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
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
they think fittest to cleave to For Rushworth has declared his opinion sufficiently and it is clear enough what all they must say Catholiks or Protestants who think the Scripture needs Explicators to make a point certain Neither can we doubt of this if we look into the actions of the Catholik Church where we see an Heretick is term'd so for chusing an Opinion against the Faith certainly received and in possession of the Church from which he separates himself But this separation is at the beginning of the errour and before the interposure of the Church He is therefore an Heretick before any decision makes him so THE TENTH ENCOUNTER That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chiliasts BEsides the objections we have already endeavoured to answer some other instances are urged As of Origen whose doctrin being explicated in such large volumes how an Adversary can draw it into the compass of Tradition or how it can be argued that the condemning of him was a breach of Tradition I know not But chiefly they insist upon the Chiliasts errour as an unquestionable Apostolicall Tradition To try the busines let us remember we cal'd Tradition the handling of a doctrin preach'd and setled in the Church of God by the Apostles down to later ages Now then to prove the Chiliad opinion was of that nature the first point is to evince that it was publish'd and setled by the Apostles the contrary whereof is manifest out of Eusebius History who relates that the root of it was a by-report collected by Papias a good but credulous and simple man His goodness surpris'd St. Irenaeus who as may be infer'd out of his Presbyteri meminerunt learned it of Papias for the plural number does not infer that there was more then one as all know that look into the nature of words or if there were more they may be such as had it from Papias St. Justin the Martyr esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher then the common since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholy of his own mind for no man can think another right in any position wherein he dissentes from him Nay he shews that the Jew against whom he disputes suspected his truth as not believing any Christian held this opinion so rare was it among Christians nor does he ever mention Tradition for it but proves it meerly out of the Prophets Whence it appears there is no ground or probability this was ever a Tradition or any other then the opinion of some Fathers occasioned by Papias and confirm'd by certain places of Scripture not wel understood most errours being indeed bolster'd up by the like misapplications a scandal that ever since the practice of the Tempter upon Christ himself may wel be expected to importune Christians But first is objected in behalf of the Chiliasts that they had no Tradition against them To which I reply A contrary Tradition might be two waies in force against them one formally as if it had been taught by the Apostles directly Christ shall not raign upon earth a thousand yeers as a temporall King The other that something incompossible with such a corporal raign was taught by Them and of this I finde two one general another particular the generall one is that the pleasures and rewards promised to Christians are spiritual and the whol design of the Christian Law aims at the taking away all affections towards corporal Objects whereas this Errour appoints corporal contentments for the reward of Martyrs and by consequence either encreases or at least fosters the affection to bodily pleasures and temporal goods The particular one is that Christ being ascended to Heaven is to remain there till the universal judgment Wherfore it is evident by the later that it is against Tradition and by the former that it is not only so but a Mahumetan or at least a Jewish errour drawing men essentially to damnation as teaching them to fix all their hopes and expectance hereafter on a life agreeable to the appetites of flesh and blood 'T is opposed also that the Fathers of the purest Ages receiv'd it as deliver'd from the Apostles A fair Parade but if we understand by the Fathers One St. Irenaeus and him deluded by the good Zeal of Papias as Eusebius testifies but good even to folly for lesse cannot be said of it where is the force of this so plausible argument Adde to this that the very expression of Ireneus proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a Story not a Tradition a Tradition as we have explicated it being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning There follows Justin Martyr's testimony That All Orthodox Christians in his age held it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they are not so different but one may be taken for the other Neverthelesse there is no such saying in Justin for however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may pass one for the other yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has by Ecclesiastical use an appropriation to the Catholik or Christian right believers which descends not from the Primitive and so cannot be transfer'd to the Derivatives from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither fairly nor truly translated Orthodox No more does it help the Adversaries cause that Justin compares the maintainers of the conrary opinion to the Sadduces among the Jews For he mentions two sorts of persons denying his position wherof one he resembles to the Sadduces the other he acknowledges to be good Christians and says they are many or in the eloquent usage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commonalty of Christians Nor wil the next Objection give us much trouble That none oppos'd the Millenary errour before Dionysius Alexandrinus To which we apply this answer First for any thing we know it was hidden and inconsiderable till his time and then began to make a noise and cause people to look into it Secondly there are probable Motives to perswade it was impugn'd long before For it being clear that both Heretiks and Catholiks sustain'd the contrary we cannot wel suppose it was never contradicted till then though the report of it came not to their ears since who considers the few monuments we have of these first Ages must easily discern the hundred part is not deriv'd to us of what was then done But lastly admit there was no writing against it till Dionysius Alexandrinus does it follow there was no preaching neither As little can be gathered out of St. Hierom's being half afraid to write against it both because he did write against it as is
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
St. Paul Who speaking to the Galathians protested that whoever circumcis'd himself as a thing necessary or because of the old Commandment was bound to keep the whole Judaical law So say I whoever condemns Images upon this prohibition of Moses is bound to keep all the law of the Jews For if these words be a law to us because they are written in theirs all that 's written in their law must be so to us since he that made one made all and for whom he made one and deliver'd it to them for them he made and deliver'd all the rest as one entire body of law to be observ'd by them He therfore that counts himself bound by this Law must if he have common sense esteem himself equally obliged to all the rest Upon the same reason hangs the keeping of the Sabhath day for of all the Decalogue these are the only two points unrepeated in the new Testament so that all the rest we are bound to accept in vertue of that but these two we cannot Wherfore whoever holds The Sabbath day is commanded by God either does so because he finds it in the old Law and to him I protest he ought in consequence to this judgment submit to all that law and become a Jew or els because he finds it in observation among Christians that is in Tradition and to him I protest he is bound to embrace all that comes down by Tradition namely the whole Roman Catholick Faith Therfore every rigorous observer of the Sabbath is bound in common sense either to be a Jew or a Catholick To make an end I know our adversaries alledg many sentences of Fathers to prove the sufficiency of Scripture wherof the most part I am sure are as far beside the state of the question as those places of Scripture we come now from examining However I finde my self not concern'd to look into them pretending no farther at this present then to consider the ground upon which those I oppose rely for their assurance that Scripture is sufficient to decide controversies according to the state of the question as it is proposed Now because they reject wholly the Authority of Fathers from a definitlve sentence in matter of Faith it is impossible for them if they are not quite Bedlams to rely on their Authority for acceptance of Scripture for what can be imagin'd more palpably absurd then to receive upon their credit the whole Rule of Faith and yet not take their words for any one Article of Faith and consequently what can be imagin'd more vain and fruitless then for me to lose my labour in striving to shew that Protestants have no colour from Antiquity to expect this al-deciding power in Scripture whilst themselvs aver the whole multitude of Fathers is not capable of giving a sufficient testimony for their relyance on Scripture since therfore there is nothing like a ground in Scripture and they scorn all ground except Scripture I must leave them to the freedom of doing it without ground FINIS DAILLÈS ARTS DISCOVER'D OR His RIGHT USE Prov'd A Down-right ABUSE Of the FATHERS By THO. WHITE Gent. EZECH 13. 12. Ecce cecidit Paries nunquid non dicetur vobis Vbi est litura quam linistis Printed in the Yeare 1654. DAILLè's Arts DISCOVER'D THE FIRST SURVEY Of the nature and subject of Daille's Book HAving clos'd the precedent Treatise which this consideration that since Protestants disavow to be determin'd by the authority of Fathers I had just title to decline any farther search into those reverend Witnesses of our ancient Faith being a task that would require some labour of me to do and yield no profit to them when done Yet I easily observ'd that as my excuse to indifferent Persons will defend me from the imputation of being troubled with the Writing-Itch so it seems to engage my clearing my self of a far more important charge which otherwise might occasion some passionate or captious spirits to fix this scandal upon me that I acknowledge not the judgment of Antiquity an injurious aspersion which the French Daillè has actually endeavour'd to cast upon the whole Catholik Church in his abusive Treatise of the right use of the Fathers And because that Monsieur 's Book is Denizon'd among us by the adoption of those two great Secretaries whose names forc'd me into this imployment and rais'd to the esteem of being the source whence their streams took their current I cannot but give my Reader a hint concerning it for no other reason but only to make him understand what Great men are subject to when the luxuriousness of their wits carries them beyond the bounds of those professions they are skild in With this Note therfore we wil begin our discourse that Many great and nimble wits both ancient and modern have meerly for their recretation undertaken to plead the cause of natural defects and striven to set them above the opposite perfections like Aesop's Woolf who having lost his tail would perswade other Wolvs to cut off theirs too as unnecessary burdens But nature contradicting this Art and by a perpetuall current of impressions forcing us to the contrary belief such quaint discourses gain no more credit then Prismatical glasses in which we are pleasd to know our selvs delightfully cosen'd Now what in these men is only a Caprich of wit and gayness of humor were it applied to a business of high concern and which could not be judg'd by our senses but requir'd a deep penetration to distinguish right from wrong would certainly be a most pernicious and insufferable wickedness a trap to ensnare and ruin all the weak and unlearn'd whom either the cunning of Logick can deceive or sweetnesse of Rhetorick inveagle But being arriv'd already within sight of my designed Port I beg my Reader to believe me of that discretion as not easily to lanch forth again into the main Ocean of a new bottomless controversy and therfore I shall only essay to decipher the quality of the Treatise in common leaving its strict perusal to them that are more at leisure and have their Noses better arm'd for raking in a dunghil To make then a neerer approach to the work I shal begin with the Author's intention which aims at no lesse then this bold and desperate attempt To disable the Fathers from being Judges in the Controversies of this present Age. Let us enquire the true and genuine sense of this proposition And first who are signifi'd by the word Fathers For this he assigns us three Ages from Christ to Constantine from Constantine to Gregory the great and from Him to Vs. Now this last part though it contains a thousand yeeres he cuts off from the score of Fathers and much more puls them out of the Bâ—nch of Judges the middle division he grumbles at as not being worthy of or at most hardly admittable to that appellation the first Age alone he freely acknowledges By what Criticism he does this I am not able to
Canons of Nice and after the matter was examin'd bore the Cause in force of them and continu'd on to posterity still the same denomination This is that solemn Forgery he decries with so loud a clamor and concluds his vehemency with so notorious a falshood that every three-penny Controvertist can spit in his face For he says that even now a great part of Christendom holds and 't is generally urg'd by all that the Popes Authority in Appeals was first given him by the Council of Nice wheras the most ordinary opinion is that 't is jure divino and those that look on jus positivum are so cunning as to distinguish the Council of Nice from that of Sardica and in that of Nice seek only a Testimony of what was in use before the Council not a Guift of this Authority His next accusation concerns certain writings that both the Catholiks and pretenders to Reformation agree to be Counterfeit which how little it imports our Controversie since neither party grounds any doctrin upon them needs not be express'd Another sort he counts for Forgery when Catholiks among themselvs question certain pieces of ancient Authors in which case he still joyns himself to that part of Catholiks that refuses to admit such passages for legitimate and then immediately charges all the rest who receive them with downright forgery which is the same as to call all men Knaves that are not of his side as if no real and just doubt could be made of Authors by sober and vertuous persons but all must be imputed to malice so that this exception is plainly a peevish and shallow cavil and besides no waies available to his purpose since that which is in real doubt among Catholiks can be no argument against Heretiks He that has patience enough to take notice of these qualities in his Chapter of Forgery and see that besides this he has nothing in it but aiery discourses in common how writings may be corrupted cannot chuse but say Movet Cornicula risum Furtivis nudata coloribus And yet suppose all he endeavours were true in abstracto there remains stil the application wherein if he miscarry instead of pulling down the Fathers he lays himself in the dust for after never so many Books never so much disabled if we can finde a Library full of unsuspected and universally acknowledg'd Authors we sufficiently discover the impertinency and deceitfulness of this manner of proceeding Therfore to prevent this inconvenience our quaint Discourser raises two suspicions against the confest works of Fathers One of Corruption the other of Obscurity The former he begins from the escapes of Transcribers which as we cannot deny to have some force if spoken in common so apply'd to particulars we shall find little important to our purpose For if the question were of some two or three Sentences spoken by the by such perhaps might be suspected though not justly without better ground then a bare surmise because where the error of the Transcriber has its amplitude to happen in one of ten thousand lines to say it lights just here is a very weak conjecture unless there be more particular causes of jealousie alledg'd which may apply it to that place then follow from this common cours But when there are formall and set discourses or frequent and express passages to the same effect and purpose then this suspition has no weight at all and such is the case betwixt Catholiks and the Pretenders to Reformation At the next turn he would perswade us that St. Hierome Ruffinus and others who abridg'd certain Greek works in their translation did therby falsify the Authors afterward that the collections of Canons made either by Greeks or Latins are corruptions because they omitted such as they dislik'd or had no use of not understanding or dissembling his knowledge that such Books are not intended for Histories to tell us what pass'd but Rules for government and so to be fitted to the particular occasion taking what conduces to the writers purpose and leaving out such passages as are though in themselvs good yet impertinent to his designs In the same rank are Liturgies which being the publik prayers are subject to be enlarg'd contracted or changed according to the devotion of the people and prudence of the Pastors as we see daily practised and so are better testimonies for universality in their districts then of antiquity These therfore neither are corruptions nor make the sense of the Fathers more difficult for we can use but so much as we find in them and so far they are as authentical as any other whilst what is not there cannot be pressd out of them After these he produces some debates between the Latines and Greeks about falsifying certain passages whose quarrels it concerns not me to take up only I must note the brotherly correction he gives the Fathers in these words thus did they bandy stifly one against the other each of them as it may be easily perceiv'd having much more appearance of reason and truth in their accusation of their Adversary then in excusing or defending themselvs which is no less then a plain condemnation of all how ever disputable the case be in it self Now how many of such passages mutually objected justly deserv'd that calumniation and were not by the fervour of disputation only term'd so being in themselvs but mistakes and wrong informations is too long a business for the brevity I propose to my self Yet this also I may observe not without ground from Daillè himself that the true controversie concerning such abuses has been indeed between Catholiks and Heretiks but not Latins and Greeks in common for the Catholik Greeks stil accus'd their Hereticks of great corruption And this is reasonable because Catholiks having alwaies stood for and rely'd on Antiquity alwaies upbraided and condemn'd Hereticks as guilty of novelty it necessarily follows they were without question fully perswaded their opinion was the same with the Fathers and had a real and true evidence of it wheras Heretiks not esteeming Antiquity for it self but only for fear of scandalizing the generality of Christians who are stil brought up in a high reverence of it were bound to seek those waies that might satisfy as wel as deceive the people without any inward and hearty respect to the Fathers themselvs a charge this very Author justifies not to be uncharitably apply'd to such Innovators whilst his own chief endeavours strive to make us think the Fathers are like Epicurus's Gods Fine things in themselvs but hung so high their sound cannot reach us mortals here below upon Earth Neither indeed is the case of Ambition much unlike that of Heresie for those who encroach upon publik practices of former Ages are forc'd to use their utmost skil in falsifying all they can to obscure the evidence of what passed in the daies of their Ancestors One other particular wil challenge me if I go on without taking at least some little notice of it and