greeks who being cal'd would not come to the Council So the question stands meerly upon this whether they ought to be cal'd the Canons of Nice being made by a Council gather'd afterwards to confirm the former which the Latines defend and the Greeks dislike Doubtless a main forgery to be urg'd by this temperate man whose charity no question would have winkt at small faults Yet because no ordinary satisfaction will content him though those Popes were all both commended by the Ages in which they liv'd and reputed Saints by the ensuing Church and One of them that great Saint Leo whose Oracles were so highly esteem'd in the Council of Chalcedon I will briefly set down the case The Arian Emperour Constantius though yet for fear not declar'd such summon'd a Generall Council of the Eastern and Western Churches to a Town cal'd Sardica There assembled betwixt 3 and 4 hundred Bishops The Arians seeing themselvs like to come to the worst by the number of the Orthodox party upon sought pretences went to another place cald Philippopolis where making an assembly of their own they term'd it from the Emperours Summons the Council of Sardica And partly by their diligence and sending circular Letters thorow Christendom partly by joyning with a great faction of Donatists but chiefly as it may be justly believ'd by the power of the Emperours Officers made the name of the Council of Sardica passe for the denomination of their Conventicle both in the East and thorow such remote parts as had not special intelligence of what pass'd in Sardica Hence any Canons pretended to be order'd at Sardica were blasted before known wherupon it fel out that the small party which knew the truth was forc'd in their collections of Canons to place these next to the Council of Nice as their order requir'd without a name and as an Appendix of the Council In this posture these Popes found them about an hundred yeers after and whether it was that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the Accident or whether they thought the action legitimate and the ground of it sufficient they urg'd them as
the known doctrin of the present Church which she practises as deriv'd from Christ and wherof she knows no other beginning He that is not conscious to himself of this is no Heretick before God and he that carries that guilt in his breast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever seeming reasons he has for himself and whoever teaches any point contrary to this tradition not knowing such contrariety teaches indeed Heresie but is no Heretick Let them agree in this chief Principle or Rule of Faith and the rest wil be only material errours in them But the cause they perversly defend is inconsistent with any such submission their own Consciences and the evidence of the fact stigmatising their unlawful breach from the universal doctrin of the Church from which they rebelliously separated themselvs As to the Fathers opinion concerning the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants he must give us leave to think the Council of Trent was better informed then he as is in the precedent Apologie briefly discussed That St. Ignatius cals him a murderer of Christ who fasts Saturdaies signifies no more then that he does an action which of its nature testifies our Saviour died twice that is upon Saturday as wel as Friday though this man of truth in his first chapter vouchsafes not to admit any writings of St. Ignatius for true The aspersion laid upon St. Hierom St. Ambrose annd Tertullian as using Tragical expressions without occasion is but a gap to Libertinage and vilifying of vertue their sayings being true though this Reformer dislike them His urging that the modern points of Controversie are not resolv'd in former Creeds or Councils is of little importance for every one knows subsequent Councils have alwaies been so far from thinking it unlawful to add to the former that such additions are the very business and end of their assembling and yet as the seventh Council testify'd they confirm'd all that was either in Scripture or Tradition by binding us to these two pillars of truth He is farther troubled that divers Provinces should out of St. Hierom's authority esteem the commands they finde have been in use among their forefathers to be institutions deriv'd from the Apostles as if either the Apostles might not have left divers customs in divers places for some practices of less concernment or that in St. Hieroms time it was so hard to know when a custom of importance started if it began since the Apostles which could be scarce three hundred yeers In the last Chapter of his first Book he thinks it impossible to know the belief of the ancient Church either universal or particular touching any point of controversies now debated among us And truly as he understands the question he seems to have some reason for he professes that all the positive evidence out of Antiquity comes short of satisfying him unless we can make good that no one did in those daies secretly hold the contrary a proof that certainly none but a mad man would either expect of another or himself attempt Nevertheless this he exacts of us and therfore cites St. Hierom for the equality of Priests and Bishops though he writes expresly against it and the place he cites clearly speaks of the confusion of the names of Presbyter and Episcopus Likewise when St. Hierom testify's some Bishops held with Vigilantius he thinks that sufficient to make St. Hieroms side not universal as if Bishops could not be Hereticks He adds St. Hierom by his passionate speeches against Vigilantius derogats from the authority of his testimony I believe him if he speaks of his own party who are easily perswaded to diminish the credit of Fathers but not if he mean among Catholicks who think the modern Heretiks no better then Vigilantius and his followers Thus have we briefly pass'd over his first Book THE SIXTH SURVEY How the Authority of Fathers is infallible Yet these last five Chapters and the whole next Book will put us to the pains of explicating what Authority Catholiks give the Fathers towards decision of controversies and how they are to argue out of them if they intend to conclude any opposite opinion an Heresy To be as short and clear in this point as I can I shall begin with some propositions wherin I believe all sides agree First that the Fathers as particular Authors might erre and no one 's single testimony how eminent soever is sufficient to make a necessary Verity upon the sole account of being his judgment Secondly that seldom or never in any controversy the Fathers cited for one part are so many as to make the doctrin deliver'd a matter of Faith out of this precise reason that it is their opinion For though their multitude should arrive to the full sum of three hundred yet it exceeds not the number of Heretiks nay even Heretik Bishops who unanimously conspir'd to oppose the Catholick Faith If then all certainty of things contingent and fallible in their individuals depend upon universality and the number we discours of though great yet consider'd in its own immediate force make but a particular it cleerly follows No question can be evidently convinc'd by the pure numerosity of produced Fathers Thus far I conceive both parties are bound to consent My third proposition therfore is If a certain number of Fathers be sufficient to convince the universality of an opinion in the Church how little soever that number be 't is strong enough to support an Article of Faith not because it is their opinion but the Churches attested by them to be the Faith of the Church and by the Church to be Christs And thus remains declared what Authority Catholiks attribute to the Fathers in reference to deciding Controversy's The next point is about the exercise of this Authority how a Catholick writer may by the testimony of Fathers conclude the general Faith of the Church and consequently the infallibility of the point controverted For which we must lay these grounds First that it has always been the nature of the Catholik Church to decline communion with those Churches she esteem'd erroneons in any material point as Idolatry Superstition and the like upon which pretences our modern presumers for Reformation have separated themselvs from the present Catholik Church wherfore if there be convincing testimonies that any one particular Church so known and considerable that the neighbouring Provinces must needs take notice of its publick customs embraces any doctrin or practice yet remains still peaceably in communion with the Vniversal 't is therby convinc'd the whole Catholick Church held the same not to be Idolatrous Superstitious c. If then the point be of such a nature that one part of the contradiction must necessarily be receiv'd and the other rejected it unavoydably follows the whole Church in that Age was of the same judgment with the particular one Nor is the evidence of this proposition built upon some scrap of an ancient Writer mis-interpreted as our Adversaries would infer the