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
to thy salvation so that thou understand them according to the Faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally deliver'd to thee and this is in direct terms the Catholick Rule that the interpretation of Scripture is to be govern'd by Tradition or by the faith and doctrin so receiv'd and formally depends from the first words Remain constant to my doctrin Or by another explication which is more material and flat and most incredible That the old Scripture for of that only the Apostle speaks no other being written while Timothy was a child should be able without relation to the knowledg of Christ by other means to make a man understanding enough to be saved by the Faith of Him as may be seen by Sr. Peters being sent to Cornelius So that of these three senses the first is nothing to our adversaries purpose and nevertheless is the best The second positively and highly against him the third incoherent to the words precedent and following and in it self an incredible proposition But give it the greatest force the words can by any art be heightned to they come nothing neer the state of the question proposed which concerns the decision of all quarrels carried on by litigious parties Whereas this Text is content with any sufficiency at large to bring men to salvation a point not precisely now controverted betwixt us Besides Timothy being already a Christian 't is a pure folly to think the Apostle sent him to the Scriptures to chuse his Religion The words immediatly following the place explicated are urged for a new Argument They are these All Scripture is inspired from God and profitable to teach to reprove to correct to instruct in justice that is good life that the man of God become perfect being furnisht to every good work The paraphrase according to my skil is thus The holy Writ I spake of is any Book inspir'd from God and profitable to teach things unknown reprehend what is amiss to set straight what is crooked to instruct in good life that the Church of God or any member therof may become perfect being by instructions and reprehensions applyed out of Scripture by such preachers as Timothy fitted to any good work or all kinds of good works This I conceive the natural meaning and most conformable to the Text were we to seek the interpretation of it indifferently without any eye to our present controversy And in this sense 't is a cleer case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and apply'd by a Preacher in order to the perfecting of those that hear him But if by importunity the adversary will needs have it that the Scripture should give the quality of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the person himself that reads it to content him I shall not hinder him of his mind but only prove it nothing to his purpose For still this must be the sense that it produces in the reader the excellencies requir'd in a Preacher namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him as teaching reprehending c. so that one way or other still the Scripture is apply'd to furnish him with Precepts Arguments Examples and such like instruments of perswasion but of giving the first Catechism or binding ones self Apprentice to the Bible to learn the first rudiments of Christian profession ther 's not the least word or syllable that colours for such a conceit nor can it indeed consist with the direct meaning of the place since the being already a Christian is plainly suppos'd in Timothy by St. Pauls institutions viva voce before any exhortation to this use of Scripture So that here is no question concerning the first choyce of Faith but of perfection after Faith much less any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Another place is Acts 26. where St. Paul defending himself before Agrippa and Festus against the Jews accusation who calumniated him that he spake in derogation of the Law and brought in a new doctrin to the disturbance of the people made only this answer that he preach'd nothing but what the Prophets had foretold His words are these The Iews for this teaching Christs doctrin finding me in the Temple would have kill'd me But I having obtain'd succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoke nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass as that Christ was to suffer that he was to be the first should rise from death to life and preach light both to Iews and Gentils This is the true interpretation of the Greek Text as far as ly's in my power to explicate it according to the intention of St. Paul I deny not but the words singly taken may be interpreted I have persisted testifying to great and little and in my Sermons saying nothing but what c. But this explication is neither so proper to his defence nor at all advances the Adversaries cause For since St. Paul tells us directly what the points are of which he spake whatever can be gathered out of them only this is said that these three points were foretold by Moses and the Prophets and on the other side the discours is imperfect running thus I preach'd indeed many other things yet nothing but what was in Moses and the Prophets to wit that Christ was to suffer c. His meaning therfore is that since he was in hold his perpetual endeavours had been to shew that these things he was accused to have preach'd against the law were the very marrow of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets and that wheras the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King who by force of Arms should restore the house of Israel to a great and flourishing estate the truth was quite contrary for according to the doctrin of Moses and the Prophets He was to be a passible man to suffer death afterwards to rise again triumphantly as the first fruits of the Resurrection and to send his Disciples both to Jews and Gentiles to spread the light of the Gospel throughout the world What advantage against the necessity of Tradition can be drawn out of this place of Scripture which doth not so much as talk of the extent of Catholick doctrin much less come within kenning of our Controversy is beyond my reach This I know that to say all points of Catholick doctrin can be sufficiently prov'd out of Moses and the Prophets is an assertion I believe our Adversaries themselvs will deny as being both ridiculous in it self and absolutely discrediting the necessity of the new Testament and yet clearly without maintaining so gross absurdities they can make no advantage of this Text. THE SEVENTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion WE are at last come to those places in which they most glory
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
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
the non-precept and the reason thereof out of the first part nothing can be deduced out of the second this consequence is inferred Pagans would be equally scandaliz'd by the Permission as by the Precept Wherfore if it be commanded neither certainly ought it be permitted Although no law obliges one Divine to maintain the reasons of another yet I see no such evidence in this consequence as for it to renounce the reason for me thinks if those we call Saints were meant to be Gods we should of necessity be bound to worship them whence it follows if it be not necessary to worship them neither are they Gods nor the worship exhibited to them such as is due to God but only of that degree which we give excellent creatures a position so conformable to Nature that it can scandalize none but the enemies of Perfection who under pretence of avoiding Idolatry take away the due honour and excitation to Vertue But which way out of a non-Precept can be infer'd the non-Teaching of the Doctrin I cannot imagine since what those Doctors hold continues true at this day when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practiced For though in our prayers there be some directions to Saints yet generally Christians are not bound to such dâ—votions and they that are 't is but their own voluntary acceptance of the obligation to which such prayers are annexed THE THIRTEENTH ENCOUNTER Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion to be the signe of the true Church ALthough out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend makes the Churches Definition depend upon the Tradition of the point defined and not Tradition upon them as if because by Tradition we know the Churches Definitions to be true therfore we know the truth deliver'd by Tradition Nevertheless since there may be some truth in this reflexion That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition let us see what can be said against it T is first therfore put into consideration whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels or the Gospel that is as much as they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel if God would have us trust the Church he was not both to specifie so much very plainly in them and farther deliver such signs as were necessary ever to know Her by For answer I ask a cross question Whether if God Almighty would have all men see by the Sun he was first to tell them which It is and paint ' Its picture on every wall that so we might know which is the Sun And because any question may seem rather offensive then deserving any answer I proceed to the application and ask Whether any of those Christians of whom Saint John says exierunt ex nobis could doubt which was the Church wherof he had been a part and left it And since you cannot answer otherwise then affirmatively I think I need not repeat the same question of Arius and Pelagius and Luther If then God has provided for all these that they were taught to yeild obedience to the definitions of this Church so clearly that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher nor of what Church he spake how dare they presume to accuse him of deficiency in his providence The same Authority that gave you the Scripture and told you it was the Word of God said likewise that what she taught was no lesse the Word of God If you believe her report for the Book why refuse you it for the Doctrin If her recommends be not security enough for the one they will certainly prove far less for the other since unlesse I am strangely mistaken the doctrin of the Catholik Church is not so hard to believe as the story of the Bible let any Atheist or discreet Moore or Pagan be judge Oh but since the Evangelists wrote Gospels they wrote all they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel The Gospel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium that is the Good-spel or happy tidings of Christs comming so that the Book or Preaching which tels us Christ is come is a Gospel be there never so much more or lesse in the Book or Sermon how then it can be infer'd out of the name Gospel that the Apostles writ as much as they preach'd for it is not credible they preach'd all they wrote I am not able to comprehend The second consideration is how we know when the Church has defined To which I answer In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted when the Church had defined then when a Parliament had enacted Why then is there required more information But some Divines say more some less to be enough Let them be doing in the Schools as long as the practice goes on sufficiently for the Churches government Thirdly we are to consider Whether sufficient notes be left to know the Church by But who shall use these notes Catholicks They are in the Church Hereticks They know what Church they forsook Pagans They look not into the Scriptures to finde the Churches mark Peradventure those Hereticks whose separation is so long since that they remember not out of what Church they went But none are grown so aged yet However the marks of the Church are apparent enough in Scripture if there want not wil in the seeker to acknowledg them The fourth consideration is Whether points of Faith or to be of Faith be infinite new ones continually springing or finite if finite why are they not all delivered at once to make an end of incertitude and defining The answer is they are both finite and infinite finite in gross and wholy deliver'd by the Apostles wholy believed and practis'd by this present Church but infinite in the detail by which mans wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith For as soon as any sharp and crafty Heretik has varied some proposition necessary to the explication of a fore-believed Doctrin there may be occasion of setling some new proposition which shal be no other then a part of what was formerly believ'd in Substance though not so explicitly deciphred As he that professes Christ is a Man implies he has a mans Nature a mans Understanding and Will and Action though this word Man distinguishes not precisely these faculties nor does he that repeats all these qualities in particular say any more then he that said in general he was a Man Now then I answer the objection as Aesops Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea stop the Rivers said he and I will performe my bargain So say I hinder impertinent curiosities from importuning the Church and her Truths wil be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice without making new Definitions The last objection that it will appear a shift to say the Churches definitions are certain and yet
charity grant among Jews it might have been done as not a few think the very Law was lost in the times of their wicked Kings or other oppressions what inference can they make against Christian Tradition Of Books of Scripture peradventure there was a time when some one or rather any one might have been lost because it was in few hands shall we therfore conclude the same possibility of suppression when we treat of Doctrins universally profest by so many Millions when we dispute of Practices every day frequented by the whole Church Stil ther 's one jarring string that grates my ears with its loud discord though the stroak come not from the hand of these objectors yet I wil endeavour to put it in tune Some sick heads roving up and down in their extravagant phansies wil needs entertain a wild conjecture that at first our Saviour was indeed stil'd God and though the learned who had the knack of distinguishing knew wel enough the inward meaning then signify'd only a most eminent aud god-like person yet the common People understanding their Preacher simply as the letter sounded came by degrees universally to believe his true and real divinity But with what ingenuity can such rambling wits think the chief Principle of Christianity should be so negligently taught or accuse so many holy Saints of those purest times to be such deceitful Teachers Besides did not their rashness blind them they would easily see the raising the Person of Christ from humane to divine would necessarily infer a notorious change in the solemn Prayers of the Church and daily devotion of the People which certainly would give so great a stroak to both it could not possibly be attempted either undiscern'd or unresisted Lastly the Christian Faith being delivered not in a set form of words but in sense a thousand ways explicated enforc'd according to the variety of occasions and capacity of the learners how can any ambiguity of phrase endanger them into a mistake who attend not so much to the dead letter as the quickning sense so variously exprest so often incultated to them by their masters THE FIFTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the state of this Question Whether the Scripture can decide controversies THere remains yet a second part of our Apology for as this is the Catholicks principle to adhere to the authority of the Church that is to the living word written in their Breasts which governs all their actions relating to religion so on the other side whoever have at any time under the pretence of reformation oppos'd her Authority such have constantly rais'd up their Altar against Tradition upon the dead letter of the Scriptures Which as the Catholick Church highly reverences when they are animated by the interpretation of Tradition so by too much experience she knows they become a killing letter when abus'd against the Catholick sense in the mouths of the Devil and his Ministers But before we set our feet within the lists I am bound to take notice of an opposition no less common then slight and absurd and this it is When we retire to Tradition after both parties have lost their breath in beating the aerial outside of Scripture they presently cry out Cannot Aristotle cannot Plato make themselves be understood why then should not the Bible as wel determine Controversies If this were not after sixteen hundred years of experience after so much pains of our own since Luthers time idly cast away in tossing the windy balls of empty words without coming to resolution of any one point peradventure it were pardonable but now alas what can it be but an obstinate desire of darkness and a contempt of Gods Law and truth by a bold and irrational assertion and loud clamours to beat down the Catholick Church like Dametas in the Poem striking with both hands and his whole strength but winking all the while Let us therfore open our Eys and look thorow this objection Cannot Plato and Aristotle make themselvs be understood Yes but what then Ergo the Scripture can determine controversies The supposition wherin all venom ly's is conceal'd which thus I display As Aristotle wrote of Physicks and Metaphysicks so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen among Christians But Plato and Aristotle can make themselvs be understood concerning those Sciences therfore the Scripture can do as much concerning these Controversies This ought to be the discourse But had it been cloth'd in so thin and transparent a dress the Authors would have blusht to thrust it into light For t is a most shameless Proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the Controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world Beginning from Genesis to the Apocalyps let them name one Book whose theme is any now-controverted Point betwixt Protestants and Catholiks T is true the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. Johns Gospel was to shew the Godhead of Christ which the Arians afterward deny'd but that is not so directly his theme as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence the Divinity of his Person was to be deduc'd and yet the design so unsuccessful that never any Heresy was more powerful then that which oppos'd the truth intended by His Book But I suppose their reply wil be they purpose not to say the Scripture was written of our present controversies but of the precepts of good life and Articles of Faith necessary to them about which our controversies arise If this be their meaning their Assumption is as ridiculous as in the other their Major or chief Proposition For their argument must be framed thus As Scripture was written of the necessaries to good life so Aristotle and Plato of Physicks and Metaphysicks But Aristotle and Plato writ so plainly that all questions rising about their doctrin can be declared out of their words therfore all questions relating to good life may also be clear'd out of Scriptures Wherin the Minor is so ridiculous to any that have but open'd a Book of Philosophy that 't is enough not only to disanul the proof but discredit the Author And yet were it true the consequence would not hold For whoever considers what belongs to the explication of Authors knows there is a great advantage to discern the sense of those who proceed scientifically above the means to understand one that writes loose Sentences An Archimedes an Euclid a Vitruvius wil be of far easier interpretation where the Subject is of equal facility then a Theognis Phocyllides or Antoninus because the antecedents and consequents do for the most part force a sense on the middle propositions of themselvs ambiguous Now the works of Plato and Aristotle are generally penn'd though not always so rigorously yet stil with an approach to the Mathematical way The Scripture uses a quite different method delivering its precepts without connexion betwixt one another And though I deny not but peradventure the Articles of our belief have in themselvs as much
Captain searches the Hospitals for Perdues Forcers of breaches It is a great step towards the reducing others to reason if first we make our own thoughts rational This is my endeavour this is my fault for which I am so deeply censur'd even by Catholiks As for Persons my writings neither name nor touch any and those who make themselvs pointed at by their forward boasts of defending the opinions I dispute against either understand not me or themselvs for did it deserve the pains I would undertake to shew out of their printed Writers that they doe not with any universality maintain those tenets I contradict If in this present Treatise I have in one place descended to more particulars then my course and nature incline me to I appeal to your own Judgment whether I do more then follow my Adversary by replying upon his very words and therfore your commands ought to be my excuse But some think at least this conjuncture improper to begin this Work I wish they could give me a good cause of delay they should finde me very ready to accept it But I know no time in which destructive Errors should live unconfuted our great Master securing us by his example neque ad horam cessimus nor can your self be ignorant with what fury and violence the opposite opinion strives at this very day to possess the Chruch of God and break the eternal Rule of Christian faith Wherfore though conscious of my own weaknes and that unless God extraordinarily shews his power my endeavours wil take no place yet propter Sion non tacebo propter Hierusalem non quiescam Your most obliged Cosen and obedient servant T. W. 27 March 1654. The Table THe Introduction page 1 The first Encounter Explicating the argument by which Rushworth proves the infallibility of Tradition p. 7 The second Encounter Defeating three Oppositions made against Tradition p. 14 The third Encounter Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition p. 22 The fourth Encounter That unlearned Catholiks rely on the infallibility of Tradition p. 31 The fifth Encounter That Catholik Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition p. 36 The sixth Encounter Disabling three other arguments brought against Tradition p. 44 The seventh Encounter Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new beliefs to the Catholik Church p. 50 The eighth Encounter That our Lady's immaculate Conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith p. 64 The ninth Encounter Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition p. 70 The tenth Encounter That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chyliasts p. 77 The eleventh Encounter That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice p. 84 The twelfth Encounter That the necessity of communicating Infants is no Tradition but prayer to Saints is p. 99 The thirteenth encounter Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Romes Communion to be the sign of the true Church p. 107 The fourteenth Encounter Four other Arguments revers'd p. 113 The fifteenth Encounter Declaring the state of this question Whether the Scripture can decide Controversies p. 135 The sixteenth Encounter Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture p. 150 The seventeenth Encounter Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion p. 262 The eighteenth Encounter Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies p. 173 The first Survey Of the Nature and subject of Deille's Book p. 179 The second Survey Of the two first Chapters of his first book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first Ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies p. 188 The third Survey Of his third and fourth Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works p. 197 The fourth Survey Of the fifth Chapter wherin he objects the Fathers Eloquence and that on set purpose they spake obscurely p. 208 The fifth Survey Of the six Chapters following wherin he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers p. 216 The sixth Survey How the Authority of Fathers is infallible p. 226 The seventh Survey Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherein he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges 232 The eighth Survey Of the two last Chapters of his second Book wherein he says many Fathers have agreed in the same Errors and objects certain varieties between the ancient and modern Church p. 238 The ninth Survey In Answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judge we ought to recur The other What use is to be made of the Fathers p. 250. ADVERTISMENT THe Reader is desired to take notice that this Apology particularly relates to the last Edition of Rushworth's Dialogues in 80 of the Long-Primer-Letter 1654 as which alone has felt throughout this Authors last hand and principally undertakes the refutation of Lucius Lo. Falkland's Discours of Infallibility and George Lo. Digby now Earl of Bristow his printed Letters to Sir Ken. Digby which he performs in a stile modest and respective answerable to the dignity of their Persons and civility of their Writings The Animadversions upon Daillé are apply'd to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original wherin the Reader wil easily pardon those uncourteous expressions he shal meet with if he consider how little favour he deservs from his equals that insolently condemns his Betters nay perhaps approve the justice of so necessary a resentment since 't were unreasonable in him to pretend the least regard from his Cotemporaries that has compos'd so infamous and injurious a Libel against all Antiquity ERRATA PAge 13. l. 1. since in Const. p. 27. l. 13. Eight's p. 58. l. 20. which were p. 78. l. 10. handing p. 82. l. 16. to our ears p. 102. l. 7. reatus l. 17. is there p. 106. l. 2. be not l. 28. but by their p. 119. l. 2. exposes p. 127. l. 3. evident they cannot p. 128. l. 5. part that is the p. 137 l. 10. the venom p. 142. l. last attempt the other p. 143. l. 1 2 dele but out of Scr. nor yet in that doe they use so fair play p. 148. Parenthesis begins at this l. 10. and ends at being l 13. p. 152. l. 2. vivifying l. 25. in the first p. 174. l. last day as com p. 179. l. 7. with p. 193. l. 2. so few p. 237. l. 28. not bound p. 238. l. 19. certain varieties p. 245. p. 243. l. 23. dele of l. 7. in his p. 248. l. last shal not in AN APOLOGY FOR TRADITION The Introduction THus it will sometimes happen that events of greatest importance take their rise from smal occasions The Controversy this following Treatise undertakes
never dreaming any such thing is not this as very a Bull as to say an Army shot off all their Attillery that the Enemy might not discover where they lay or to do as is reported of an acquaintance of mine who being in good company to ride through a Town where he was afraid to be taken notice of at his entrance set spurs to his horse holding his Cane straight before him and Trumpeted Tararara Tararara the whole length of the Town Nevertheless since 't is for our side says the Zelot 't is an invincible demonstration But we desire leave to consider one point farther In what times came in the errours our Adversaries so loudly complain of see whether they be not those ages when there were great quarrels about innovations encroaching on the Church and multitudes of exceptions taken so that had any side entertain'd a new errour not common to both parties especially if the novelties were any way notable they could not have been pass'd over without mutual contradictions or upbraidings The doctrines therfore which in those times pass'd unreprehended and were currantly admitted among all parties as being common to them all without question were not Errata sed Tradita Whence certainly it must needs appear a manifest folly to think any errour could run through the Church so uncontrol'd as to gain without the least sign of opposition an universality and much like the story that the great Turk with an Army of three or four hundred thousand men should steal upon Germany by night and take all the good fellows so fast asleep that not a man should escape nor so much as a Goos gaggle to wake the drowsy neighbours and having thus silently run over the Empire should pass into France and thence into Spain and still catch them all napping without the least notice or resistance wherof if any slow and dull heart should doubt as seeming indeed somwhat an improbable story the reporter should immediatly prove all with a why not since the Greeks had surpriz'd Troy so and perhaps some other great Captain one single Town or Garrison Besides if we venture to throw away a little faith on so extravagant a fable the action will still remain unpossible to be conceal'd Who shall hinder the Conqueror from proclaiming such unparalleld victories to applaud himself and terrifie the rest of the world who can forbid his souldiers to Chronicle their own valours and every-where boast such un-heard of exploits Certainly were there no Catholick testimonies of these late unhappy divisions from the Church yet would succeeding ages find evidence enough as to the matter of fact even in the writings of the Reformers themselvs How often do their Books insult o're the blindness of their Predecessors and triumph in the man of God Martin Luther and the quicker light Jo. Calvin as first discoverers of their new-found Gospel can we think it possible distracted Europe should blot out of her memory the sad effects of schism and heresy before the tears they have caus'd be wiped from her eys for my part I am confident our once happy Island will never forget the graceless disorders of Henry the hights unfortunate intemperance though there were not one English Catholick left in the world to remember them by the smart he endures ever since Add to all this the points wherin Protestants accuse us are the most palpably absurd positions that can fall into a Christians head as making Gods of Saints or Statues which were the dotages of the basest sort of Pagans Nor is the example of errours often sprung and often quell'd again of any advantage to the Opponent For our question concerns opinions remaining till this day and by himself supposed to have gaind the mastery of the Church and never fail'd since their beginning because all doctrins which appear to have a being before any age the Adversary can name are thereby evidently proved perpetual Traditions especially when the Authors were such as lived in Communion with the Catholik Church then extant and remain'd in veneration with the Church succeeding Methinks also since the opposer maintains it was more then a whole Age in working it self up to this universality if the errour were gross it must without doubt have been a long time in one Country before it passed into another else we shall scarce find a reason why it became not general in a shorter period of years and so it would easily appear until such an age that new doctrin was never heard of and in every Country the beginnings would be mentioned by the Historians and other writers as who came out of Greece into France to plant Images who first introduced the Priests power of absolution who invented the doctrine of preferring the judgment of the Church before our own private interpretation of Scripture all which we see exactly perform'd against every considerable Heresy a minute and punctual account being stil upon Record who were the original contrivers who the principal abettors where they found patronage where opposition How long they lived and when they died To evade this reason is fram'd the next crimination by saying what is answer'd has its probability if the errours laid to our charge were contrary to Christian doctrine But they only pretend to accuse us of superfaetations or false and defective additions to the Faith first planted which excrescencies only the Reformers seek to take away And though it be manifest when they come to charge us in particular they instance in doctrines substantially opposite to the Faith of Christ as Superstition and Idolatry could their calumnies be justify'd against us yet because this objection civilly renounces such harsh and uncharitable language let us see what may be intended by Superfaetations Either the disliked additions are of truths or of falsities If of truths we expect they would demonstrate who has forbidden us to learn and advance our knowledg in Christian Religion or matters belonging to it Did God give his Law to Beasts that have no discourse nor capacity by joyning two revealed truths to arrive at the discovery of a third Again where is it prohibited for the Doctour and Preacher to know more then the Ideot and old wife What fault then can even the proud and peevish humour of this age find in this point If Hereticks will raise dust and obscure the clearest articles of Christian faith and that so maliciously as without setling some further explication the people are in danger of being perverted is it a sin to establish such defences and Ramparts against encroaching errours If the addition be of falsities let us examin how the Opposer knows they are false If he reply because they are contrary to clear Scripture then they are also contrary to that Faith which deliver'd Scripture to be true If the points be not against Scripture either they crosse some known Article of Faith or only the Principles of naturall reason If they be purely objects of natural reason though truths they belong not
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
we may add Salmeron who has the boldness to say Doctores quo juniores eo perspicaciores Poza is no les audacious in citing opinions defin'd against the Fathers Erasmus says myriades Articulorum proruperunt Fisher Bishop and Martyr and as learned as any in his age consents that Purgatory was brought in by little and little and Indulgences after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro puts in the rank of newly receiv'd Doctrines Indulgences Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost But beyond all is the fact of Clement the eighth a grave and wise Pope who desirous to end the controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits accused by them of Pelagianism neither sent for learned men by way of a Council to know what their Forefathers had taught them nor examin'd with which of them the purest Ages sided but refer'd the whole matter to what St. Austin said and so it had been defin'd had not Cardinal Perrons advice prevail'd And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion that he knew not himself what he held wheras before him all the ancients sided with the Jesuits Thus far that Book I know this term Defining is frequently used by our Divines in matters of the Churches determinations nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word if the thing be understood to wit that Defining is nothing els but the acknowledging and clearing a Tradition from the dirt and rubbidg opposers had cast upon it For the rest that some Fathers have had their eys ty'd in particular points so far as not to see the force of Tradition by which the Church had notice of the truth of some position is a thing not to be doubted And if it were fit or necessary I could bring instances of bold Divines in our days so blinded by arguments that they see not the light of Tradition in some particular questions and so the expressions only changed hold condemned heresies So short is the sphear of our discours if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our Logick or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the ability of our Reason But what consequence any can draw out of these sayings against Tradition I understand not unless this be taken for a Maxim that every one must necessarily know of a special point that it is deriv'd by Tradition because really 't is so an inconsequence I hope already sufficiently demonstrated Now if these two can stand together that truly the Church has a Tradition for a point and nevertheless some learned man may be ignorant of it this argument has no force at all As to the positions he cites for newly adopted into the family of faith he fairly shews the priviledg he and his Master had to speak any thing that sounded to his purpose and let his adversaries take care whether true or no For nothing is more clear then that the validity of Baptism by Hereticks was a Tradition and decided by it so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgment the spirituality of Angels are not yet held matters of Faith but only Theological conclusions as likewise the souls being concreated to the perfecting of the body Then for the blessed Virgin 's being free from actual sin as also her Assumption and her delivery without pain which others add these either are known by Tradition or not matters of Catholick Faith and so no ways advance our Adversaries pretences For Alphonsus de Castro 't is plain by his very expressions either he means the manner only or at most some circumstances unessential to the things and therefore certainly not cited without some violence offerd to his words Poza is a condemned Authour and Salmeron's saying not to be followed or to be understood as it is whence he took it in such things as later disputes have beaten out more plainly Erasmus was learned in Criticism and one whom if not others his very English Patrons Warham of Canterbury Fisher of Rochester and More in the Chancery exempt from all calumny of being a desertor of the ancient Faith besides his own Books especially his Epistle Ad Fratres inferioris Germaniae by effects demonstrate his loyalty whatever bad impressions a certain liberty of practising his wit too freely may have made in some even great and eminent persons But what he speaks concerning Articles of Faith he either took from the scoldings of some ignorant Divines who are ready to call every word they found not in their books when they were Schollers Heresie or else because truly he understood not what belong'd to Decisions in that kind There remain two Authorities really considerable one of the holy Bishop Fisher the other of the prudent Pope As for the first I conceive there is a great equivocation through want of care and warinesse in distinguishing For let us take either the Council of Florence or Trent in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points those Councils defin'd are either denied by the Greeks or brought in by private revelations or new interpretations of Scripture For how could he be ignorant that the Greeks had agreed to the Latin Church about the definition of Purgatory in the Council of Florence or forget himself so far as not to remember a publick practice Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of the Penal injunctions laid upon sinners Besides he says the Latins did not receive Purgatory at once but by little and little Whence 't is evident by the name Purgatory he means not only so much as is established in the Council but the manner also and circumstances were introduced by revelations of private persons and argumentations of Divines The like he expresses of Indulgences saying They began after men had trembled a while at the pains of purgatory Whence it is plain he contented not himself with the precise subject of the Councils Definitions or the sense of the Church but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them So that by speaking in general terms and not distinguishing the substance of Purgatory from the Accidents and dressing of it as likewise in Iudulgences not separating what the Church has alwaies practiz'd from the interpretative extention which Divines attribute to them he is mistaken to suppose new Articles of Faith may be brought into the Church Neither imports it that he uses those words No Orthodox man now doubts for that 's true of such Conclusions as are term'd Theological and generally receiv'd in the Schools yet are not arriv'd to the pitch of making a point of Catholick belief besides he expresses himself that this generality extends no farther then That there is a Purgatory In Clement the eighth's action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the Definition he went about to make And upon the immediate step we both joyntly
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
they 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
reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
question St. Dennis tels us no Priestly function was compleat without the administration of the blessed Sacrament Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptiz'd This custom reached even to Infants but neither universally that is in all Churches nor indispensably For it was only then used when Bishops were present at Baptism as is apparent both because Communion was never administred anciently but after Confirmation and because it was always held for the complement of all Priestly Benedictions as is before declared Besides in some Churches there is not the least sign that ever it was given to Infants Another thing to be understood is that St. Austin uses to explicate the Communion to be an incorporation into Christs mystical Body of which no doubt but the Sacramental body is both a figure and cause This St. Austin himself upon the sixth of St. John plainly delivers and in his phrase takes the eating and drinking of Christs Body to be Faith or Baptism So do Orosius Prosper Fulgentius and Facundus either explicating or following him This equivocal manner of speaking makes those who are either not attentive enough or not willing to have him speak orthodoxly construe his words Grammatically that are spoken Allegorically which last his best Interpreters and most expert in his works accompt to be his opinion But to conclude this History After their loud and full cry as if the prey were in their sight which I believe wii never come within their reach for a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels let us see how necessary the African Church an objection more strongly urged thought Baptism it self was to Infants that is in how perpetual use And presently Tertullian the mainly cited and glorify'd for St. Cyprians Master tells us lib. de Bap. c. 18. Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismâ— utilior est St. Austin Disciple to the other two reports what hapned to himself having ask'd Baptism in his Childhood by reason of a sudden danger of death which being passed his Baptism was defer'd by his Mother Quia viz. post lavacrum illud major et periculâ—sior in sordibus delictorum eatus foret and adds ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi solus pater And that this was not the Faith of that house only but of the whole Country is evident from these words unde ergo etiam nunc de alijs atque alijs sonat undique in auribus nostris Sine illum faciat quod vult nondum enim Baptizatus est If then Baptism it self was not perpetually administred to Infants can we think the Eucharist was or is here any probability it was so us'd to children as not to be also often omitted and that lawfully Maldonatus a grave man otherwise exceeded and I wonder he is tolerated speaking so directly against the Council of Trent after the publishing of it But his assertion is manifestly fals Since 't is known Communion was not used to be given but after Confirmation and Baptism without Confirmation was held sufficient for salvation as is beyond cavil expressed by St. Hierom in Dialog cont Lucifer about the middle The last instance is of Prayer to Saints which is proved not to have proceeded by Tradition from the Apostles time by four arguments First because divers Fathers held that the souls of Saints were not receiv'd into Heaven till the day of Judgment therfore certainly they would teach no prayer to Saints The Antecedent I will not dispute not that I believe it but that I know not what it is to our question For suppose they are not may they not nevertheless pray for us we Catholicks think that Jeremy the Prophet was not in the Macchabees days admitted into Heaven yet we make no difficulty to believe that he did multum orare pro populo sancta civitate Those Fathers that are cited for the Receptacles are acknowledg'd to place the Saints in Sinu Abrahae and our Saviour teaches us that Dives prayed to Abraham The Protestants as well as we allow prayer to living Saints wherever then the dead Saints are are they worse then when they were living that they may not be prayed to But the principal answer to destroy utterly this objection is that those who say we learn by Tradition that Saints are to be prayed to say likewise we have learn'd by Tradition that Saints go to heaven that is are admitted to the fight of God before the day of Judgment The next proof is that prayer to Saints began with a doubting preface of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which I find my self no ways engaged to frame a particular answer having no farther ground from my Adversary who cites not any Author to explicate the meaning of this objection I remember Cardinal Richelieu at his death is reported to have taken his kinsman Marshal de Meilleray by the hand and told him that if the next world were such as was figured to us here I deliver what I conceiv to be the sense not the words he would not fail to pray for him Now some who had a hard opinion of that great Person would press out of this speech that he beleev'd not the Immortality of the Soul Whether this also be pretended to be the meaning of that Optative term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot judg for then I should easily admit it has some force against the Tradition of praying to Saints But if it be but an Oratorial expression and obtestation such as is in St. Paul when he presses men to good works by the like phrase I know not how it reaches any way to his intent and much less against the receiving of this use by Tradition except the objector suppose that truly the first Prayer he finds in writing was the first that ever was made which is neither proved nor probable The third opposition is out of Nicephorus Calixtus who reports that Prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus a Heretick The consequence I should make out of this antecedent is that seeing the Author 's being a Heretik a condemnd and hated Person could not hinder this institution to take root and be approved 't is a sign it had a deeper foundation then of his beginning not that it was before in the Liturgie but that it was an ordinary practice among Christians which use because we know no origin it has in Scripture must have been out of Tradition and not of a short time how our Adversary wil prove the contrary I am not able to make any likely conjecture The last argument is drawn out of the confession of our own Doctours who affirm there is no Precept for praying to Saints in the Church of God for so much is meant by those words sub Evangelio and yeild the reason that Pagans might not think themselves brought again to the worship of men Which Antecedent having two parts
captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
connexion as the severest discourses of those Philosophers yet the style wherin they are couch'd in the Bible is accommodated to vulgar capacities and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration But because no controversy can be clear and fit for decision unless it be prepar'd by an exact and rigorous stating the Question I first intend to set down my own sentiment which I conceive is also that of the Catholick Church and afterward what I collect to be the opinion of my Adversaries leaving them this free and just liberty to correct me if I mistake their mind First then we Catholiks no way doubt but the Scripture is the word of God and of infallible truth if rightly understood and that whoever being out of the Church receives the Scripture in that quality the ground of such reception if rational can be no other then because we taught him so and deliver'd it to him as such For I do not intend to dispute against those Spiritati who by an Enthusiastical light can judge of Scripture without sense and reason And to those who pretend either Fathers or other Christians out of our Church I answer my meaning is to comprehend in our Church the Fathers for so goes our position and consequently all Sects either receiv'd the Scripture immediately from us or from those who received it from us Secondly we doubt not but the Scripture is highly profitable for the enablement of Preachers to teach reprove confirm in all points of Catholik doctrin both concerning Speculation and Practice and by consequence that the Church were not so thoroughly furnisht for all kind of exigenccis without it for which reason it is of particular usefulness and indeed necessity to the Church Thirdly we confesse the Bible contains all parts of Catholik Doctrine in this sense that all Catholik doctrin may be found there by places and arguments be deducted thence nay more be topically or Oratorially proved out of it so that if an able Preacher be in a Pulpit where he speaks without contradiction with a full and free scope he may meerly discoursing out of Scripture carry any point of Catholik doctrin before the generality of his Auditory and convince at the present such a part of them as either are but indifferently speculative or have not taken pains in the question Fourthly I affirm that if any point be brought to an eristicall decision before Judges where the parties on both sides are obstinately bent to defend their own positions by all the art they can imagin so the question be not which part is true but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture the Catholik position may be victoriously evidenced by arguments purely drawn from thence compared and valued according to true Criticism without ayd of Fathers explications or any other extrinsecal helps Thus far I esteem all good Catholiks ought to hold and believe that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe de facto hold Now then to come to the true difference betwixt our Adversaries and us I understand it consists in this That having stated a material point as whether that which we see and touch in the Eucharist be truly Christs body or only a figure of it it self remaining substantially Bread and that this question be to be handled contentiously before Judges each party pretending to convince and demonstrate by quotation of places critically exalted to their highest force whether the Scripture I say be a sufficient Storehouse to furnish either side with Texts unavoidable and convincing beyond any shadow of reply in the judgement of sworn and expert judges who are wel practis'd what convincing signifies and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences This is that wherin I engage the Catholik Negative and suppose all Adversaries must hold the Affirmative And the first reason of my supposition is because I never see them attempt any other way of disputing but out of Scripture nor yet in that do they use so fair play as to put the places which favour them on the page of receipts and those which Catholiks bring to the contrary upon that of expences and then having by rules of good Criticism examined the qualities of both prefer that party which is more deserving Next I know not how that man dare shew his face before any person of common sense who shal first acknowledg he goes against the opinion of the whole present Age wherin he lives against the undoubted testimony of a thousand years before him against the known laws both spiritual and temporal publikely renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate empower'd by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws that shal accuse all his kindred Ancestors and whole Country of blindness and ignorance and pretend all the world is bound to desert them and follow him and this in a matter concerning no less an interest then Eternity and after all this so arrogant bawling and high demands being ask'd what evidence what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world shal be forc'd to confess he can but play at cross and pile with them to know which of the two sentences is true which fals For setting aside real and irrefragable conviction what is there left in speculation but meer contingency Now this strange boldness this incredible presumption was undeniably Luthers case and if his then certainly all his followers For neither is the weight and authority of so many ages become less pressing and efficacious against his adherents nor their first plea improved or amended but rather weaken'd if by his and all his fellows labours as yet no evidence is produced an infallible sign none is likely ever to be made Nor is the change of temporal laws and Princes any motive to him that goes upon pure reason and seriously ayms at the good of his soul. Again he whose discours is not convincing and yet wil be medling with truths of highest importance is either ignorant of that defect and then he deserves the name of a rash temerarious fellow that dares in a matter of such consequence advance Propositions by passion or precipitation whose quality himself understands not or else he knows he does not convince then let him at the beginning of his Sermon express so much and tel his Auditors he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation and propose new Tenets about it but in very deed he can neither prove the old Tenets are false nor those which he shall propose to be true Can any one think if the Auditory have either wit enough to discover so grosse an Impostor or never so little honesty to care what becoms of their souls or love to Christianity they wil not with great indignation pull his jump o're his eares and tumble him out of his Pulpit Now what difference is there so the mischief be done
whether it be foretold the people or no saving that to conceal the wrong is a more wicked and destructive piece of cunning Another consideration is that in practical things more probability approaches to certainty and by multiplication contingencie at last begets perfect Necessity but in speculation not so For as there is more probability to throw seven upon two dice in forty trials then in foure so in five hundred most certainly that cannot fail to be the cast the reason is because the number of casting so exceeds the variety of chances that it makes first a difficulty and after an impossibility of missing Now in speculation if no particular cause precisely compel and determine the effect variety can prevail nothing so that rigorously speaking a conclusion is no neerer being true for a hundred unconvincing Arguments then for one whence it follows where there is no demonstration neither Opinion is securely the better He therfore that pretends the introduction of a change in a speculative point ought either to promise evidence and conviction or else content himself with silence for 't is absurd to move any one to change his assent I speak not here of a practicall resolution without promising him some abetterment Lastly as far as I can penetrate he that has a changeable and uncertain Religion has none at all For I conceive a Religion as we now discourse of it is the knowledge by which we are to guide our selves in our way and progress towards eternal felicity so that if the Religion any one professes be not the true he cannot by its principles perform what is requisite to the gaining of that end Neither is any knowledge which such a Probablist has the right and proper means of cultivating his soul in order to future happiness and therfore it is as impossâ—ble an untrue Religion should lead to Heaven as a fals way to London Now if a Religion that is not true be no Religion he that doubts whether he has the true is in doubt whether he has any Religion or none and he that pretends no farther then to doubt about Religion pretends not to know he has any but the act of knowing cannot be had if he that has it does not know he has it therfore he that pretends not to know he has a Religion confesses himself to have none The same is clear in practice For suppose an Apothecary had compos'd a drug for his Patient but being incertain whether to administer it like a potion or a glister should sometimes give it one way sometimes the other or a Guide having undertaken to conduct a Stranger thorow some untroden Wildernes for want of assurance which way to take should lead him up and down as in a Maze first to the left hand then to the right were not these excellent Masters in their crafts and worthy of continual imployment but with this condition that they practised their Arts upon none but one another Then if Religion be the knowledge of conducting our souls to heaven is not he like to make good speed that acknowledges himself incertain of the way who to day marches forwards and to morrow goes as much backward to day confesses and adores Christ in the Eucharist to morrow blasphemes him and damns all that adore him to day prays to Saints bears respect to a Crucifix and a compassion to the dead to morrow cries out against all as Idolatry Superstition and meer inventions of lucre Still there remains with me one other scruple about this point Divers great Brains have undertaken the commendations of things which mankind is so far from delighting in that very few can endure them this aversion rising out of a judgement not taken up by humour but taught by nature which justly abhors all that diminishes or destroys its being as Blindness Folly Sickness and the like and contrived many perswasive forms and witty inducements to invegle their Auditory into an evident absurdity Others we find who by whole Sects maintain'd that all propositions were indifferent and their practice was of every subject to speak copiously and plausibly on both sides and this in good earnest out of a setled belief that they could make which side they pleasd the more probable I ask then whether the probability either of these two sorts of wits bring for their paradoxes be sufficient to chuse a point in Religion If you say I What imports it in any point which part you take that is whether you have any Religion or none If you say no what means do you prescribe us to know when a probability is great enough or who 's he that is able to judge the degrees of probability when they are sufficient and when not Peradventure you may say In the first case the evidence of nature shews their probability to be clearly absurd and I could answer why may not Nature sometimes be deceiv'd as Anaxagoras would perswade us when he maintain'd Snow was black but I need not 'T is enough to remember The questions of Religion are concerning actions whose effects appear not to us and yet ordinarily the effects are the chief means to frame arguments and produce certainty in practice that the cause is right 'T is enough to remember eternall blisse belongs to the next world and the Mysterys we dispute are such as the Son of God only has seen and brought us tydings of But what wil you say to the second sort of disputers who equall all probabilities and are men against whose eloquence erudition and prudence in other things you cannot except To all this I can yet add one plain but very confiderable reflexion that certainly to prove any position those wild capricious Brains cannot find weaker places for their arguments then a mute ambiguous dead writing not quickned with reason and discourse which yet is the boasted ground of all that renounce the infallibility of the Church in matters of supernaturall belief THE SIXTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture THe case thus stated we have won the field If I have err'd in framing the question let them correct it with these two conditions that they propose it so as to leave themselves a Relâ—gion and different from ours for unless both these subsist the quarrel betwixt us is at an end But if I have rightly exprest the point in controversie let them bring one place of Scripture that comes home to the question and carry the Bays Their position must include these two branches That Scripture is intended for a ground to decide Controversies in such a contentious way as I have set down and sufficient to perform this charge For the former I dare confidently affirm there is not in the whole Bible an expression so much as glances towards it And though the second includes the first and can have no verity nor subsistence without it yet since there are some who discovering not the first can perswade themselves they finde the second we wil
conceiting themselvs able by them utterly to destroy all Traditions These are such as forbid to add or detract from the holy Scriptures which though commonly so explicated by Protestants yet certainly cannot but appear to every child altogether impertinent to our controversy For t is a far different question Whether we were bound to put no new or Apocryphal Books into the Canon which our adversaries charge us to have done or to take none out which we charge them to do from that now in debate Whether there be any other means of assuring matters of Faith beside the Bible or rather Whether Scripture in an eristical and contentious way be a Rule sufficient to decide all controversies in Religion Nevertheless let us see the Texts they alledge for their opinion Deut. 4. 2. Iosh. 1. and others to the same effect My first answer is suppose these places imported all the force our adversaries pretend we are not in the least degree concern'd since all that 's said is clearly spoken of a certain Book or Law properly and specially belonging to the Jews and no more obliging Christians then the Book of Leviticus or the Law of Circumcision Secondly since it is held as a main distinction and opposition betwixt the Laws of the Jew and of the Christian that those of the Iew were to be written in Stone and Paper and those of the Christian in the hearts of men by Tradition it would rather follow if such Analogy were to be made that because nothing but Scripture is to be given to the Jew only Tradition is to be pressed on the Christian. Thirdly to the end this place may have the effect endeavoured by the arguer all the rest of the Bible except Deuteronomy or such other Book to which the Texts cited particularly relate may be burnt or at least cast out of the Canon and not have any power to decide controversies even in the Jews law I know 't is answer'd that Protestants deny not such Books Neither do we accuse them of it only we conceive we may safely say they contradict themselvs in pressing these places to that effect of one side and admitting the Books on the other My fourth Answer is that the Law it self enjoyns in certain cases other precepts to be added remitting the people upon any doubt first to Iudges and afterwards to the High Priest and commanding their declarations to be obey'd and under greatest penalties punctually observ'd So that the consequence drawn out of these places is both weak in it self and prejudicial to them that use it Nor is the inference our adversaries wrest out of the last Chapter of the Apocalyps less unreasonable then the former where he that adds or detracts any thing from that Prophecy is accursed whence pleasant discoursers will needs conclude that Christian doctrin is no otherwise to be proved but by Scripture Questionless to speak more pertinently to the Text they should have said it was to be prov'd out of nothing but the Apocalyps but because that would appear too palpable and absurd they included the rest of the Scripture violently against the express letter and meaning of the Text. This Argument seems to me as if the fam'd Astrologer Mr. Lilly had obtain'd a Protection from the State that none should presume to abuse his Prognostications by foysting in counterfeit ones or blotting out any part of his and thence one should boldly infer that all our Courts of Justice were commanded to judg such cases as came before them only out of Lilly's Almanack with this sole difference that the arguer here unjustly cogs in the whole Scripture instead of the single Book of the Apocalyps which makes his consequence far weaker and more unexcusable then the other as I confess the similitude I use agreeable rather to the impertinency of the objection then to the dignity of the subject To these two may be parallel'd that Preface of St. Luke so strongly urg'd by some The words as I understand them are these Seeing many have endeavâ—ured to compile ae history of the things in great abundance acted among us according as they who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and instruments of the Gospel have delivered to us I also have thought fit excellent Theophilus since I was present at all things almost from the beginning to set them down to thee in order that thou mayest know the certainty of the Reports which thou hast been taught This is the Text though others interpret it otherwise who if they will urge any thing out of their own explication must first justify it against this But out of this First St. Luke pretends no more then to tell our Saviours life like a good Historian however some of his excellent sayings cannot be deny'd their place in his life as is testifyed by the same St. Luke in the first of the Acts and therfore we ought not expect to know more from him then was fit for an Historian to report that is the eminent deeds and sayings of our Saviour Now the end express'd in the Text for the writing of this History may be understood two ways One that Theophilus might know which reports were true which fals The other that Theophilus out of the recital of Christs miracles and heroical actions might understand the greatness of his person and by consequence the certainty of his holy doctrin which depends from them But whether one or the other however there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christian doctrin which must be our Adversaries meaning There are yet two passages I must not omit because our Adversaries make great account of them one is the fourth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians That you may learn in us not to be wise beyond what is written To understand this place you must know there grew some emulations betwixt the disciples of the Apostles if I may guess betwixt those of St. Peter and St. Paul This St. Paul reprehends at large but for fear of making the breach wider instead of closing it would not name St. Peter chusing rather to put the case as if it had pass'd betwixt himself and Apollo and first uses this argument that Paul and Apollo are but Ministers of Christ therupon after some diversion he comes to tel them how all that any man has is from God and for the people and concludes to have all esteem'd as the Ministers of Christ and dispensators of his Mysteries And after he has express'd how little he concerns himself whether he be wel or ill reputed by them concludes telling them he had taken those two names of Paul and Apollo to teach them this point and then brings in the words alleadg'd which I may venture to paraphrase thus I have disguis'd my discours concerning the esteem you ought to have of your Preachers under the names of Apollo and my self that by what I teach you to be due to our
persons you may learn not to be affected to your Preachers above what I have written to you about a dozen lines before to wit that they are all ordain'd for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Mysteries to the end one of you do not swell with pride or choller against another in any mans behalf and so breed Schisms and contentions among your selves This is the meaning of the Apostle as will appear to any judicious understanding that can be content to read and diligently weigh the whole composition of the discours And here we are unwillingly constrain'd to observe the desperate shifts of many of our adversaries into which either the rashness of their passions or necessity of their caus engages them for so in the Text we now treat they presently snapt at a piece of a sentence where they found this charming word written and that was enough for them without ever troubling their heads to consider or sense or connexion in order to the framing a legitimate argument For had they but taken the immediatly precedent line These I have disguized into Apollo and my self for you and then brought in the words cited That you may learn in us not to be wise above what is written the nonsense would have declar'd it self and stumbled the Reader who could not but presently have check'd at the inconsequence And the verse following would be likewise incongruous to these that you be not sweld one against another for any man For what connexion can either the words precedent or subsequent have with this that You are to learn your Faith out of the Scripture and yet I have translated the Latin Sapere or Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the true sense for the objectours advantage wheras the true meaning is not to esteem them higher or bear themselvs as if their Masters were higher and thus the very English Translation yeilds it The latter place is out of the first to the Galathians where he warns them that whoever comes to preach any doctrin besides that which He had taught them they should refuse him communion or account him execrable This passage I have always esteem'd very strong and pregnant for Tradition and our Adversaries call it a most illustrious proof against it I confess at first I was at a loss to imagine how they could frame an argument out of so unfavourable a Text but at last I perceiv'd it might perhaps be thus St. Paul said they preach'd nothing but what was written as he testify's to Agrippa so then all he preach'd was Scripture But he commands them to receive no other doctrin but what he deliver'd them Therfore he enjoynd them to make Scripture the Rule of their Faith This is as far as I can find the full epitome of their discourse upon this Text. But considering that what is in Scripture may be deliver'd by preaching without any mention of Scripture me thinks though all St. Paul taught the Galathians had been written yet it follows not He commanded the Galathians to hold the doctrin from Scripture For those two words what we Evangeliz'd to you and what you have receiv'd signify so plainly preaching that I can collect nothing from this place but that they were to hold their Faith because He had preach'd it then which 't is impossible to imagine a more efficacious argument to demonstrate Tradition And to this effect he exaggerates his own quality that he was one who had not receiv'd his doctrin from man nor by the entermise of man but immediatly by revelation from Christ and afterwards upbraiding the Galathians for their inconstancy asks them whether they had receiv'd their Christianity by the works of the Law or ex auditu fidei by hearing of the Gospel So that in effect his command is to the Galathians to stand to his preaching that is to Tradition for their Faith and this not only against all men but even Angels should they come down from Heaven to preach any thing contrary For that the word praeter may signify contrary is too well known to be insisted on But that it signify's so here the particular occasion of this discourse makes evident St. Paul expressing that some intruded themselves seeking to overturn the Gospel of Christ and charging upon them that wheras they had begun in spirit they ended in flesh and the like Wherfore it is plain he spake of doctrin contrary to what he had preach'd But if praeter be taken for besides it will signify besides Tradition not besides Scripture there being not the least mention of Scripture Now how soundly it is proved that St. Paul taught nothing but what was written is before examin'd which yet if admitted true were nothing to the purpose For 't is not the Catholik position that all its doctrins are not contain'd in Scripture but not held from thence nor to be convinced out of the naked letter especially in a pertinacious dispute A question certainly not so much as dream'd of in this place of St. Paul And now to close this whole discourse I shall only add one short period as a prudential reflection upon the different fitness and proportion these two methods have in order to determine controversies That in case where any two parties disgree Tradition is very seldom of much as pretended by both and if at all still in points of less importance wheras Scripture is continually alledg'd by all sides how numerous soever their factions be and how fundamental soever their differences An evident sign the way of resolving by Tradition is incomparably preferrable to that of judging by the bare letter of Scripture especially if still upon examination one of the pretended opposite Traditions prove indeed either not sufficiently universal or not positively contrary to the other but perhaps a particular custom of some Province as Rebaptization or only a meer negative Tradition as that of the Greeks concerning the Holy Ghost THE EIGHTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies I Have omitted the petty quiblets of Criticism which our Adversaries use to press in divers of the places I explicated not only because they are often fals most commonly strain'd and always such pigmy bulrushes that they merit no admission into a grave discours but chiefly because considering largely the Antecedents and consequents to the Texts alledged I found the substance of them wholly mistaken and nothing to our purpose and that such arguments are the abortive issue of immature brains not able to distinguish the force of Canon shot from a Faery's squib or a boys pot-gun And I dare had I good conditions maintain that in all the differences betwixt Protestants and us Catholicks they cannot produce one place of Scripture in which the words can bear a sense that comes home to the state of the question I know many urge those of the Decalogue against Images To which I answer with words analogical to those of
the 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
proceeded from or by the Son only both which terms were then in use for this and nothing els can be signify'd by proper added to from or by then he condemn'd St. Cyrils doctrin Now our sly Interpreter would make Theodoret condemn this saying that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son His last reason is one that makes all the rest impertinent and shews they were dilated only to vilify the Saints and the Church whose Crown they are and the Founder of the Church who glorify'd himself in Them and Her 'T is that the Church of Rome and Protestants agree in the position he seemed to labour at so hard what need or occasion had he then to rave into the Fathers about a point wherin there is not the least difference among us Next he excepts at our Controvertists for alledging the Fathers against them since we know they receive not the Fathers I answer there is by nature planted in all honest dispositions such a respect to their Ancestors that though the malicious part of their congregation and this Sophister in chief cry down Antiquity as loud as they can yet shal they never be able wholly to root out of the hearts and consciences of the generality of Christians that esteem and reverence which they naturally bear in their Breasts towards the Fathers of Christianity So that our Controvertists cite writings of those ancient and holy Doctors not in reference to the ensoured and barbarous party of Hereticks but for their sakes who yet retain some spirits of goodness and Christian humanity in them Then he brings divers sayings of Moderns to prove the Authorities of Fathers are not irresistible especially in the interpretation of Scripture among which one somthing insolent Afterwards he reckons the varieties betwixt the ancient and present Church some in Ceremonies some in Disciplin and some as he pretends in Belief these later we have touch'd before the two former for the most part we make no difficulty to acknowledge since the prudential disposure of such discretionary points fals cleerly within the verge of the Churches jurisdiction But here I particularly invite the Ey of the serious Reader to observe how maliciously he corrupts the Council of Trent in two very considerable passages one where he says It anathematizes whoever shall deny that Bishops are a higher Order then Priests wheras in the Latin which himself has the boldness to cite truly in the Margin ther 's no such word to be found as Order but only that Bishops are superiores Presbyteris a phrase implying no necessiy at all of their being several Orders though in that word consists the whole emphasis of his fals imputation His other abuse is yet more gross and palpable concerning our Ladies immaculate Conception for the Council expresly declaring their intention was not to meddle with the Question he says 't is impossible so to expound their words that they shall in plain terms give the ly to all the Fathers and to render this foul play the more plausible among such as look not wel to his fingers he translates in hoc decreto falsly and perversly in this number as if the Council had positively decreed the Blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those who are born in original sin when their very words directly tel him they on purpose resolv'd to prescind from her particular Case and not determin any thing concerning It in that Decree Certainly had this man either face or conscience an ordinary malice could never have engag'd him into such a desperate absurdity so notorious that its practice cannot be unknown even to him though he shut his Eyes against the light since all disputers upon this point unanimously agree that the Council intended wholy to abstract from the question and leave both sides probable nevertheless this shameless forehead dares in such broad and unmannerly language not only slander a grave and venerable Council but outface the whol Catholick world What trust can be given to so bold a Jugler in matters either of less moment or less evidence when in a Case so important as the Decree of a Council and so palpably manifest that all that can read may easily discover the cheat yet he blushes not to venter on 't can any thing be answered in his defence or any excuse made why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave THE NINTH SURVEY In answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judg we ought to recur The other what use is to be made of the Fathers ALl this while our new Edifyer of the reform'd Temple has us'd only his Sword-hand to keep off those dangerous enemies the Fathers now he begins to manage his trowel and bedawb the face of antiquity with a little fine morter Let 's see at least what work he makes though we have smal reason to expect any good building from him that is not able so much as to pull down Thus then workman-like he enters upon his task demanding of himself this question the Fathers being rejected where shall we now lay our foundation to what Rule or Judge must we have recourse He answers To the Scripture and if in any one place it seem obscure we must then seek out another to clear it Which first supposes that for all points necessary there are some evident and clearing Texts But I must ask on what Authority he believes this doth the Scripture declare it so plainly that ther 's no debate about it He knows the whole Catholik Church denys any such self-evident alsufficiency in Scripture Did they who delivered him and his Brethren the Bible recommend it to them under this qualification No for his party went out of the Catholik Church and receiv'd the Scriptures from none but Her who never taught them any such lesson Perhaps you 'l say all other Christians testify'd the verity of that book and so upon their credit you are the more induc'd to accept it But those Christians are such as your selvs generally condemn such as have been cast out for taking this very proposition to justifie their rebellion against Her whom you acknowledge then to have been the true Owner and Mistris of Christs Doctrin Besides any one that has but half an Ey may see no Scripture-disputation with Heretiks was ever finisht without new reply's but the Church has alwaies been forc'd at last to condemn them upon the score of Tradition Thus you borrow'd this desperate device from those who in all ages were thrust out of the same Church for holding the very same principles But suppose there were some clear Texts in our Controversies as we think there are in disfavour of you may they not be rendred obscure by other places objected against them which we pretend you endeavour to doe If so your remedy is worse then the evil and the comparing of divers places is the very cause that makes all balanceable indifferent and obscure Are we not now