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
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
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
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
the non-precept and the reason thereof out of the first part nothing can be deduced out of the second this consequence is inferred Pagans would be equally scandaliz'd by the Permission as by the Precept Wherfore if it be commanded neither certainly ought it be permitted Although no law obliges one Divine to maintain the reasons of another yet I see no such evidence in this consequence as for it to renounce the reason for me thinks if those we call Saints were meant to be Gods we should of necessity be bound to worship them whence it follows if it be not necessary to worship them neither are they Gods nor the worship exhibited to them such as is due to God but only of that degree which we give excellent creatures a position so conformable to Nature that it can scandalize none but the enemies of Perfection who under pretence of avoiding Idolatry take away the due honour and excitation to Vertue But which way out of a non-Precept can be infer'd the non-Teaching of the Doctrin I cannot imagine since what those Doctors hold continues true at this day when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practiced For though in our prayers there be some directions to Saints yet generally Christians are not bound to such dâ—votions and they that are 't is but their own voluntary acceptance of the obligation to which such prayers are annexed THE THIRTEENTH ENCOUNTER Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion to be the signe of the true Church ALthough out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend makes the Churches Definition depend upon the Tradition of the point defined and not Tradition upon them as if because by Tradition we know the Churches Definitions to be true therfore we know the truth deliver'd by Tradition Nevertheless since there may be some truth in this reflexion That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition let us see what can be said against it T is first therfore put into consideration whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels or the Gospel that is as much as they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel if God would have us trust the Church he was not both to specifie so much very plainly in them and farther deliver such signs as were necessary ever to know Her by For answer I ask a cross question Whether if God Almighty would have all men see by the Sun he was first to tell them which It is and paint ' Its picture on every wall that so we might know which is the Sun And because any question may seem rather offensive then deserving any answer I proceed to the application and ask Whether any of those Christians of whom Saint John says exierunt ex nobis could doubt which was the Church wherof he had been a part and left it And since you cannot answer otherwise then affirmatively I think I need not repeat the same question of Arius and Pelagius and Luther If then God has provided for all these that they were taught to yeild obedience to the definitions of this Church so clearly that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher nor of what Church he spake how dare they presume to accuse him of deficiency in his providence The same Authority that gave you the Scripture and told you it was the Word of God said likewise that what she taught was no lesse the Word of God If you believe her report for the Book why refuse you it for the Doctrin If her recommends be not security enough for the one they will certainly prove far less for the other since unlesse I am strangely mistaken the doctrin of the Catholik Church is not so hard to believe as the story of the Bible let any Atheist or discreet Moore or Pagan be judge Oh but since the Evangelists wrote Gospels they wrote all they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel The Gospel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium that is the Good-spel or happy tidings of Christs comming so that the Book or Preaching which tels us Christ is come is a Gospel be there never so much more or lesse in the Book or Sermon how then it can be infer'd out of the name Gospel that the Apostles writ as much as they preach'd for it is not credible they preach'd all they wrote I am not able to comprehend The second consideration is how we know when the Church has defined To which I answer In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted when the Church had defined then when a Parliament had enacted Why then is there required more information But some Divines say more some less to be enough Let them be doing in the Schools as long as the practice goes on sufficiently for the Churches government Thirdly we are to consider Whether sufficient notes be left to know the Church by But who shall use these notes Catholicks They are in the Church Hereticks They know what Church they forsook Pagans They look not into the Scriptures to finde the Churches mark Peradventure those Hereticks whose separation is so long since that they remember not out of what Church they went But none are grown so aged yet However the marks of the Church are apparent enough in Scripture if there want not wil in the seeker to acknowledg them The fourth consideration is Whether points of Faith or to be of Faith be infinite new ones continually springing or finite if finite why are they not all delivered at once to make an end of incertitude and defining The answer is they are both finite and infinite finite in gross and wholy deliver'd by the Apostles wholy believed and practis'd by this present Church but infinite in the detail by which mans wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith For as soon as any sharp and crafty Heretik has varied some proposition necessary to the explication of a fore-believed Doctrin there may be occasion of setling some new proposition which shal be no other then a part of what was formerly believ'd in Substance though not so explicitly deciphred As he that professes Christ is a Man implies he has a mans Nature a mans Understanding and Will and Action though this word Man distinguishes not precisely these faculties nor does he that repeats all these qualities in particular say any more then he that said in general he was a Man Now then I answer the objection as Aesops Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea stop the Rivers said he and I will performe my bargain So say I hinder impertinent curiosities from importuning the Church and her Truths wil be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice without making new Definitions The last objection that it will appear a shift to say the Churches definitions are certain and yet
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
try how solidly they proceed First then they cite certain Texts in which they say the Scripture gives us salvation But there is a wide difference betwixt giving salvation and being the whol means or adequat cause of it which is the point to be maintain'd if they wil prove the Scripture sufficient else all Faith Sacraments good works preaching c. must be absolutely excluded as unnecessary since of every one of them may be said it gives salvation Whence in common already appears these arguments are so weak and defective they carry not half way home to our question Yet let 's see at least how far they reach In the fifth of St. John Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because you think saith he you have eternal life in them Our Saviour was discoursing there of such as bore witness to him and having nam'd his Father and St. John at last he descends to the Scripture and tells them to this purpose You think to have life in the Scriptures though you deceive your selvs in that opinion for you have only the killing letter and not the verifying spirit Nevertheless search them for they bear witness that I am the true life to whom you will not through want of charity and love of God have recours to seek it Therfore you refuse me who come in the name of my Father a sign of Truth because I seek not mine own interest But you will receive Antichrist or some other who shall come in his own name which is a mark of deceit and falshood so pervers are you This is our Saviours discours of all which to this argument belong only these words You think you have life in the Scriptures that is if I understand the Text you deceive your selvs if you think you have life in them which surely must needs be a very strong reason to prove Scriptures give salvation though if the question were not of the Text I should make no difficulty of the conclusion And it may be noted that our Saviour descends to the proof of Scripture in the last place putting Miracles the first as motives able to convert Sodom and Gomorrha in the second Preaching specially they shewing some good affection to their Preacher St. John Lastly the mute words of Scripture And as for St. John our Saviour expresly says he cites him in condescendence to them that they might be the rather moved to embrace the truth by that esteem they had already entertain'd of their Preacher Wheras for Scripture there was only their own conceit which our Saviour seems to reprove as an humoursom and froward obstinacy that they would not be convinc'd by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles the easiest and surest way nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor whom themselvs confess to be a Prophet nor lastly make a diligent search without prejudice into Scripture which if interpreted with charity and humility might have led them to him and salvation The next place is John 20. These things are written that you may belive that Jesus is the Son of God and believing may have life in his name T is true both Scripture and Faith give life but not the least mention made here of any such quality in either of them This only is declar'd that the end of St. Johns writing the Gospel was not to make a compleat History either of our Saviours Acts or doctrin but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise that they might continue true believers in the Church of God live according to its Rules and be saved by so living that is by being true Christians or Jesuits which is certainly the sense of these words in his name or in the name of Jesus as to be baptiz'd in the name of Jesus signify's to be enroll'd among the company known to be his Now from this Text we may clearly collect that St. Johns Gospel was not written by the Authors intention for any such end as the argument urges Nor that it gives life more then this one Article does that Jesus is the true son of God Nor yet that this Article gives life but that life is to be had in the name of Christ whatever these words signify Only it may be infer'd that life cannot be had without this Article but not that this alone is able to give life or that it cannot be believ'd without St. Johns Gospel or that St. Johns Gospel of it self is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tradition So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be attain'd by Scripture alone or cannot be had without it The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place as I understand it is O Timothy be constant in the doctrin I have taught thee and this for two reasons One common to all converted by me because thou knowest who I am that deliver'd it to thee This is the first and principal reason the authority of the Teacher Another peculiar to thee because from thy infancy thou art vers'd in the holy Scriptures which are proper to make thee wise and understanding in the law of Jesus Christ or to promote and improve thy salvation which is obtained by the faith of Jesus So that he speaks not of Timothy's becomming a Christian but his becomming a through furnisht or extraordinary Christian a Doctor and Preacher And the ground on which I build this explication is derived from the words following where the Apostle expresses this vertue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove as also from this consideration that the sequel Be constant to my words or Doctrin because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christs doctrin is not very exact but rather opposite to the former and plainly inducing the contrary as if one should argue Follow not my doctrin because mine but because the Scripture teaches thee it which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle as appears in the vers immediatly precedent Be stedfast in those things thou hast learnt knowing by whom thou wert instructed wheras this other discourse is perfectly consequential Stand to my doctrin because the Scripture confirms and seconds it making thee able to defend and prove by arguments what I have simply taught thee to be true by the sole evidence of Miracles which beget Faith not Science But to grant our Adversary the less proper sense and consequence that the Scripture was to contribute to the salvation of Timothy himself still ther 's an equivocation in those words through or by the faith of Iesus Christ which may be refer'd to those to make thee understanding Either so that the sense be The Scriptures in which thou hast been vers'd since thy infancy will contribute
understand For when I learn'd Latin Pater signified the immediate progenitour of the Son and St. Paul was of that opinion telling his Converts They had no Father but himself because he had in person begotten them by the Gospel and though by ampliation this word has included also the Parents of our Fathers and upwards even to Adam yet how it comes so to signifie the most remote as to exclude the neerest is beyond my skil in Grammar Pray let this good Definitor reflect upon himself if the first remembred of his race had died without Issue how could he have been one of his Forefathers no more had there been no Preachers after the first three hundred yeers till our time should we have accounted those Primitive Ones our Fathers That they are Fathers then is because they begot Preachers who continued the propagation of the same doctrine to our daies which we profess they did among us and that therfore we are their Spiritual Off-spring they our Fathers But Daillè and his Consorts fault is not that they contract the compass of the Fathers but that they acknowledge any For they are all Mushroms sprung up as new as the morning not so much as one from another if they be true to their tenets every one of them is bound to say to Calvin as wel as to the Saints I believe not for thy word but I have heard it from the Apostles own mouths in the Scripture Though indeed I have no reason to quarrel much with Him upon this point for if he acknowledges the word Fathers he denies the Thing or Vertue of it in them since to be a Father is to propagate Christs doctrine to posterity which quality he must of necessity deny them whilst he thinks their doctrine not to be that of Christ and that it ought by every private man be brought to the test of the Bible and so far accepted or refus'd as to the grave judgement of some judicious Blue-apron seems agreeable to the sense of Scripture This then is the pious design of this Authour To infinuate a belief that since the Apostles daies there has not been a sufficient living Witnesse of what they taught the world or what Christ taught them In which there are two notorious propositions infolded worthy to be look'd into First that these good Christians at one leap free themselves from all the bands of Community and Society of mankind and from all subjection to the Kingdom of Christ which they flatly deny For Nature teaches us there can be no Government without Judges I mean living Definitors and Deciders of occasional debates therefore if Christ has left no Judges upon Earth he has no kingdom here such Judges I speak of as should administer His Law for he came not to plant temporal Kings but a spiritual Regiment wherin if he has had no Judges since the Apostles decease his Kingdom expir'd with them Now then the whol drift of this Writer is to establish an absolute Anarchy where every one indifferently shall be Master without control in that great and principal Mystery of training up souls to eternal happiness which by how much more dark and difficult the spiritual conduct to future bliss is then temporal government to present wealth and security so much more unreasonable and unnatural must the position be that dissolvs all obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiours and abolishes all Order in the Church An assertion justly to be abhor'd by any who has the least spark of love to that only great Good the salvation of his Soul The other Proposition is that since the Apostles time there has been no publik either true doctrine or good life in that part of the World which we call Christian. I do not mean there may not have appeared some vertuous actions in private persons though perhaps the consequence might be driven so far but that all visible Companies have had both their Doctrine spotted with foul tenets and their consequent practises polluted with Superstition and Idolatry For as this is one of the main grounds for their rejecting the Fathers so the reason à priori which they alledge being once admitted evinces the truth of the Conclusion I charge upon them it being evident that if because man is fallible the Fathers are insufficient to propagate truth to their posterity and out of the position of insufficiency must of necessity follow the consequence of defect certainly then the following generations had not sufficient instruction either for belief or actions And indeed the Reformers themselvs acknowledg as much since they esteem the Fathers errours so gross that it was fit to leave the communion of that Church wherin they are defended rather then accept of such abominations Now if this be not to deny all good life and the main and universal fruit of Christs passion even in those preferr'd Ages I have lost my little wits This therfore I say is the aym and project of his Book to prove That since Christs time there has been no sufficient living testimony of the Truth of Religion no command or government of Christians as Christians and lastly no holiness or good life nor any fitting direction among mankind brought in and stated by our kind Saviour and wisest Law-giver Jesus Christ. Now how great an encouragement and advance this may prove either towards vertue or study of Religion I understand not This I know if any would purposely seek to draw off our hearts from all hope of heaven and practice of vertue I cannot imagin a more efficacious argument then First to tell how much pains our Saviour had taken to plant a right Faith and Christian life in so many years of example and Preaching closing all with such strange unparalleld suffrings Nay that he had sent the Holy Ghost in so manifest and glorious a manner from heaven upon his Disciples to fire their hearts with zeal and impower their hands to Miracles giving them Commission to publish his new Law over all the World and solemnly engaging to assist them for ever And yet afterwards bring in proofs how notwithstanding all this soon as these Apostles were dead Idolatry and corruption both of doctrin and manners began presently to appear in the greatest and best Members of the Church even the immediate Disciples of the Apostles and in short time so over-run the whole World that the means of Salvation was generally lost and the way to heaven obstructed with an universal deluge of vice and superstition These proofs are the work of our excellent Author whence I think it no boldness to conclude this Treatise of the right use of the Fathers is the perfectest piece that ever was written for the utter extermination of Christian doctrin and absolute ruin of all vertue For when I turn o're the Book I cannot but acknowledg it full of as good Topicks cast into as neat a stile and qualify'd with as seeming a fit temper conveniently to betray unwary souls as any modern I ever read but
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
reduc'd to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion especially since an hundred yeers experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true Besides why does not this good Orator spend some time to shew us that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture as against the Fathers I confess he has hinted it sometimes like one that saw the objection so obvious it could not be forgotten yet was unwilling to wade the Ford for fear he should find it too deep To supply therfore his omission I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers as far as concerns these objections Which consists in this that the Fathers works are many and copious The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carry's her Mistresses Book to Church Whence it follows that as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelvs and Rocks and Whirlpools and whatever else is frightful to Sea men and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain either not at all endammaged by these perillous adventures or only so that they are easily avoyded by a careful Pilot wheras in a narrow Channel or Frith if we meet but half the number there will be no sailing without manifest danger So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture Every exception this Caviller alledges or at least provs may be true of their works and yet more then sufficient left to convince Hereticks but if Scripture be half as much disabled it wil utterly lose its Protestant pretended power of deciding controversys A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence the many Explications leave nothing untouch'd the Comparisons of one place to another may be more then there are words in the Text the places brought by one side and the other so short that Equivocation has force upon every one the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew whose titles breed a difference or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties the Method and Stile the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion much less to be the sole Judg to determin all contentions about faith Yes wil he say but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few I confess it but yet dare affirm there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversy's This is true but so do the Scriptures That there are supposititious works of the Fathers Hereticks pretend the same against our Scriptures That the Fathers speak according to others minds But the like is found in Scripture And so going on it will easily appear the same objections or equivalent might have bin made against Scripture if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down Now when these Books are put into a Vulgar language as is necessary to them who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture by being first Judge of the sense of it that is of what is Scripture for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose can it be less then madnes to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture And yet as I have before noted this Patron of Presbytery assures us that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion but what we know to be certainly true which is evident in his way to be nothing at all At last his own good nature has perswaded him to propose one profitable question What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies And his first resolution is in the design of his Book conformable to the fore-layd grounds that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions and not for our own A wonderful wise conclusion especially considering he says the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all For my part I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written which when I have found little imported what t was or whether I knew it or no this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study to know what such or such books say without any farther end Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in not that they are better even at this then their Adversaries but because they have no other As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledg to be sought after but being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words hang in the air not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground At least to maintain the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings as that such a position is not found in the Fathers Ergo not necessary to be believ'd and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles which they unanimonsly deliver But he has forgot his own arguments for since we have so few of their works how can we tel the greater part did not teach somwhat necessary to be believ'd which these have omitted since corruption enter'd into the Church immediatly after the Apostles decease why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy since the Fathers are so hard to be understood why may there not be many doctrins of importance which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them and since they oppose one another in so many things why may not at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith I cannot give over this discours concerning the testimony of the Fathers without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's and too great an easiness in our own party which once discover'd and perfectly understood makes our cause so evident that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity The business is this Wheras their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible ther 's not the least colour to doubt it we let our selvs by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions and so lose the face of Antiquity by disputing of some nice point As for example when the Presbyterian has ruin'd the whole fabrick of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation we unwarily suffer our selvs to be engag'd into the discussion of this partieular quaere Whether Bishops be de jure divino which cannot be determin'd by the vast body of Antiquity as the right and proper
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
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
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
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