the known doctrin of the present Church which she practises as deriv'd from Christ and wherof she knows no other beginning He that is not conscious to himself of this is no Heretick before God and he that carries that guilt in his breast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever seeming reasons he has for himself and whoever teaches any point contrary to this tradition not knowing such contrariety teaches indeed Heresie but is no Heretick Let them agree in this chief Principle or Rule of Faith and the rest wil be only material errours in them But the cause they perversly defend is inconsistent with any such submission their own Consciences and the evidence of the fact stigmatising their unlawful breach from the universal doctrin of the Church from which they rebelliously separated themselvs As to the Fathers opinion concerning the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants he must give us leave to think the Council of Trent was better informed then he as is in the precedent Apologie briefly discussed That St. Ignatius cals him a murderer of Christ who fasts Saturdaies signifies no more then that he does an action which of its nature testifies our Saviour died twice that is upon Saturday as wel as Friday though this man of truth in his first chapter vouchsafes not to admit any writings of St. Ignatius for true The aspersion laid upon St. Hierom St. Ambrose annd Tertullian as using Tragical expressions without occasion is but a gap to Libertinage and vilifying of vertue their sayings being true though this Reformer dislike them His urging that the modern points of Controversie are not resolv'd in former Creeds or Councils is of little importance for every one knows subsequent Councils have alwaies been so far from thinking it unlawful to add to the former that such additions are the very business and end of their assembling and yet as the seventh Council testify'd they confirm'd all that was either in Scripture or Tradition by binding us to these two pillars of truth He is farther troubled that divers Provinces should out of St. Hierom's authority esteem the commands they finde have been in use among their forefathers to be institutions deriv'd from the Apostles as if either the Apostles might not have left divers customs in divers places for some practices of less concernment or that in St. Hieroms time it was so hard to know when a custom of importance started if it began since the Apostles which could be scarce three hundred yeers In the last Chapter of his first Book he thinks it impossible to know the belief of the ancient Church either universal or particular touching any point of controversies now debated among us And truly as he understands the question he seems to have some reason for he professes that all the positive evidence out of Antiquity comes short of satisfying him unless we can make good that no one did in those daies secretly hold the contrary a proof that certainly none but a mad man would either expect of another or himself attempt Nevertheless this he exacts of us and therfore cites St. Hierom for the equality of Priests and Bishops though he writes expresly against it and the place he cites clearly speaks of the confusion of the names of Presbyter and Episcopus Likewise when St. Hierom testify's some Bishops held with Vigilantius he thinks that sufficient to make St. Hieroms side not universal as if Bishops could not be Hereticks He adds St. Hierom by his passionate speeches against Vigilantius derogats from the authority of his testimony I believe him if he speaks of his own party who are easily perswaded to diminish the credit of Fathers but not if he mean among Catholicks who think the modern Heretiks no better then Vigilantius and his followers Thus have we briefly pass'd over his first Book THE SIXTH SURVEY How the Authority of Fathers is infallible Yet these last five Chapters and the whole next Book will put us to the pains of explicating what Authority Catholiks give the Fathers towards decision of controversies and how they are to argue out of them if they intend to conclude any opposite opinion an Heresy To be as short and clear in this point as I can I shall begin with some propositions wherin I believe all sides agree First that the Fathers as particular Authors might erre and no one 's single testimony how eminent soever is sufficient to make a necessary Verity upon the sole account of being his judgment Secondly that seldom or never in any controversy the Fathers cited for one part are so many as to make the doctrin deliver'd a matter of Faith out of this precise reason that it is their opinion For though their multitude should arrive to the full sum of three hundred yet it exceeds not the number of Heretiks nay even Heretik Bishops who unanimously conspir'd to oppose the Catholick Faith If then all certainty of things contingent and fallible in their individuals depend upon universality and the number we discours of though great yet consider'd in its own immediate force make but a particular it cleerly follows No question can be evidently convinc'd by the pure numerosity of produced Fathers Thus far I conceive both parties are bound to consent My third proposition therfore is If a certain number of Fathers be sufficient to convince the universality of an opinion in the Church how little soever that number be 't is strong enough to support an Article of Faith not because it is their opinion but the Churches attested by them to be the Faith of the Church and by the Church to be Christs And thus remains declared what Authority Catholiks attribute to the Fathers in reference to deciding Controversy's The next point is about the exercise of this Authority how a Catholick writer may by the testimony of Fathers conclude the general Faith of the Church and consequently the infallibility of the point controverted For which we must lay these grounds First that it has always been the nature of the Catholik Church to decline communion with those Churches she esteem'd erroneons in any material point as Idolatry Superstition and the like upon which pretences our modern presumers for Reformation have separated themselvs from the present Catholik Church wherfore if there be convincing testimonies that any one particular Church so known and considerable that the neighbouring Provinces must needs take notice of its publick customs embraces any doctrin or practice yet remains still peaceably in communion with the Vniversal 't is therby convinc'd the whole Catholick Church held the same not to be Idolatrous Superstitious c. If then the point be of such a nature that one part of the contradiction must necessarily be receiv'd and the other rejected it unavoydably follows the whole Church in that Age was of the same judgment with the particular one Nor is the evidence of this proposition built upon some scrap of an ancient Writer mis-interpreted as our Adversaries would infer the
more known and consequently not all deriv'd by Tradition But if we should answer that disputing betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks is on the Catholick part no other then proving and defending those points which were deriv'd by Tradition and found in Christian action and behaviour this argument were cut up by the roots and all pretence and colour of it taken away Which is the very truth of the business this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots the Catholick Religion securely possesses the World and upon such opposition is at first surpriz'd and the Divines perhaps put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads who easily conceit themselvs wiser then their forefathers and scorn authority unless reason proportion'd to their capacity or humour marshal it in Nevertheless because disputing cannot chuse but bring to light some deductions consequent to the first principally-defended Position I shall not deny the Church may come to know somwhat which haply before she never reflected on But then those new truths belong to the science we call Theology not to Faith and even for those the Church rely's on Tradition as far as they themselvs emerge from doctrins deliver'd by Tradition so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin is that by much canvasing more cleer proofs and answers are discovered or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries acquir'd Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope Iohn 22. from being an Heretick though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God before the day of Judgment because the Church had not as yet defin'd any thing concerning it I confess many more might be produc'd deprehended in the like actions and before all St. Austin excusing St. Cyprian on the same score Now to draw a conclusion from hence this is to be added that surely if there had been a Tradition neither the Pope nor St. Cyprian could be ignorant of it and therfore not excusable upon that account But in truth I wonder this point is no harder press'd for if any would take pains and look into our Schoolmen they might find very many of them maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some points not clearly express'd in Scripture whence it seems to follow they build not the whole body of their Faith upon Tradition For satisfaction of this difficulty I must note there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we do so The Platonists and Peripateticks are divided about the manner of vision Aristotle teaching that the object works upon the eye Plato that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm the Platonists saw in one fashion the Peripateticks in another Some as I fear may be experienc'd in too many of our modern Scepticks are of this desperate and unreasonable opinion that we have no maxims evident by Nature but contradictories may be true at once the rest of Philosophers think otherwise yet we see in all natural and civil actions both sides proceed as if those maxims were evident and irresistable So likwise there is a wide distance betwixt these two questions what a man relys on for his assent of Faith what he says or thinks he relys on Look but among the Protestants or other Sectaries they are al taught to answer they rest wholly on the Bible the Bible for their Faith but nine parts of ten seek no farther then the Commands of their own Church that is all those who either cannot read or make it not their study to be cunning in the Scriptures or have so much modesty as to know themselvs unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text who perhaps are not the less numerous but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants Whence farther it is clear that to ask on what a private person grounds his belief and on what the Church is yet a more different question especially if you enquire into what he thinks the Church resolvs her faith For supposing the Church as to some verity should rely on Scripture or Councils a Divine may know the Church holds such a position and yet though of a just size of learning not know or at least not remember on what ground she maintains it and in that case no doubt but his faith stands on the same foundation with that of the Church yet he cannot perhaps suddenly tel whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils To conclude therfore this demand whether Bellarmin himself rely'd on Tradition for all points has not the least resemblance with this other whether he thought the Church did so And to come yet closer to the question 't is evident every believer under that notion as a believer is unlearned and ignorant For as such he rests upon his teacher who in our present case is undoubtedly the Church as Catholick and Apostolick so far therfore the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority As for the other part of the interrogatory on what he thinks the Church rely's for her doctrin it may be enquir'd either in common or particular In common relating generally to the body and substance of Catholick doctrin there is no doubt among Catholicks but their reliance is upon Tradition this being the main profession of great and smal learned and unlearned that Christian Religion is and has been continued in our Church since the days of our Saviour the very same faith the Apostles taught all Nations and upon that score they receive it Speaking thus therfore no Catholick makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition There remains now only what learned men think concerning the ground wheron the Church rely's in some particular cases which we have already shewn concerns not their private belief as 't is the foundation of their spiritual life for so they rely on the Church and what the Church rely's on and by consequence it will prove but a matter of opinion in an unnecessary question belonging purely to Theology not Faith whatever is said in it Whence Divines in this may vary without any prejudice to the Church or salvation either in private or in order to Government seeing the main foundation is surely establisht that every believer as such rely's on the Church immediatly This difficulty therfore is so far resolv'd that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point since it follows not that the Church or any particular member therof rely's on such a ground no not Bellarmin himself though he conceive in some points the Church rely's on Scripture or Councils But since St. Austin marches in the head of this Troop for defence of St. Cyprian let us proceed with more diligence and respect in reconciling the difficulty We are to remember 't is
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
reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
two so potent Kings could so little prevail towards it For all that was done had only this design to appeas the seditions sprung up in Sivil by occasion of a Dominicans Conclusions in which he affirm'd that our Lady was Conspurcata with Original sin But the controversy was so uncivilly carried that it scandaliz'd our English Merchants as one of them there present told me not long after meeting him at Dunkirk But because this objection is much urged let us see the probabilities of its being defin'd The first is that the maintainers of the Affirmative are only a few of one Order and some few taught by them But if good account be made I believe these few will prove some thousand or fifteen hundred of the most learned in the Christian world Their Order is known to have always been the flower of the Schools to have had the Inquisition many ages in their hands to have a stile of Divinity of a higher strain then ordinary by their great study and adhesion to the Doctrin of St. Thomas of Aquine Their Monasteries numerous especially in Spain and Italy no great Convent wherin there are not a dozen or more grave and learned Divines almost all the honours amongst them being distributed according to the probate of ability in knowledg so that the Order is no contemptible part of the Learning of the Church Neither is it credible their Schollars can be few much less as this Author passionatly terms them unus et alter He objects farther the subscriptions of many Prelates Orders and Universities the general acclamation of the people the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals That some Universities oblige the Schollars to make vows to maintain the negative and in a word that the Affirmers hold against the whole Church Nor do I doubt that many Prelates Orders and Universities subscribed the Negative and peradventure to the Petition or that the people who follow the greater cry did demand the same but that the Affirmers held against the whole Church I totally deny and shew manifestly the contrary For Buls having been accepted and standing in force by which all Censure against the Affirmative is forbidden and no one syllable obtain'd any way derogatory to the probability of the opinion but generally a caveat to the contrary expresly put into such instruments and the Defenders of the negative submitting to them 't is clear that all the maintainers of the Negative alow the Affirmative to be probable and by consequence not against the consent of the Church since it seems to imply a flat contradiction that the Church should believe a Negative to be true and yet at the same time admit the affirmative may be true Now as for Universities there are entire ones for the Affirmative and that not on the score of St. Thomas but of the Fathers What Universities strive for the Negative so ranckly as to make men take vows I know not The Article of Paris as I hear is only that they shal not teach it in the University els-where every one is free As for hindring scandals 't is a necessary part of Government but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths according to the inclinations of the people push'd on by the clamours of violent Preachers Notwithstanding all this our adversary presumes this very point may prove an Article of Faith especially if a Council should meet about the decision wherin he proceeds with a very high confidence it being as he thinks now ready to topple into a matter necessary to salvation But I am far from that mind for I see the fervours of the Schools are a quite different thing from the judgments of the Church and how little all those tumults moved the Court of Rome and certainly would have made far less impression in a general Council The controversy betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans what a busle makes it in the School and in the world while it stands upon the fairer tongue upon motives esteemable by the people and meer plausibilities Wheras coming to be examin'd before the Pope in Congregations it could not hold water but the weaker part was forc'd to break off the cours of judgment by mingling Princes quarrels into Ecclesiastical questions I dare confidently say if the Point of our Ladies Conception were to be handled either in a Council or grave Congregation the party that free her setting aside the passions of Princes would be distressed to find an argument that themselvs should hope would endure the discussing And so the pretty gradations of our imaginative adversaries who so easily frame a ladder for this opinion to climb up into a matter of Faith is like an odd attempt of an acquaintance of mine who being come out of Lancashire to go beyond-sea and repuls'd at Dover for want of a Pass put off his hose and shooes and began to wade into the sea when being asked what he meant he answer'd he would go on foot since they would not let him pass in the Boat for said he I have often waded through the Beck at my Fathers door when the bridg was taken away By which counterfeiting of simplicity he got to be admitted into the ship wheras those who make their argument from the School-discussions to Church-definitions will if I am not mistaken remain on the wrong side of the water THE NINTH ENCOUNTER Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition THe third argument is drawn from this Waddings proceedings and his consorts with the addition of another not unlearned man according to the cours of these times who puts Scripture and definitions of the Church to be the adaequate ground into which our Faith is resolv'd Besides 't is urg'd that even those who speak of Tradition seek it not in the testimony of the present Church but of the ancient Fathers This being already answer'd in the sixth Objection we need not here add much to it For what imports it if Wadding and his associates understood not upon what grounds the Church uses to resolve and decide controversies and therfore bring Revelations Metaphorical expressions of Scripture the cry of the people a multitude of School Divines and the like arguments so that in their lives and believing or acting as Christians they proceed not out of these grounds but by the Colliers principle rely on the Church and by her on what she rely's Galilaeo dislikes the notions of wet and dry which Aristotle gives do they therfore disagree or not know one anothers meaning when they talk of a wet and dry cloth Among our modern Philosophers great quarrels there are about the explication of time and place yet this hinders not but that in common discours when they speak of years and days Country's and Towns they make a shift to understand one another The reason is because these conceptions used in ordinary discours are planted in them by nature the same objects working the same effect upon souls of one
connexion as the severest discourses of those Philosophers yet the style wherin they are couch'd in the Bible is accommodated to vulgar capacities and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration But because no controversy can be clear and fit for decision unless it be prepar'd by an exact and rigorous stating the Question I first intend to set down my own sentiment which I conceive is also that of the Catholick Church and afterward what I collect to be the opinion of my Adversaries leaving them this free and just liberty to correct me if I mistake their mind First then we Catholiks no way doubt but the Scripture is the word of God and of infallible truth if rightly understood and that whoever being out of the Church receives the Scripture in that quality the ground of such reception if rational can be no other then because we taught him so and deliver'd it to him as such For I do not intend to dispute against those Spiritati who by an Enthusiastical light can judge of Scripture without sense and reason And to those who pretend either Fathers or other Christians out of our Church I answer my meaning is to comprehend in our Church the Fathers for so goes our position and consequently all Sects either receiv'd the Scripture immediately from us or from those who received it from us Secondly we doubt not but the Scripture is highly profitable for the enablement of Preachers to teach reprove confirm in all points of Catholik doctrin both concerning Speculation and Practice and by consequence that the Church were not so thoroughly furnisht for all kind of exigenccis without it for which reason it is of particular usefulness and indeed necessity to the Church Thirdly we confesse the Bible contains all parts of Catholik Doctrine in this sense that all Catholik doctrin may be found there by places and arguments be deducted thence nay more be topically or Oratorially proved out of it so that if an able Preacher be in a Pulpit where he speaks without contradiction with a full and free scope he may meerly discoursing out of Scripture carry any point of Catholik doctrin before the generality of his Auditory and convince at the present such a part of them as either are but indifferently speculative or have not taken pains in the question Fourthly I affirm that if any point be brought to an eristicall decision before Judges where the parties on both sides are obstinately bent to defend their own positions by all the art they can imagin so the question be not which part is true but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture the Catholik position may be victoriously evidenced by arguments purely drawn from thence compared and valued according to true Criticism without ayd of Fathers explications or any other extrinsecal helps Thus far I esteem all good Catholiks ought to hold and believe that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe de facto hold Now then to come to the true difference betwixt our Adversaries and us I understand it consists in this That having stated a material point as whether that which we see and touch in the Eucharist be truly Christs body or only a figure of it it self remaining substantially Bread and that this question be to be handled contentiously before Judges each party pretending to convince and demonstrate by quotation of places critically exalted to their highest force whether the Scripture I say be a sufficient Storehouse to furnish either side with Texts unavoidable and convincing beyond any shadow of reply in the judgement of sworn and expert judges who are wel practis'd what convincing signifies and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences This is that wherin I engage the Catholik Negative and suppose all Adversaries must hold the Affirmative And the first reason of my supposition is because I never see them attempt any other way of disputing but out of Scripture nor yet in that do they use so fair play as to put the places which favour them on the page of receipts and those which Catholiks bring to the contrary upon that of expences and then having by rules of good Criticism examined the qualities of both prefer that party which is more deserving Next I know not how that man dare shew his face before any person of common sense who shal first acknowledg he goes against the opinion of the whole present Age wherin he lives against the undoubted testimony of a thousand years before him against the known laws both spiritual and temporal publikely renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate empower'd by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws that shal accuse all his kindred Ancestors and whole Country of blindness and ignorance and pretend all the world is bound to desert them and follow him and this in a matter concerning no less an interest then Eternity and after all this so arrogant bawling and high demands being ask'd what evidence what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world shal be forc'd to confess he can but play at cross and pile with them to know which of the two sentences is true which fals For setting aside real and irrefragable conviction what is there left in speculation but meer contingency Now this strange boldness this incredible presumption was undeniably Luthers case and if his then certainly all his followers For neither is the weight and authority of so many ages become less pressing and efficacious against his adherents nor their first plea improved or amended but rather weaken'd if by his and all his fellows labours as yet no evidence is produced an infallible sign none is likely ever to be made Nor is the change of temporal laws and Princes any motive to him that goes upon pure reason and seriously ayms at the good of his soul. Again he whose discours is not convincing and yet wil be medling with truths of highest importance is either ignorant of that defect and then he deserves the name of a rash temerarious fellow that dares in a matter of such consequence advance Propositions by passion or precipitation whose quality himself understands not or else he knows he does not convince then let him at the beginning of his Sermon express so much and tel his Auditors he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation and propose new Tenets about it but in very deed he can neither prove the old Tenets are false nor those which he shall propose to be true Can any one think if the Auditory have either wit enough to discover so grosse an Impostor or never so little honesty to care what becoms of their souls or love to Christianity they wil not with great indignation pull his jump o're his eares and tumble him out of his Pulpit Now what difference is there so the mischief be done
whether it be foretold the people or no saving that to conceal the wrong is a more wicked and destructive piece of cunning Another consideration is that in practical things more probability approaches to certainty and by multiplication contingencie at last begets perfect Necessity but in speculation not so For as there is more probability to throw seven upon two dice in forty trials then in foure so in five hundred most certainly that cannot fail to be the cast the reason is because the number of casting so exceeds the variety of chances that it makes first a difficulty and after an impossibility of missing Now in speculation if no particular cause precisely compel and determine the effect variety can prevail nothing so that rigorously speaking a conclusion is no neerer being true for a hundred unconvincing Arguments then for one whence it follows where there is no demonstration neither Opinion is securely the better He therfore that pretends the introduction of a change in a speculative point ought either to promise evidence and conviction or else content himself with silence for 't is absurd to move any one to change his assent I speak not here of a practicall resolution without promising him some abetterment Lastly as far as I can penetrate he that has a changeable and uncertain Religion has none at all For I conceive a Religion as we now discourse of it is the knowledge by which we are to guide our selves in our way and progress towards eternal felicity so that if the Religion any one professes be not the true he cannot by its principles perform what is requisite to the gaining of that end Neither is any knowledge which such a Probablist has the right and proper means of cultivating his soul in order to future happiness and therfore it is as impossâ—ble an untrue Religion should lead to Heaven as a fals way to London Now if a Religion that is not true be no Religion he that doubts whether he has the true is in doubt whether he has any Religion or none and he that pretends no farther then to doubt about Religion pretends not to know he has any but the act of knowing cannot be had if he that has it does not know he has it therfore he that pretends not to know he has a Religion confesses himself to have none The same is clear in practice For suppose an Apothecary had compos'd a drug for his Patient but being incertain whether to administer it like a potion or a glister should sometimes give it one way sometimes the other or a Guide having undertaken to conduct a Stranger thorow some untroden Wildernes for want of assurance which way to take should lead him up and down as in a Maze first to the left hand then to the right were not these excellent Masters in their crafts and worthy of continual imployment but with this condition that they practised their Arts upon none but one another Then if Religion be the knowledge of conducting our souls to heaven is not he like to make good speed that acknowledges himself incertain of the way who to day marches forwards and to morrow goes as much backward to day confesses and adores Christ in the Eucharist to morrow blasphemes him and damns all that adore him to day prays to Saints bears respect to a Crucifix and a compassion to the dead to morrow cries out against all as Idolatry Superstition and meer inventions of lucre Still there remains with me one other scruple about this point Divers great Brains have undertaken the commendations of things which mankind is so far from delighting in that very few can endure them this aversion rising out of a judgement not taken up by humour but taught by nature which justly abhors all that diminishes or destroys its being as Blindness Folly Sickness and the like and contrived many perswasive forms and witty inducements to invegle their Auditory into an evident absurdity Others we find who by whole Sects maintain'd that all propositions were indifferent and their practice was of every subject to speak copiously and plausibly on both sides and this in good earnest out of a setled belief that they could make which side they pleasd the more probable I ask then whether the probability either of these two sorts of wits bring for their paradoxes be sufficient to chuse a point in Religion If you say I What imports it in any point which part you take that is whether you have any Religion or none If you say no what means do you prescribe us to know when a probability is great enough or who 's he that is able to judge the degrees of probability when they are sufficient and when not Peradventure you may say In the first case the evidence of nature shews their probability to be clearly absurd and I could answer why may not Nature sometimes be deceiv'd as Anaxagoras would perswade us when he maintain'd Snow was black but I need not 'T is enough to remember The questions of Religion are concerning actions whose effects appear not to us and yet ordinarily the effects are the chief means to frame arguments and produce certainty in practice that the cause is right 'T is enough to remember eternall blisse belongs to the next world and the Mysterys we dispute are such as the Son of God only has seen and brought us tydings of But what wil you say to the second sort of disputers who equall all probabilities and are men against whose eloquence erudition and prudence in other things you cannot except To all this I can yet add one plain but very confiderable reflexion that certainly to prove any position those wild capricious Brains cannot find weaker places for their arguments then a mute ambiguous dead writing not quickned with reason and discourse which yet is the boasted ground of all that renounce the infallibility of the Church in matters of supernaturall belief THE SIXTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture THe case thus stated we have won the field If I have err'd in framing the question let them correct it with these two conditions that they propose it so as to leave themselves a Relâ—gion and different from ours for unless both these subsist the quarrel betwixt us is at an end But if I have rightly exprest the point in controversie let them bring one place of Scripture that comes home to the question and carry the Bays Their position must include these two branches That Scripture is intended for a ground to decide Controversies in such a contentious way as I have set down and sufficient to perform this charge For the former I dare confidently affirm there is not in the whole Bible an expression so much as glances towards it And though the second includes the first and can have no verity nor subsistence without it yet since there are some who discovering not the first can perswade themselves they finde the second we wil
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
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
not let it be known when she has defin'd of it self falls flat to the ground both because I take not that way and if I did since we are not troubled about knowing our Churches Definitions who have the burthen of obeying and do it in practice the Objectors are confuted as Diogenes did Zeno when he disputed against motion by walking before him For all this the Church of Rome must not escape yet And so we are told that if she were design'd for the Pharos to know the rest of the Church by somwhat had been advan'd for otherwise say they we can assign no mark of the true Church the Roman being deny'd to be such as we make her First I answer we have no need of recourse to the Church of Rome it being the infallible distinctive sign of the Church to lay claim to the handed Doctrin or Tradition which evidently appears cannot be claim'd by two For if two agree in a point to day and one dissent to morrow it were madness to say the disagreer can lay claim to yesterdays opinion Secondly we say if we would fly to the Roman Church the oppositions force us not from it For why is not Cardinal Perrons answer to Plessis invincible that the whole Church condemn'd St. Cyprians proceedings Likewise the Asian Bishops were condemn'd in the Council of Nice The African Bishops question was about the enacting a Law which nevertheless was carried for the Bishop of Rome If the Fathers remit us to the Apostolical Churches whose successions were then visible and evident what 's that to us now when all successions are interrupted save only that of the Roman Church The definition of the Council of Calcedon is known to be only the conspiracy of a Cabal never approved as legitimate but revers'd afterwards So that all these angry darts turn their points against their Authors the judgment in every instance having past in favour of the Church they oppose But this question concerning the Church of Rome is of greater extent and importance then to be huddled up in one sheet of Paper Therfore let us leave Her to the acknowledg'd Majesty she possesses in the Christian world and not by slight objections and answers rather seem to undervalue her Dignity then either oppose or defend her Authority You present us therfore next with what is kept for the closing of our stomacks and they are two dishes One that at last we Catholicks resolve into Reason as well as Protestants To this I answer if you mean we must see Reason why we give credit to Authority I agree with you But then since Reason is on both sides Why say you must it be a Wall to us and a Bulrush to others I le tell you Reason has two parts Demonstration and Sophistry and in Demonstrations that evidence which governs our Lives is the most familiar to us and consequently besides its firmness 't is the most clear and least denyable Now this proposition that we ought to believe a knowing person in that wherin our selvs are ignorant is of this nature a Maxime that governs all our life publick and private wherfore our ground or Reason is a wall a rock or if any thing be yet more solid On the other side of all parts of Sophistry that which is built on broken ends of obscure sentences of dead men who cannot declare themselvs is the most weak and contemptible and this being that you rely on Reason therfore to you is weaker and more deceitful then any Bul-rush The second dish is that whatever is deliver'd in defence of the Church of Rome only proves that as yet she is the true Church not that she cannot leave the way she is in and fall to reform as her adversaries cal it or that there may not happen some Shism among the Churches now adhering to her where both parts may claim Tradition and then where is the guide To this I answer I will not weigh the proofs of others for the eternity of the particular Church of Rome since there is no contest betwixt us here about that but those who are acquainted with controversies cannot be ignorant that our writers intend to prove Her indefectibility All I 'le say is did you but agree with us that she is at present the true Church it would be argument enough for you to submit til the cases happen which you suppose possible and I should think my self too grating and severe towards a Person in other respects extreamly recommendable if I should press harder then so upon him nor could I desire a repast more delightful to my soul then to have seen that in practice concerning him which is now too late to be hoped THE FOURTEENTH ENCOUNTER Four other Arguments revers'd SUch is the condition of Religion when the liberty of chusing is permitted to all that have the boldness to challeng it who having no other Scales to poise any arguments propos'd them then the affection to their own wils or prejudice against others reasons suffer every light objection to overballance the most weighty and solid Demonstration Therfore am I forc'd to follow certain other Adversaries my chase not being confin'd only to the noble game into every by-turn and beat every little bush where either the necessity of a desperate cause the fables of some wild Reporter or the craft of any jugling Hypocrite can drive them to hide their weak heads in As for reason in our present business they tel you every one is born in liberty to Religion and til it be demonstrated he is bound to acknowledg some Teacher the presumption stands for liberty and 't is meerly of curtesy and graciousness they take the pains to bring arguments for the Negative This I shal answer as the Caprich of some pragmatical Chaplain not having incivility enough to entertain the least suspition that so great a Wit stored with Art in so busy a time about questions of government should bring forth so mishapen a Monster But alas what cannot an unruly fancy that bites the bridle of reason Say then my young Divines of Politick of Paternal government what you say of Religion Is not the absurdity so palpable it wil make you asham'd That no child is bound to honour Father and Mother till it be demonstrated to him he ought to do so No Subject to obey the Magistrate til after a long dispute his power be evidently proved legitimate Pass from these to Arts and say every one may play the Physitian the Pilot the Judg for Doctor of Divinity you freely give your licence to all the world without having any Master or Teacher what a goodly Common-wealth you wil make But 't is reply'd Nullum tempus occurrit veritati no more then Regi since veritas fortior est Rege I Sir but in your major you put veritas and in your minor falsitas For what is your truth when you come to declare your self but probable arguments of which nothing is more certain then that