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
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
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
AN APOLOGY FOR RUSHWORTH'S DIALOGUES WHERIN The Exceptions of the Lords FALKLAND and DIGBY are answer'd AND The Arts of their commended DAILLé Discover'd By THO. WHITE Gent. Psal. 63. 8. Sagittae Parvulorum factae sunt plagae eorum A Paris Chez Jean Billain Ruë St. Jacques a l'ensign St. Augustin 1654. TO His ever Honoured Cosen Mr. ANDREW WHITE of the House of THUNDERSLEY Honour'd Cosen THough Kindred Education and known love all conspire to make me obnoxious to any good Counsel you please to give me yet the aversness I have from answering Books permitted me not in our last enterview to promise obedience to your directions But since that happines of seeing you an unanimous consent of other friends has made me more steadily reflect on what you desir'd and considering besides that the Doctrine of Rushworth's Dialogues takes a path not much beaten by our modern Controvertists I resolv'd to imitate the example of the penitent Son who after denial perform'd his Fathers commands Behold then here the brood hatcht and brought forth by your advice 'pray heaven it prove worthy your acknowledging which I say not to engage you in the patronage of what I deliver farther then truth shal convince your judgment or to make the World imagin these Conceptions may find shelter in your breast No I am as cruel to my writings as the Ostridge to her Eggs when once they are laid let nature play her part to foster or smother the Chickens as she pleases Let truth commend or condemn my sayings He that is ready to renounce falsity and acknowledge his weaknes is stronger then envy and beyond the shot of malice Neither have I occasion to suspect any imputation should fall upon you for this publishing my Present to you as I fear it happen'd to another friend For I apprehend I may have written here some Periods which none wil expect should be approved by you Only who understands the amplitude of your soule may know it is able to harbour with indifferency what is spoken against your own sense and consent it being the gift and task of a wise man Imperare liberis What I have perform'd wherin fail'd is your part to judg for my self I can profess I desire not to irritate the meanest person nor seek I the glory of oppugning the Greatest my ayne is to open and establish truth Frivolous and by-questions I have on set purpose avoided Whether all objections of moment are answered as I cannot affirm so I can protest I am no more conscious of declining any then of dissembling when I write my self Your affectionate Cosen and humble servant THO. WHITE Paris Sept. 21. 1652. A Second DEDICATION to the same Person Learned and by me ever to be honour'd Cosen T Is so long since the former Address to you was written that no wonder it should now be asham'd to come abroad without some excuse to justify the slowness of its pace which is no other then a simple protest that it has not stuck in my hands for at least a whol yeer and an half Upon these few words I could sit down and confidently promise my self your pardon But emergent imputations force me to a larger Apology The expedition in some other late Works of mine rendring the seeming neglect of this more obnoxious to exception as if I were rather ambitious to display the errors of some of our own side then the enormities of professed Enemies and your self are conceiv'd to have a part in this suspition Now since from that long and constant commerce you have stil maintain'd with true Vertue Learning I cannot but expect a great rationality and amplitude in your Soul even to bear with the defectuousnes of others as far as you see they govern themselvs by that measure of understanding which God affords them I find my self oblig'd to give you the best account I can of my proceedings which I doubt not wil prove so much an easier task as you with whom I am to deal are of a higher strain then our trivial discoursers for as I think those who set up their rest that there is no science to be attain'd by study are pardonable if they chuse opinions by pretence of devotion or reality of interest So I give my cause for lost if they be my Judges But I hope the great fire of truth which first kindled in my young breast a glowing of it and an earnestnes of seeking it in St. Thomas his way has not been by length of time as much quench'd in you as quickn'd in me and therfore with a ful confidence I represent my Case to you not doubting but the evidence I produce wil justifie if not the action it self at least the necessity I have to act as long as the present perswasion is not forc'd from me To come then to my Plea If St. Peter commands us to be ready to give satisfaction to all that shall ask it concerning the hope that is in us by which is meant our belief the basis and firm support of our hope If the design of all that meddle with this sort of study should chiefly aim to shew that the doctrins of Christianity are conformable to reason and such as a prudent Person though also learned may imbrace without prejudice either to his discretion or knowledge If the suggesting to our first parents that God sought to govern them like fools without the least discernment betwixt good or evil be the greatest and unworthiest calumny Satan himself could invent to charge upon the Almighty If it be the basest condition that can befal a rational Essence and the most contrary both to God and man whose natures consist in knowing and reasoning what can I conclude but that such Teachers as for ignorance or interest obstinately resolve in treating with those who are out of the Church to maintain opinions wherof no account can be made either out of Antiquity or Reason are unworthy the function they profess and highly obstructive to the progress of the Catholik faith You who have looked into the large Volumes of Controvertists on both sides cannot but know they are petty questions and the impugnances of private opinions that swel those vast Tomes into such an unweldy and intolerable bulk I 'm sure not only I but divers of my friends have had experience that those very opinions for opposing which I am exclaimd against have been the retardment of the most ingenious and disinteressed party of Protestants and that others who were become Catholiks out of a pure necessity which they saw of submitting themselvs to some unerring authority when they heard their faith declar'd in a rational way found themselvs eased as it were of chains and imprisonment and translated into a natural state and liberty I need not press how ulcers in our vitals are more dangerous then in our outward members and that we cannot convince others whilst our selvs are ignorant in the Points we pretend to teach them No wise
stand to wit that it was to finde out whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin But if I mistake not my Adversaries make not the same apprehension of it that I do They seem to take St. Austin for one Doctour peradventure a great one peradventure the chief but yet only one I apprehend him as the leading Champion of the Church in the Question of Grace whence it follows that the Doctrin of St. Augustin was the Doctrin of all those Catholick Writers by whose demonstrations and authority the Pelagians were condemned that is it was the faith of the Church in that age and consequently which the Church continued ever after Father because St. Austin neither had the Authority to bring in a new Faith nor pretends it but both proves his dictrin to have descended from his Forefathers and found Pelagius his opinion condemned before he medled with it by some Council that is by the apprehensions of the then present Church and as it spread from Country to Country was stil found contrary to the receiv'd doctrin every where planted in their hearts before Pelagius contradicted it Therefore I say I cannot but esteem that in the point of Grace it is all one to say the Doctrin of St. Austin and the Doctrin of the Apostles planted by them and continued to St. Austins daies illustrated by him and transmitted to his posterity even to our present time If this be true as no Catholik can deny nor prudent person doubt but we esteem it so Pope Clement had great reason to endeavour the decision of that question by the Authority of St. Austin since the doctrin of St. Austin was evidently the faith of that Age and the faith of that Age the faith of the Christian Church from the Apostles to us But we have another quarrel about St. Austins doctrin that It is so uncertain himself knew not what he held Nor do I wonder such a thought should fall into the head of a Gentleman-Divine especially in a Liberty of wit to censure without the least respect or reverence of Antiquity But I tremble to hear that some of whom we are in justice as wel as charity bound to expect more staydness and Religion seem so wedded to their own Sect as to mutter the same My answer I believe is already understood I say therefore such as have made it a principal employment of their lives to be perfect in St. Augustin those who with great attention had read his Polemical Treatises against the Pelagians as I take it some five and thirty times were of another mind And so are all those who at this day study him not to make him speak what they think but to make themselvs speak what he thinks But this question transiit in rem judicatam since when it was handled at Rome before the Congregations when both oppositions and defences were solemnly made by the proof of present books when the maintainainers of the opinion accus'd of Pelagianism were the choicest wits and ancientest Scholers could be pickt out of that so famed Society nevertheless almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against them as is evident both out of the printed Compendium of the Acts of those Congregations and the very manuscript Acts themselves extant at this day But let us hear the Pope himself speak Upon the 8. of July was held the second Congregation His Holiness began with these words Nos personaliter vidimus congeriem locorum quam vos qui Molinam defenditis induxistis ex Augustino nullus inventus est qui faveat immo contrarium tenuit Augustinus Vnde mirum quòd tot artibus utamini And hence it seems they were forc'd to corrupt St. Austin to the Popes face the 30 of September following which being discovered the Authour died of melancholy and disgrace Again in the tenth Congregation the same Pope taxed them Quod Scholasticis maxime suis non Scripturâ Conciliis Patribus uterentur A sign how sound their way of doctrin is how sincere their proceedings to defend it Yet 't is urged farther that the Fathers who lived before St. Austin are generally of the contrary opinion This is a simple assertion without proof and my name is Thomas I would entreat therfore such of my Readers as light on this objection to remember that the question of the force of Grace and liberty of Free will consists of two truths that seem like the Symplegades to butt at one another as long as we look at them afar off but if we make a neerer approach they shew a fair passage betwixt them So then it is not hard that one who studies the question for pleasure especially in such Fathers as wrote before the combating of the truth by Heresies should be deceiv'd by the seeming overlaying of that side which the Fathers had occasion to inculcate though they meant nothing lesse then to prejudice the verity which stands firm on the other side the fretum of this disputation Adde to this that St. Austin himself examin'd the Fathers and found in them the doctrin he maintain'd nor could it be otherwise the general apprehension of the Church being against Pelagius Therfore I shal follow the advice of the Proverb and be fearful to leap before I look especially since a great reader of St. Chrysostom solemnly profess'd he could shew as strong places in him for Grace as in St. Austin though he be the man chiefly set up against St. Austin THE EIGHTH ENCOUNTER Shewing our Ladies immaculate conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith AS for the state of the question about our Ladies being conceiv'd in Original sin some would willingly perswade us the Negative is in great probability to be defin'd whereas certainly there is no Tradition for it if Wadding's sayings be rightly reported But if defining signifies the clearing of Tradition as we explicate it nothing can be more evident then that there is no probability of defining the negative part rather it may be in danger of being at least censured for rashly putting an exception in the generall rule of Scripture which expresly condemns all but our Saviour to Original sin except the defenders can shew good ground for the priviledg they pretend which I much doubt For as far as I can understand the whol warrant of that opinion stands upon a devotion to our Lady arising chiefly from a perswasion that original sin is a disgrace to the person in whom 't is found So that if the people were taught original sin is nothing but a disposition to evil or a natural weakness which unless prevented brings infallibly sin and damnation and that in it self it deservs neither reproach nor punishment as long as it proceeds not to actual sin the heat of vulgar devotion would be cool'd and the question not thought worth the examining However ther 's no great appearance of deciding that point in favour of the negative since the earnest sollicitations of
two so potent Kings could so little prevail towards it For all that was done had only this design to appeas the seditions sprung up in Sivil by occasion of a Dominicans Conclusions in which he affirm'd that our Lady was Conspurcata with Original sin But the controversy was so uncivilly carried that it scandaliz'd our English Merchants as one of them there present told me not long after meeting him at Dunkirk But because this objection is much urged let us see the probabilities of its being defin'd The first is that the maintainers of the Affirmative are only a few of one Order and some few taught by them But if good account be made I believe these few will prove some thousand or fifteen hundred of the most learned in the Christian world Their Order is known to have always been the flower of the Schools to have had the Inquisition many ages in their hands to have a stile of Divinity of a higher strain then ordinary by their great study and adhesion to the Doctrin of St. Thomas of Aquine Their Monasteries numerous especially in Spain and Italy no great Convent wherin there are not a dozen or more grave and learned Divines almost all the honours amongst them being distributed according to the probate of ability in knowledg so that the Order is no contemptible part of the Learning of the Church Neither is it credible their Schollars can be few much less as this Author passionatly terms them unus et alter He objects farther the subscriptions of many Prelates Orders and Universities the general acclamation of the people the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals That some Universities oblige the Schollars to make vows to maintain the negative and in a word that the Affirmers hold against the whole Church Nor do I doubt that many Prelates Orders and Universities subscribed the Negative and peradventure to the Petition or that the people who follow the greater cry did demand the same but that the Affirmers held against the whole Church I totally deny and shew manifestly the contrary For Buls having been accepted and standing in force by which all Censure against the Affirmative is forbidden and no one syllable obtain'd any way derogatory to the probability of the opinion but generally a caveat to the contrary expresly put into such instruments and the Defenders of the negative submitting to them 't is clear that all the maintainers of the Negative alow the Affirmative to be probable and by consequence not against the consent of the Church since it seems to imply a flat contradiction that the Church should believe a Negative to be true and yet at the same time admit the affirmative may be true Now as for Universities there are entire ones for the Affirmative and that not on the score of St. Thomas but of the Fathers What Universities strive for the Negative so ranckly as to make men take vows I know not The Article of Paris as I hear is only that they shal not teach it in the University els-where every one is free As for hindring scandals 't is a necessary part of Government but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths according to the inclinations of the people push'd on by the clamours of violent Preachers Notwithstanding all this our adversary presumes this very point may prove an Article of Faith especially if a Council should meet about the decision wherin he proceeds with a very high confidence it being as he thinks now ready to topple into a matter necessary to salvation But I am far from that mind for I see the fervours of the Schools are a quite different thing from the judgments of the Church and how little all those tumults moved the Court of Rome and certainly would have made far less impression in a general Council The controversy betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans what a busle makes it in the School and in the world while it stands upon the fairer tongue upon motives esteemable by the people and meer plausibilities Wheras coming to be examin'd before the Pope in Congregations it could not hold water but the weaker part was forc'd to break off the cours of judgment by mingling Princes quarrels into Ecclesiastical questions I dare confidently say if the Point of our Ladies Conception were to be handled either in a Council or grave Congregation the party that free her setting aside the passions of Princes would be distressed to find an argument that themselvs should hope would endure the discussing And so the pretty gradations of our imaginative adversaries who so easily frame a ladder for this opinion to climb up into a matter of Faith is like an odd attempt of an acquaintance of mine who being come out of Lancashire to go beyond-sea and repuls'd at Dover for want of a Pass put off his hose and shooes and began to wade into the sea when being asked what he meant he answer'd he would go on foot since they would not let him pass in the Boat for said he I have often waded through the Beck at my Fathers door when the bridg was taken away By which counterfeiting of simplicity he got to be admitted into the ship wheras those who make their argument from the School-discussions to Church-definitions will if I am not mistaken remain on the wrong side of the water THE NINTH ENCOUNTER Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition THe third argument is drawn from this Waddings proceedings and his consorts with the addition of another not unlearned man according to the cours of these times who puts Scripture and definitions of the Church to be the adaequate ground into which our Faith is resolv'd Besides 't is urg'd that even those who speak of Tradition seek it not in the testimony of the present Church but of the ancient Fathers This being already answer'd in the sixth Objection we need not here add much to it For what imports it if Wadding and his associates understood not upon what grounds the Church uses to resolve and decide controversies and therfore bring Revelations Metaphorical expressions of Scripture the cry of the people a multitude of School Divines and the like arguments so that in their lives and believing or acting as Christians they proceed not out of these grounds but by the Colliers principle rely on the Church and by her on what she rely's Galilaeo dislikes the notions of wet and dry which Aristotle gives do they therfore disagree or not know one anothers meaning when they talk of a wet and dry cloth Among our modern Philosophers great quarrels there are about the explication of time and place yet this hinders not but that in common discours when they speak of years and days Country's and Towns they make a shift to understand one another The reason is because these conceptions used in ordinary discours are planted in them by nature the same objects working the same effect upon souls of one
they think fittest to cleave to For Rushworth has declared his opinion sufficiently and it is clear enough what all they must say Catholiks or Protestants who think the Scripture needs Explicators to make a point certain Neither can we doubt of this if we look into the actions of the Catholik Church where we see an Heretick is term'd so for chusing an Opinion against the Faith certainly received and in possession of the Church from which he separates himself But this separation is at the beginning of the errour and before the interposure of the Church He is therefore an Heretick before any decision makes him so THE TENTH ENCOUNTER That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chiliasts BEsides the objections we have already endeavoured to answer some other instances are urged As of Origen whose doctrin being explicated in such large volumes how an Adversary can draw it into the compass of Tradition or how it can be argued that the condemning of him was a breach of Tradition I know not But chiefly they insist upon the Chiliasts errour as an unquestionable Apostolicall Tradition To try the busines let us remember we cal'd Tradition the handling of a doctrin preach'd and setled in the Church of God by the Apostles down to later ages Now then to prove the Chiliad opinion was of that nature the first point is to evince that it was publish'd and setled by the Apostles the contrary whereof is manifest out of Eusebius History who relates that the root of it was a by-report collected by Papias a good but credulous and simple man His goodness surpris'd St. Irenaeus who as may be infer'd out of his Presbyteri meminerunt learned it of Papias for the plural number does not infer that there was more then one as all know that look into the nature of words or if there were more they may be such as had it from Papias St. Justin the Martyr esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher then the common since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholy of his own mind for no man can think another right in any position wherein he dissentes from him Nay he shews that the Jew against whom he disputes suspected his truth as not believing any Christian held this opinion so rare was it among Christians nor does he ever mention Tradition for it but proves it meerly out of the Prophets Whence it appears there is no ground or probability this was ever a Tradition or any other then the opinion of some Fathers occasioned by Papias and confirm'd by certain places of Scripture not wel understood most errours being indeed bolster'd up by the like misapplications a scandal that ever since the practice of the Tempter upon Christ himself may wel be expected to importune Christians But first is objected in behalf of the Chiliasts that they had no Tradition against them To which I reply A contrary Tradition might be two waies in force against them one formally as if it had been taught by the Apostles directly Christ shall not raign upon earth a thousand yeers as a temporall King The other that something incompossible with such a corporal raign was taught by Them and of this I finde two one general another particular the generall one is that the pleasures and rewards promised to Christians are spiritual and the whol design of the Christian Law aims at the taking away all affections towards corporal Objects whereas this Errour appoints corporal contentments for the reward of Martyrs and by consequence either encreases or at least fosters the affection to bodily pleasures and temporal goods The particular one is that Christ being ascended to Heaven is to remain there till the universal judgment Wherfore it is evident by the later that it is against Tradition and by the former that it is not only so but a Mahumetan or at least a Jewish errour drawing men essentially to damnation as teaching them to fix all their hopes and expectance hereafter on a life agreeable to the appetites of flesh and blood 'T is opposed also that the Fathers of the purest Ages receiv'd it as deliver'd from the Apostles A fair Parade but if we understand by the Fathers One St. Irenaeus and him deluded by the good Zeal of Papias as Eusebius testifies but good even to folly for lesse cannot be said of it where is the force of this so plausible argument Adde to this that the very expression of Ireneus proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a Story not a Tradition a Tradition as we have explicated it being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning There follows Justin Martyr's testimony That All Orthodox Christians in his age held it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they are not so different but one may be taken for the other Neverthelesse there is no such saying in Justin for however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may pass one for the other yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has by Ecclesiastical use an appropriation to the Catholik or Christian right believers which descends not from the Primitive and so cannot be transfer'd to the Derivatives from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither fairly nor truly translated Orthodox No more does it help the Adversaries cause that Justin compares the maintainers of the conrary opinion to the Sadduces among the Jews For he mentions two sorts of persons denying his position wherof one he resembles to the Sadduces the other he acknowledges to be good Christians and says they are many or in the eloquent usage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commonalty of Christians Nor wil the next Objection give us much trouble That none oppos'd the Millenary errour before Dionysius Alexandrinus To which we apply this answer First for any thing we know it was hidden and inconsiderable till his time and then began to make a noise and cause people to look into it Secondly there are probable Motives to perswade it was impugn'd long before For it being clear that both Heretiks and Catholiks sustain'd the contrary we cannot wel suppose it was never contradicted till then though the report of it came not to their ears since who considers the few monuments we have of these first Ages must easily discern the hundred part is not deriv'd to us of what was then done But lastly admit there was no writing against it till Dionysius Alexandrinus does it follow there was no preaching neither As little can be gathered out of St. Hierom's being half afraid to write against it both because he did write against it as is
clear in his comment upon St. Matthew and upon Ezekiel where he cals it a Jewish Fable l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of argues nothing of Tradition but the numerosity of that sort of believers occasion'd by the writings of the Heretick Apollinaris as the same Saint testifies Comment 10. in Esaiam Neither doth St. Austin stick to condemn it since those words c. 7. 24. de Civit. Dei esset utcunque tolerabilis signifie that it is not tolerable Yet truly I cannot but admire that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been deriv'd duely and really from the Apostles by verbal Tradition should conceive that either St. Hierom or St. Austin could think such a Tradition to be no sign of the Churches doctrin or not care whether it were or no which seems to me the same as to impute to these Saints a neglect of what they thought to be the Churches opinion or els to the Church a neglect of what was Christs doctrin if She would not accept what She knew was descended verbally from Him or at least that St. Austin and St. Hierom lay this great slander of neglecting the known doctrin of Christ upon the Church THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice THe Chiliad errour seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian which speaks far louder for it self And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence whose testimony is that The Arians would gladly have been try'd by the writings yet remaining of those Authors who lived before the Council of Nice for in them will be found certain propositions which now since the Church-Language is more examin'd would make the Speaker thought an Arian From whence the Opposers infer that before the Council of Nice there was no Tradition for the mystery of the blessed Trinity But to maintain this consequence I see no proof for the Cardinal's words clearly import that the Fathers before that Council though being Catholiks they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity yet in somephrases spake like Arians How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent that these Fathers believ'd not the Trinity or had not receiv'd by Tradition the knowledg of that Mystery I confess my self unable to see the least probability in such an inference If it be permitted to guess what they aim at that make this objection I believe it is that some propositions concerning the Trinity by disputation and discussion have been either deduced or clear'd which before were not remark'd do draw so much consequence upon the mystery as since is found they do out of which they think it follows that such propositions were not delivered by Tradition and so not our whole Faith To this the answer is ready that as he who says a mystery was taught by the Apostles does not intend to say the Apostles taught what the words were in every Language which were to signify this Mystery so neither is his meaning that they taught how many ways the phrase in one language might be varied keeping the same sense But as they left the former to the natural Idiom of the speaker or writer so the latter to the Rules of Grammar as likewise they left it to the speakers skil in Logick to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they deliver'd the Mysteries It is not therfore to be expected that men who had receiv'd the Mystery simply and plainly should without both art and attention know how in different cases to explicate it according to the exact rules of Science And thus the defect of the argument or arguer is that he supposes not only the main verity should be formally convey'd by Tradition but all manner of explication and in all terms which the subtlety or importunity of Hereticks could afterward drive the Catholicks to express this Mystery by a task both impossible to be perform'd and most unreasonable to require and perhaps unprofitable if it were done Nor therfore does it follow that somthing is to be believ'd which came not down by Tradition For as he that says Peter is a man says he is a living creature a body a substance though he uses not those words because all is comprehended in the term Man so he that delivers One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost delivers that those persons are not Alia but Alij and that truly the Son is not an Instrument a commanded servant c. Yet as it may happen that one man sees another to be but knows not what the definition of him is nor needs he ordinarily know it because he knows the thing defined so may it also chance that some Fathers who knew well enough the mystery might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of Logick and 't is no good consequence The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity therfore they held it not or had not learn'd it by Tradition Yet I must also intimate these differences of speech proceeded many times from the various usage of the words as the Greeks generally say the Father is cause of the Son the Latines abhor it calling him Principium which difference is not in the meaning but in the equivocation of the expression So we read in St. Athanasius that he found an opposition in some people one sort saying there were in the Trinity three Hypostases and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Hypostasis and St. Hierom though perfect in the Greek Tongue was so exceedingly troubled with this question that he sent to St. Damasus for the resolution of it yet he wel knew there was no difference in the sense but only in the terms however he fear'd lest by the wrong use of the words he might unawares be drawn into a wrong meaning So likewise did St. Athanasius find that the two former parties of which we spake agreed in the Catholick sense though their words were opposite The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis which primarily and radically signify the same thing Aristotle telling us that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it appears this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura to which the word substantia by use is now appropriated when we speak of this mystery but only in a secondary sense Again the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando or Subsistendo and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia Now applying this to the mystery of the Trinity Because in God there is one common Nature abstrahible from three proprieties therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis et tres Ousiae For
not let it be known when she has defin'd of it self falls flat to the ground both because I take not that way and if I did since we are not troubled about knowing our Churches Definitions who have the burthen of obeying and do it in practice the Objectors are confuted as Diogenes did Zeno when he disputed against motion by walking before him For all this the Church of Rome must not escape yet And so we are told that if she were design'd for the Pharos to know the rest of the Church by somwhat had been advan'd for otherwise say they we can assign no mark of the true Church the Roman being deny'd to be such as we make her First I answer we have no need of recourse to the Church of Rome it being the infallible distinctive sign of the Church to lay claim to the handed Doctrin or Tradition which evidently appears cannot be claim'd by two For if two agree in a point to day and one dissent to morrow it were madness to say the disagreer can lay claim to yesterdays opinion Secondly we say if we would fly to the Roman Church the oppositions force us not from it For why is not Cardinal Perrons answer to Plessis invincible that the whole Church condemn'd St. Cyprians proceedings Likewise the Asian Bishops were condemn'd in the Council of Nice The African Bishops question was about the enacting a Law which nevertheless was carried for the Bishop of Rome If the Fathers remit us to the Apostolical Churches whose successions were then visible and evident what 's that to us now when all successions are interrupted save only that of the Roman Church The definition of the Council of Calcedon is known to be only the conspiracy of a Cabal never approved as legitimate but revers'd afterwards So that all these angry darts turn their points against their Authors the judgment in every instance having past in favour of the Church they oppose But this question concerning the Church of Rome is of greater extent and importance then to be huddled up in one sheet of Paper Therfore let us leave Her to the acknowledg'd Majesty she possesses in the Christian world and not by slight objections and answers rather seem to undervalue her Dignity then either oppose or defend her Authority You present us therfore next with what is kept for the closing of our stomacks and they are two dishes One that at last we Catholicks resolve into Reason as well as Protestants To this I answer if you mean we must see Reason why we give credit to Authority I agree with you But then since Reason is on both sides Why say you must it be a Wall to us and a Bulrush to others I le tell you Reason has two parts Demonstration and Sophistry and in Demonstrations that evidence which governs our Lives is the most familiar to us and consequently besides its firmness 't is the most clear and least denyable Now this proposition that we ought to believe a knowing person in that wherin our selvs are ignorant is of this nature a Maxime that governs all our life publick and private wherfore our ground or Reason is a wall a rock or if any thing be yet more solid On the other side of all parts of Sophistry that which is built on broken ends of obscure sentences of dead men who cannot declare themselvs is the most weak and contemptible and this being that you rely on Reason therfore to you is weaker and more deceitful then any Bul-rush The second dish is that whatever is deliver'd in defence of the Church of Rome only proves that as yet she is the true Church not that she cannot leave the way she is in and fall to reform as her adversaries cal it or that there may not happen some Shism among the Churches now adhering to her where both parts may claim Tradition and then where is the guide To this I answer I will not weigh the proofs of others for the eternity of the particular Church of Rome since there is no contest betwixt us here about that but those who are acquainted with controversies cannot be ignorant that our writers intend to prove Her indefectibility All I 'le say is did you but agree with us that she is at present the true Church it would be argument enough for you to submit til the cases happen which you suppose possible and I should think my self too grating and severe towards a Person in other respects extreamly recommendable if I should press harder then so upon him nor could I desire a repast more delightful to my soul then to have seen that in practice concerning him which is now too late to be hoped THE FOURTEENTH ENCOUNTER Four other Arguments revers'd SUch is the condition of Religion when the liberty of chusing is permitted to all that have the boldness to challeng it who having no other Scales to poise any arguments propos'd them then the affection to their own wils or prejudice against others reasons suffer every light objection to overballance the most weighty and solid Demonstration Therfore am I forc'd to follow certain other Adversaries my chase not being confin'd only to the noble game into every by-turn and beat every little bush where either the necessity of a desperate cause the fables of some wild Reporter or the craft of any jugling Hypocrite can drive them to hide their weak heads in As for reason in our present business they tel you every one is born in liberty to Religion and til it be demonstrated he is bound to acknowledg some Teacher the presumption stands for liberty and 't is meerly of curtesy and graciousness they take the pains to bring arguments for the Negative This I shal answer as the Caprich of some pragmatical Chaplain not having incivility enough to entertain the least suspition that so great a Wit stored with Art in so busy a time about questions of government should bring forth so mishapen a Monster But alas what cannot an unruly fancy that bites the bridle of reason Say then my young Divines of Politick of Paternal government what you say of Religion Is not the absurdity so palpable it wil make you asham'd That no child is bound to honour Father and Mother till it be demonstrated to him he ought to do so No Subject to obey the Magistrate til after a long dispute his power be evidently proved legitimate Pass from these to Arts and say every one may play the Physitian the Pilot the Judg for Doctor of Divinity you freely give your licence to all the world without having any Master or Teacher what a goodly Common-wealth you wil make But 't is reply'd Nullum tempus occurrit veritati no more then Regi since veritas fortior est Rege I Sir but in your major you put veritas and in your minor falsitas For what is your truth when you come to declare your self but probable arguments of which nothing is more certain then that
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
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
mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him he mistook at first St. Austins meaning from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never delt any better with others and after the sentence so impudently pronounc'd rely's upon this bare suspition as a sufficient evidence Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at call'd calumny and charges the same Father first about Gods knowing smal things but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledg but particular providence of which St. Paul said nunquid Deo cura est de bobus His second instance contradicts his former For it is that Saints are everywhere which is spoken of their knowledg not corporal presence Christ by whose company they are pretended to be everywhere being so by his sight and knowledg not by his presence corporally Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former yet would not make use of it to reconcile but aggravate the errours Thirdly he accuses him to say that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin but cites not a syllable except for Angels which so express'd is an undenyable truth being no more then that Angels by envy became Divels But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Ladies respects to their families that they did not marry the second time he interprets as intended against marriage it self I confess as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it he says more what is true then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases wherin the temperance not use is honourable He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrin indeed an intolerable heresy wherin all true Reform'd stomacks are fundamentally concern'd for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh a most wholsome custome was abolish'd by Jesus Christ but citing neither words nor place and afterward drawing it in by a fals consequence makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder then St. Hieroms The next errour is that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest but his words are so common they easily receive explication Again he is offended with him for denying faintly that the blessed eat in Heaven Lastly he accuses him of abusing St. Paul and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar because he says there was more in the inscription then the Apostle mention'd Secondly that he said he understood more then he could explicate Thirdly that to the Galathians he spake ordinary discourses because they were not capable of higher Of these three the first had no harm in it since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our Saviours Cross the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Popes authority And this great Patron of theirs cals him an arrant wooden Statue A pitiful thing One that had scarce any reaon in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language be a perfect foundation for a point of faith By these you may guess how he has dealt with others which were too long to examin Approaching to the end of his Chapter he specify's some errours unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers First that of the Chiliasts an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse The second is the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of Judgment which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled De medio animarum statu The third concerns rebaptization of Heteticks which also is cleared above only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it after the decision of the Council of Nice but his mincing the matter by saying in a manner shews it is only a largess of his good will and not any evidence he brings Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology and then the Angels having bodies and after that the Angels falling in love with women three points not very material Then again he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants but brings in rather testimonies of the practice which is not in question then of the necessity which is And lastly that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held Gods foresight of mens good and bad works to be the cause of predestination but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known it might as wisely have been omitted In this next Chapter he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintain'd against others some opinions in matters of very great importance which is but one half of what follows from or rather is directly contain'd in the conclusion of the former Chapter and therfore not denyed by us nor useful to him which was the cause why he would not there add though the place were very proper that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others and of the Church But to make a seeming new argument he left out this and exprest himself generally like a true deceiver that some defended against others and to give his discours the better relish he begins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion making him say that the Fathers opinions never clash one against another touching the points of our Religion for a Person so learned could not be ignorant that some errour might be found in a Father against the cōmon consent of the rest But his meaning was that not so many could dissent as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgment of the rest neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary In his first instance if he had put in that Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy against the communalty of Christians of their Age he had ruin'd his own proof which nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus as is declared and indeed was obliged to do if he intended to proceed pertinently But what should I pain my self in a question not controverted Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son Theodoret distinguishes his words saying if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son or of the same nature so he allows the saying but if he means that he
a different question to ask Whether an opinion be Heresy and Whether the Maintainer be an Heretick the opinion becomes heretical by being against Tradition without circumstances but the Person is not an Heretick unless he knows there is such a Tradition Now St. Cyprians case was about a doctrin included in a practice which he saw well was the custome of the African but knew not to be so of the universal Church till some congregation of the whole Christian World had made it evident And herein consists the excuse St. Austin alledges for St. Cyprian 't is true I have no assurance this Apology can be alledged for John 22. but another perhaps may that the multitude of Fathers which he conceiv'd to be on his side might perswade him the opposite opinion could not be a constant Tradition There remains only Bellarmins excuse to be justify'd which is not of so great moment Divines helping themselvs by the way that occurrs best to them and missing in such reasons without any scandal to their neighbours One of these two solutions will generally satisfie all such objections as are drawn from some fathers mistakes against the common Faith For nothing can be more certain then if any Father had known the doctrin contrary to his errour to have been universally taught in the Catholik Church by a derivation from their ancestors beyond the memory of any beginning he would readily without dispute have submitted to such an Authority and so much the sooner as he being neerer the Fountain could less doubt that the stream of which he saw no other rise reach'd home to the Spring-head This therfore is evident that whoever erred knew nothing of such a Tradition whencesoe're that ignorance took its root the severall causes of which depend upon the several cases of their mistakes here not pressed and therfore not examin'd THE SIXTH ENCOUNTER Disabling three other Arguments brought against Tradition THe seventh objection pretends not only different but opposite Traditions might be deriv'd from the Apostles And this they support with these two crutches one consists in a demurrer that the contrary is not proved the other in an Instance that it plainly hapned so in the case of the Quartadecimani who inherited from St. John a certain custom which was condemned by a practice deriv'd from some other Apostles But the weaknesse of this objection appears by its very proposal For since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately and exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostles we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently neither is Tradition And that this word universally may not seem by slight of hand cog'd into the definition on purpose to take away this objection the necessity of it is evident because all that weare the name of Christian unanimously agreeing that in point of truth one Apostle could not contradict another wherever two such Traditions are possible to be found it absolutely follows no point of truth is engaged An inference expresly verified in the example of the Quartadecimans their contention being meerly about a Ceremony not an Article of Faith Wherfore only indifferent and unnecessary practises are subjects of such a double Tradition and by consequence such Traditions are not of Christian beliefe or concerning matters here in controversy this very definition rather directly excluding them The eighth Argument seems to take its rise from our own confessions telling us We acknowledge some points of Faith to have come in later then others and give the cause of it that the Tradition whereon such points rely was at the beginning a particular one but so that yet at the time when it became universal it had a testimony even beyond exception by which it gain'd such a general acknowledgment The example of this is in certain Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps whereof in St. Jerom's time the Greek Churches refus'd the one and the Latin the other yet now both have prevaild into an universal reception To which I return this clear answer 't is the nature of things acted that depend on Physical and mutable causes to have divers degrees in divers parts according to the unequall working of the Causes and so Christ having deliver'd by the hands of his Apostles two things to his Church his Doctrin as the necessary and substantial aliment thereof and his Scriptures ad abundantiam it was convenient the strength of Tradition for one should far exceed its strength for the other yet so that even the weaker should not fail to be assured and certain Upon this reason the Doctrin was deliver'd to all the Apostles and by them to the whol community of Christians the Scriptures to some particular person or Church yet such whose credit was untainted and from them by degrees to be spread through the whol Church and communicated to the Pastors in the Books themselvs to the people by their Pastors reading and explications For who does not know before Printing was invented the Bible was not every mans money Whence it appears Scriptures are derived to us by a lower degree of Tradition then that of Catholik doctrin and consequently our Faith and acceptance due to them is not of so high a nature as what we are bound to in respect of doctrin For the sense of Scripture is to be judged by the doctrin as the Church and custom of Antiquity teaches us alwaies commanding and practising that no man exercise his wits in interpreting the holy Scripture against the receiv'd Faith of the Church as in all matters of science they who are Masters in the Art judge the text of Books written upon such subjects by their unwritten skil and practical experience And here I would willingly ask what such Protestants as object this to us can answer for themselvs since they directly professe not to know Scripture by the Spirit and therfore must necessarily rely on Tradition especially those who take for their rule to accept only such Books for Canonical as were never doubted of for they cannot deny but the Scriptures were receiv'd in one Church before another as the Epistles of St. Paul St. John or St. Marks Gospel c. and how do they admit the Apocalyps so long refused by the Greek Churches whom they use to prefer before the Latin But they presse us farther that if a particular Tradition became universal this depended on the Logick of those Ages to discern what testimony was beyond exception I demand what signifies Logick do they mean common sense sufficient to know three and four make seven or wit enough to comprehend and manage with a just degree of discretion the ordinary occurrences in humane actions If they do I must confess it depends on Logick For I cannot think God Almighty deliver'd the Scriptures to Apes or Elephants who have a meer imitation of reason in their outward carriage but to Men that have truly understanding and a capacity of evidence within