being once evident to the world are by the worlds full report declared unto us which is a morall infallibility So that if we have not a Metaphysicall or Mathematicall infallibility of the truth of Miracles yet we have a Physicall and morall infallibilitie as much as we have of any thing we either hear or see Nor doth this Physicall evidence take away the merit of faith because this evidence not being altogether and in the highest degree infallible in it self for our senses may somtimes be deceived it is not sufficient to conquer the naturall obscurity darknesse and seeming falshood of things to be believed upon the testimony of those miracles For the mystery of the Trinity of the Incarnation Reall presence and the like seem as far above the reach of reason as any Miracle can seem evident to sense hence when faith is proposed by Miracles there ariseth a conflict betwixt the seeming evidence of the Miracles and the seeming falshood and darknesse of Catholique Doctrine against which obscurity a man cannot get the victory by the sole evidence of miracles except he be inwardly assisted by the light of Gods Spirit moving him by pious affection to cleave to the Doctrine which is by so cleer testimony proved to be his Word Even as a man shut up in a chamber with two lights whereof the one makes the wall seem white the other blew cannot be firmly assured what colour it is untill day-light enter and obscuring both those lights discover the truth so a man looking upon Christian Doctrines by the light of miracles done to prove them will be moved to judge them to be truth but looking upon them through the evidence of their seeming impossibilities unto reason they will seem false nor will he be able firmly to resolve for the side of faith untill the light of divine grace enter into his heart making him prefer through pious reverence to God the so-proposed authority of his Word before the seeming impossibility to mans reason CHAP. VII That Catholique Tradition is the onely firm foundation and motive to induce us to beleeve that the Apostles received their doctrine from Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ from God the Father And what are the meanes by which this doctrine is derived downe to us § 1. AS Catholique Tradition is infallible in it self so is it most necessary for us there being no other certaine testimony to any prudent man no firme ground or motive to believe that the Primitive Church received her doctrine from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God nor no way to bring it downe from those times to these but only the Tradition of the Church For we may observe three properties of the doctrine of faith to be true to be revealed of God to be preached and delivered by the Apostles The highest ground by which a man is persuaded that his faith is true is the authority of God speaking and revealing it the highest proof by which a man is assured that his faith is revealed is the authority of Christ and his Apostles who delivered the same as descending from God but the highest ground that moveth a man to believe that his faith was preached by the Apostles is the perpetuall Tradition of the Church succeeding the Apostles unto this day assuring him so much according to the saying of * De praescr c. 21. 37. Tertullian who maketh this ladder of belief in this sort what I believe I received from the present Church the present from the Primitive the Primitive Church from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Christ from God and God the prime verity from no other fountaine different from his own infallible knowledge So that he that cleaveth not to the present Church firmely believing the Tradition thereof as being come down by succession is not so much as on the lowest step of the ladder that leads unto God the revealer of saving truth successive Tradition unwritten being the last and finall ground whereon we believe that the points of our belief came from the Apostles which may be proved by these arguments § 2. First if the maine points of faith be to be believed to come from the Apostles because they are written in Scriptures and the Scriptures are believed to be the Word of God upon the report of universall Tradition then our belief that the things which we believe come from the Apostles and from God resteth upon the Tradition of the Church but it is most certaine that the Scriptures cannot be proved to have been delivered unto the Church by the Apostles but by the perpetuall Tradition unwritten conserved in the Church succeeding the Apostles all the other waies by which the Protestants endeavour to prove the Scripture to be the word of God being vaine and insufficient as I have proved before Secondly common and unlearned people which comprehend the greatest part of Christians may have true faith yet they cannot have it grounded on the Scripture for they can neither understand nor read it or if read it yet but in a vulgar language of the truth of whose translation they are not assured therefore must rely upon the testimony of the present Church that that which they believe is the Word of God Thirdly if all the maine and substantiall points of Christian faith must be believed before we can securely read and truly understand the holy Scripture than they are believed not upon Scripture but upon Tradition going before Scripture and that it is so is manifest because true faith is not built but upon Scripture truly understood according to the right sense thereof nor can we understand the Scripture aright unlesse we first know the main Articles of Faith which all are bound expresly to believe by which as by a rule we must regulate our selves in the interpretation of the Scripture otherwise without being setled in the rule of faith by Tradition men are apt to fall into grievous errors even against the main articles of the faith as of the Blessed Trinity and Incarnation of the Son of God as experience doth sufficiently testifie so that reading and interpreting Scripture doth not make men Christians but supposeth them to be made so by Tradition at least for the main points such as every one is bound expresly to know Fourthly they to whom the Apostles wrote and delivered the Scripture were already converted to Christianity and instructed in all necessary points of faith and in the common practises of Christianity and so by what they knew by Tradition could easily interpret what was written but otherwise might easily have failed in the mainest points as some forsaking Tradition did for example the Arrians who were confuted by the Catholiques not by bare Scripture for of that the Arrians had plenty but as it was interpreted by Tradition Therefore none can be supposed to understand the Scripture aright so to know the true word and will of God but by being such as they were to whom the Apostles
endewed with so much zeal and courage as to professe her Religion and to propagate it in the world which cannot be Therefore it is impossible that the true Church should not be ever universall and famously known Sixthly this Church is holy both in life and Doctrine Holy for life shining in all admirable sanctity the rayes whereof do overcome the hearts of the beholders such as the Holy Apostles gave example of as of poverty chastitie obedience charity in undergoing all forms of labour and danger for the safety of soules patience invincible in the rough handling of themselves by wonderfull fastings and all kind of austerities fortitude heroicall in suffering martyrdome not onely with patience but with joy though given them in all the most hideous shapes that mans imagination steeled with malice could invent And although this kind of sanctity does not shine in all the members of the Church but in the more eminent professors and principally in the Pastors yet if this kind of sanctity together with Miracles were wanting she could not be so sufficient a witnesse to Infidells who ordinarily are not won to the affection and admiration of Christianity but by beholding such wonders of power and sanctity in the Professors thereof Holy shee is also for doctrine in regard her traditions are divine and holy without commixture of error for if the Church could deliver any one or few errors intermingled with many truths her Traditions even of the truth were questionable and could not be believed upon her word Even as if we admit in Scripture any error in smaller matters we cannot be sure of its infallibility in matters of greatest moment as he that shall say Gods written word is false or uncertaine when it tells him that S. Paul left his cloake at Troas may also say with as much reason that it is false or uncertain when it tells him that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary Even so he that grants that some part of Traditions or the Word of God unwritten may be false inferrs by consequence that every part thereof may be so and that because we have no antecedent ground or touch-stone to try Traditions by but they must be believed for their own sakes being therein more fundamentall than the Scripures which are not known to be Apostolicall but by Tradition whereas perpetuall Tradition is knowne to come from the Apostles by its own light for what can be more evident then that that is from the Apostles which is delivered as Apostolicall by perpetuall succession of Priests and people affirming and believing the same § 2. But against this truth that if the Church may erre in one thing neither wee nor shee can be sure that shee speakes truth in any thing Chillingworth makes these in my judgement impertinent interrogations A Judge may possibly erre in Judgement can he therefore never have assurance that he hath judged right A travayler may possibly mistake his way must I therefore be doubtfull whether I am in the right way from my hall to my chamber pag. 117. sect 106. In which he weakly falls into comparison betwixt matters which are the object of the sense or of the understanding and of faith which in this case have no proportion betwixt them For the doctrines of faith as they are of faith being altogether and all equally without the reach of our knowledge we have no way to attaine to but by the help of others whom we must absolutely believe and if we know that they may deliver that which is false to us wee can never be sure that any thing they deliver to us is not false unlesse we had some superiour rule to try and examine their Traditions by which certainly we have not Nor can the Church it selfe if shee may erre in the delivery of one thing be sure that shee doth not erre in every thing because shee hath no infallible rule to examine her doctrines by out of her selfe who if shee be assisted by the Holy Ghost cannot erre in any thing if not for ought shee knowes shee doth in all things Now that the Church is assisted by God and that mans reason cannot be the highest judge to whom the last appeal is made in matters of faith which descend from God I have shewed before As for a humane Judge as he may erre through ignorance wilfulnesse or negligence which to conceive of the Church is absurd yea blasphemous shee having Christ for her Head and the Holy Ghost for her Spirit so he cannot bee more certaine of the truth of his judgement than his reason can make him which will not reach to an absolute infallibility And as a travayler may mistake his way in one journey so he may in another if he have no more certainty nor better guide of the one way than of the other which is the Churches case in propounding and believing matters of faith revealed to her by God which like the Circumference from the Center are all equally distant from our knowledge and the Church hath an equall Prerogative of infallibility by the guidance of the Holy Ghost in all who therefore can erre in nothing or in all things which she saith she so receives and delivers Yet Chillingworth saith that his consequences are as like the other as an egge to an egge or milk to milk but more truly they are as like as an egge to an oyster or milk to ink § 3. And lest any Protestant who honours the Scriptures much with his lips though he be far removed with his heart should think that I am injurious to the Scripture in saying that Tradition is more fundamentall than Scripture it selfe I desire him to take notice that Tradition and Scripture according to different comparisons are equall and superior the one to the other Compare them in respect of certainty of truth they are equall both being the Word of God the one written the other unwritten and so both infinitely certain Compare them in respect of depth of sublimity and variety of doctrine the Scripture is far superiour to Tradition Tradition being plaine and easie doctrine concerning the common capitall and practicall Articles of Christianity whereas the Scripture is full of high hidden senses and furnished with great variety of examples discourses and all manner of learning Compare them in respect of antiquity and evidence of being the Apostles the Scripture is inferiour to Tradition in time and knowledge and cannot be proved directly to be the Apostles and therefore Gods but by Tradition As Philosophy is more perfect than Logicke and Rhetoricke than Grammar in respect of high and excellent knowledge yet Logicke is more prime originall and fundamentall than Philosophy Grammar than Rhetorique without the rules and principles whereof they cannot be learned Even so Tradition is more prime and originall than Scripture though Scripture in respect of depth and sublimity of discourse be more excellent then Tradition CHAP. X. That the Roman is that one holy Catholique
to be reputed a matter of faith which is not formally and expresly to be proved by the Word of God either written or unwritten and delivered by full Ecclesiasticall Tradition and seeing the Protestants doe not nor can pretend to this Tradition nor yet can prove their tenets by Scripture in expresse and evident termes but such as themselves confesse to receive probable solutions it must hence necessarily follow that their doctrines are false without foundation and to be rejected by every Christian § 6. Lastly whereas Protestants object that the Pharisees are reproved by Christ for the observation of Traditions it is altogether impertinent for the Scripture doth not say that their Traditions were derived by succession from Moses the first deliverer of their law nor did the Pharisees pretend to it but they were Traditions of their owne whereof some were frivolous and superstitious some impious some pious The frivolous and superstitious were their washing of hands pots dishes the like supposing that otherwise they might have some spirituall impurity in them which our Saviour confutes saying There is nothing without a man entring into him which can defile him Mark 7.15 The impious were such as whereby they violated the commandements of God under the pretence of observing their Traditions as when they allowed a man under pretence of giving something to the Church to neglect his duty to his parents Mar. 7.11 Neither of these kinds is the Catholike Church guilty of Of their pious we have an example in their paying Tithes of mint a very small herb which was a Tradition of their owne not commanded in their law yet this our Saviour approves and binds them to it saying this you ought to have done Luc. 11.42 And it is worth the observation that the thing most of all objected against our Saviour was the written word and Tradition of God by Moses about keeping the Sabbath day as appeares in all the Evangelists from which precept not by Tradition unwritten but by logicall inferences of their owne they concluded that our Saviour brake the Sabbath by healing or doing some small labour thereon So that the Pharisaicall Traditions were not pretended to be doctrines unwritten derived from the first deliverer of their religion but doctrines concluded from the Scripture by the rules of Logick and reason as they conceived according to the present manner of the Protestants CHAP. VIII That the Church is infallible in whatsoever she proposeth as the Word of God written or unwritten whether of great or small consequence That to doubt of any one point is to destroy the foundation of faith And that Protestants distinction between points fundamentall and non-fundamentall is ridiculous and deceiptfull § 1. HAving thus found out that the Church was shee from whom I was to receive assurance what is the word of God and that otherwise it was impossible for me to know it and that shee could not mistake nor erre in her directions I conceived then that I was bound to believe all that shee propounded to me as the word of God whether it were written or not written writing being no testimony of the truth of any thing seeing it may be false as well as speaking and that to doubt of any thing was to call all into question and to dissolve the whole nature of divine faith For to believe hath a threefold signification in speech first it is taken for knowledge as where our Saviour saith Thomas because thou hast seen me thou believest John 20.29 to wit that I am risen now he that sees one knowes so much Secondly for opinion which is an assent begot by probable reason so men delivering their opinions use to say I believe thus or thus Thirdly and most properly for an assent unto such things as doe not appear but are assented unto by a firm reliance on the truth of him that reports them as S. Paul saith Faith is the argument of things not seen Heb 11.1 And this reliance on an Author such as cannot deceive or be deceived at least in those things which he propounds unto us to be believed must beget in us an equall belief of things that have humane possibility or probability on their side and of things that are clean against it the matter propounded makes no matter nor yet the manner of propounding it is the Author and our apprehension of him that controles all opposition By this do we believe the inexplicable mystery of the Trinity the Incarnation of God the Mother-hood and yet Virginity of the B. Virgin Mother with many others with as much ease as we believe that Noah had three sons or that S. Peter had neither silver nor gold and by this do we believe the latter with as much strength and firmnesse as the former For he that believes a thing because such an one sayes it who he believes cannot lie must believe all that he sayes and that with the same firmnesse because the reason of his belief still remaines namely the inerrability of the speaker But if he apply his belief according to the probability of the thing spoken and no further then he doth not believe because of the truth of the speaker but of the thing spoken which he must gather from probabilities of reason wherein he doth not believe the thing for the truth sake of the speakers testimony but for the likelihood thereof which he finds by the measure of his own understanding which is not to believe the other but himselfe and the other no more than he would do the arrantest lyer in the world yea the Devill himself that is so far as he by his reason conceives that he speakes the truth Which reason of his if it be infallible he doth not believe the thing properly but he knowes it if it be but probable he believes it not properly but hath an opinion of it and no more assurance than of other humane reports whose authors have no security from error which as they may be true so they may also be false And thus to believe is not to believe by divine and infallible faith but by humane and fallible and so it cancells divine supernaturall faith the first in order of the three theologicall vertues without which no man can be saved § 3. So that all the place that reason hath in the government of our faith is this to lead us to believe that testimony which cannot deceive us and for the particular objects of beliefe to take them upon trust of that testimony without checking at them whatsoever they be and though they be bones to Philosophy yet make them milke to faith and not as Heretiques doe make us demand a reason of every particular point of faith which if it square not to their apprehensions they cashiere This is not faith but fancy For to rely upon a humane basis such as reason is will not support such a mighty statue as divine faith And to use Chillingworths own similitude Water will not rise
being no such plaine places in many cases to be found which they themselves prove by their disagreement about the sense of many places Therefore to allay the unreasonablenesse of this assertion they add that it is Scripture diligently read by us and one place conferred with another all circumstances weighed and much prayer used which is in effect that not the Scripture it selfe but they interpret the Scripture by the aforesaid meanes § 6. But all these waies of study and conference skill in the tongues or the like are but humane endeavours and subject to error yea though much fervour of prayer be mixed therewith and such as the meanes are such of necessity must be the interpretation and determination but the meanes are uncertaine doubtfull and fallible therefore such must be the interpretation and if it be uncertaine it may be false and whether it be so or no Protestants have no way to discover but by the Spirit as he instructs every particular man whose insufficiency I found in my former consideration of the meanes to know the Scripture to be the Word of God And if it cannot assure me of the letter of Gods Word no more can it of the meaning considering that I can neither know whether another have the Spirit nor yet whether I have it my selfe or no without some miraculous revelation for all other proofs of having the direction of the Spirit are but humane and so subject to deceipt but miracles we are sure are from God because they exceed all humane and created power § 7. And seeing Protestants ground their salvation upon faith onely which as they say doth onely justifie and faith upon Scripture only which according to them containes all things necessary to be believed and the Scripture and sense thereof upon the private Spirit only by which they expound the Scripture it followes that the private Spirit is the sole or principall ground to them of the sense of Scripture the Scriptures sense the like ground of their faith and this their faith the like ground of their salvation therefore no Protestant can have greater certainty of his faith or salvation then he hath of this private Spirit whereof seeing he hath none either from Scripture Church Councells Fathers common sense or experience it must needs follow that he hath certainty of nothing and that this relying upon the private Spirit must needs plunge him into infinite and abominable errors CHAP. IV. Of the vanity and impiety of those who affirm that each mans particular reason is the last Judge and Interpreter of Scripture and his guide in all things which he is bound to believe and know And that the Catholike Church is the sole Judge § 1. FInally Chillingworth the last reformer and calciner of the Protestant Religion seeing the weaknesse of all the former pretences hath boldly and roundly reduced all to one only principle and that is of naturall reason affirming that our belief of the Scripture to be the Word of God and also our belief of the Scripture in every particular part thereof depends upon each mans reason and discourse beyond which or different from which he is not bound to believe a title Yet he doth not say that this way is infallible but because all wayes else are fallible as he supposes and this the onely way God hath given us to be guided by we must be herewith contented and God also must be contented herewith in us and give salvation to those that believe and do according to their best understanding And this opinion I observed had got a large possession in the minds of Protestants especially of the Clergy and Gentry whose ingenuous education gave them the highest claime to the exercise of reason who were therefore very glad to embrace such a principle of Religion as of which they accounted themselves the chiefest Masters § 2. This conceipt seemed to me no lesse absurd and much more insolent than any of the other for the other did seem at least to ascribe our knowledge of the Scripture and sense thereof to God either speaking in the Scripture or by his Spirit speaking to their soules or concurring with their humane endeavours though in conclusion they drew it to the determination of their owne fancies But this man more impiously hardy than all that went before him doth directly and in plaine termes attribute all the assurance we have of the Word of God the director to salvation unto our selves and that too as we are meer men And this resolving of faith not into Authority but into reason and that not as preparing or inducing us to believe which Catholiques allow but as the maine ground and strongest pillar of our faith and the dependence of faith upon reason as the Conclusion on the premises is a doctrine incredibly pernicious and the source of monstrous impieties And for this purpose he builds much upon this * Pag. 36. n. 8. Axiome we cannot possibly by naturall meanes be more certaine of the conclusion than of the weaker of the premises as a river will not rise higher than the fountaine from whence it flowes Hence in the same place he inferres that the certainty of Christian faith can be but morall and humane and not absolutely infallible Therefore as an instance to the same purpose he saith * Pag. 116. We have as great reason to believe there was such a man as Henry the eight King of England as that Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate And in larger explication of this his doctrine he saith If upon reasons seeming to my understanding very good I have made choice of a guide or rule for my directions in matters of faith when afterwards I discover that this guide or rule leads me to believe one or more points which in the best judgement that I can frame I have stronger reason to reject than I had to accept my former rule I may and ought to forsake that rule as false and erroneous otherwise I should be convinced not to follow reason but some setled resolution to hold fast whatsoever I had once apprehended From which wild and vast principle doth follow that if the Scripture for example propound things seeming more contrary to any mans reason and opinion than the inducements which first moved him to believe Scripture were in his opinion strong and convincing he must reject the Scripture as an erroneus rule and adhere to his owne reason and discourse as his last and safest guide Especially considering that according to him the motives for which we believe the Scripture are but probable and by consequence subject to falshood which in all reason must give place to reasons seeming demonstrative and convincing as there will not want many such against the highest mysteries of Christian faith if once we professe our assent to them must be resolved into natural discourse For for what reason do the Socinians and such like deny the misteries of the blessed Trinity the Diety of our blessed Saviour
delivered the Scripture that is first instructed by Tradition Otherwise they may easily erre in some chiefe articles of Faith any of which to erre in is damnable And I would faine know whether any understanding Protestant doth believe that if a Bible were given to a heathen or to one borne amongst themselves supposing he had not been trained up by Catechisme and other traditionall instruction whether I say he could out of that extract as points cleerly expressed therein the thirty nine Articles of the Church of England or the book called the Harmony of Confessions which is the profession of the faith of most of the Protestants of the world Lastly we cannot with modesty say that we are more able to understand Scripture than were our fore-fathers the ancient Doctors of the Church but they thought themselves unable to interpret Scripture by conference of places or such like humane means without the light of Christian Doctrine before-hand knowne and firmly believed upon the Tradition of the Church witnesse * Ruf. Eccl. hist l. 2. c 9. S. Basil S. Gregory Nazianzene and * Orig. tract in Mat. 29. c. 23. Origen who thus writeth In our understanding of Scriptures we must not depart from the first Ecclesiasticall Tradition nor believe otherwise but as the Church of God hath by succession delivered to us therefore no man is able to interpret Scripture without the light and assistance of Christian faith afore-hand received by the voice of the Church delivering what shee received from her ancestors Dangerously and high boldnesse then it is for men of this age so to presume on their owne interpretations of Scripture gotten by humane meanes as to make them over-ballance a thousand * Luther de capt Babil Tom. 2. VVittenberg p. 344. Cyprians Augustines Churches and Traditions § 3. From all which I observed that the Protestants do not well understand that place of Scripture so frequently urged by them against Tradition where S. Paul saith to Timothy Thou hast known the holy Scriptures from thy childhood which are able to instruct thee or make thee wise unto salvation Inferring from hence that the Scriptures are able to make all men wise unto salvation whereas this was spoken with relation to Timothy only and to such as agree with him in the cause for which this saying is true in him that is such as were aforehand instructed by Tradition and did firmly believe all substantiall Doctrines of faith and know the necessary practises of Christian Discipline even as what God said to Abraham I am thy protector and thy exceeding great reward Gen. 15.1 is not appliable to all men absolutely but only to all men that were of the same qualification that is faithfull and devout as he was Moreover the Apostle in that place speaketh only of the Scriptures of the Old Testament for the New was not written in the infancy of Timothy nor some of it at this very time that these words were written and these Scriptures he affirmes also to instruct Timothy not by themselves alone but by faith which is in Christ Jesus that is joyned with the doctrine of the Christian faith which Timothy had heard and believed on the voice of Tradition And the following words of the Apostle are with equall confidence insisted on All Scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach c. is very unprofitable for their purpose seeing that profitable can by no means be stretcht to signifie sufficient as they would have it and that for every man but particularly for him that is HOMO DEI a man of God that is one already instructed by Tradition in all the main points of Christian faith and godly life such an one as Timothy was Thus indeed the Scriptures may be granted sufficient joyned with Tradition but not alone And whereas there are some places of the Fathers alledged by Protestants to prove the Scriptures to be clear in all substantiall points they are to be understood as the Apostles words are with reference to such men who have been before instructed by Tradition even as they that hear Aristotle explicate himself by word of mouth may easily understand his books of nature which are very hard to be understood of them that never heard his explication either from his own mouth or by Tradition from his Schollers § 4. Whereas some Protestants say that the difficult places of Scripture are unfolded a VVootton triall of the Romish c. p. 88. l. â—9 by Scripture and the rules of Logick b Field p. 281. lin 20. and by other things beside Scripture evident in the light of nature it seems to me very incongruous First because the rule of faith must be for the capacity of the unlearned as well as the learned and unlearned men cannot be sure of the infolded sense of the Scripture by Logicall deductions Secondly the Scripture it self sends us to supply her wants not to the rules of Logick but unto Tradition saying Hold the Traditions which ye have received by word or our Epistle 2 Thes 2.15 It sendeth us to the Church the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. 3.15 which whosoever doth not heare is as a Heathen and a Publican Matth. 18.17 It did the same to the Jewes who had the Scriptures also saying Remember the old dayes think upon every generation ask thy father and he will declare unto thee the elders and they will tell thee Deut. 32.7 The same do the Fathers as I shall shew hereafter § 5. And whereas it is further objected that the Fathers disputed negatively from the Scripture against Heretiques thus Doctrine is not cleerly delivered in Scripture therefore it is not to be received as a matter of Faith we must know that the Fathers proceeded upon this supposition that was known to all and granted by the Heretiques themselves namely that the Doctrines they disputed against were not the Traditions of the Church and in this case they required the testimony of Scripture Yea more the Fathers did not onely require places of Scripture from the Heretiques by way of deduction and Logicall inference for to such all ancient Heretiques and Protestants now pretend wherewith they delude ignorant people but they required of them to shew their Doctrine in Scripture saith Irenaeus expresly and in termes and to prove it not by texts * Aug. de unitat Eccles cap. 5. which require sharpnesse of wit in the Auditors to judge who doth more probably interpret them not by places which require an interpreter one to make Logicall inferences upon the text but by places plaine manifest cleere which leave no place to contrary exposition and that no Sophistry can wrest them to other sense to the end that controversies which concern the salvation of soules be defined by Gods formall Word and not by deductions from it by rules of Logicke And even by this way of the Fathers arguing negatively from the Scripture the Protestant Religion is quite overthrowne for seeing nothing is
higher then the fountain from whence it springs if therefore particular reason be the governour of our faith which reason is a humane and fallible thing it cannot rise to nor support a divine faith But divine faith is that which God requires of us in the businesse of Religion and that which is not such is none And it is convenient that as God ordained man to a supernaturall end namely the blissefull vision of himselfe which is a thing far above all excellencies of nature so he should bring him to this blisse by believing things above the reach of reason which in man is his nature and to beget this faith by Miracles his owne acts which are above the power of nature and by the testimony of those that do those supernaturall acts to whom if he have given his deeds it cannot be doubted but he hath given his word of any part whereof to make any doubt is to call the credit of all into question the house of Faith being like some artificiall buildings whereof if you pull out one pin you loosen the whole frame So if a man disbelieve any one point delivered him by the Catholique Church he unjoynts the whole frame of faith and virtually denies it all and that because they have all the same height of proof to wit the testimony of the Church which if she can lie in one thing she may for ought wee know in another and so in all and thus bring a man to doubt of all and then to denie all And that those men that doe denie some one point of Catholique Tradition though unwritten doe not denie all is not for that they have any faith but out of secular ends and deceiptfull reason § 4. Indeed some Protestants grant that if Tradition be universall and perfectly Catholique it doth oblige to the belief thereof but not otherwise by which universall Tradition they meane such as never any one gainsaid But if such onely are to be called Catholique Traditions there is scarce any thing left for Christians to believe and indeed to that passe have many brought it for some have denied the distinction of Persons in the Trinity others the Divinity of our Saviour others his humanity others the Deity of the Holy Ghost and a hundred more now if no Tradition be to be called Catholique but such as was never denied by any one or some number of Christians then a man may deny the fore-mentioned and many other points and Articles of faith because their Tradition hath not been so universall but that some have denied it yea some books of the Scripture it self were not universally received till about four hundred years after Christ By Catholique or universall Tradition then must be understood that which the Catholique Church hath alwaies taught not which all Christians for then we must look for Tradition in the mouths of Heretiques whose property it is to deny some Tradition or other under pretence that it is opposite to Scripture And if any have taught contrary the Catholique Church hath condemned them for Heretiques which is a sufficient proof that untill such Hereticall Spirits opposed some one or more Traditions of the Church they were universally believed As for example the Doctrine of Christs consubstantiality or being of the same substance with the Father no reasonable man will deny but that it was generally believed in the Church before the daies of the Arch-heretique Arrius and that the Councel of Nice condemning of him was a sufficient proof that the doctrine he opposed was the universall Tradition of the Church by force whereof he was overthrowne and not by Scripture only there being no place of Scripture so plaine but he would give some answer to it and likewise alledge plenty of Scripture in the proof of his own Heresie while he took upon him to interpret it himself forfaking the traditionall sense thereof and would receive no answer to it And if Arrius his denyall of that point of Faith will make it universall for place or the doctrine it self new and so universall for time as some in other instances do alledge because it was then first declared by reason of that opposition then it may be lawfull under the same pretence for men to deny all the Traditions of the Church all the decrees of Generall Councells of the Church and to revive all the Heresies that were in the Church § 5. Moreover to attribute conditionall infallibility to the Church and not absolute in all that she delivers * Chillingworth pag. 118. Pet. Martyr loc Com. clas 4. c 4. sect 21. Confess Helvet c. 17. as some Protestants doe making her infallible onely while she followes the Scripture and Vniversall Tradition is to give her no more priviledge than to a child or fool who are also infallible while they affirm nothing but what is agreeable to Scripture and universall Tradition But if we know not Scripture nor Tradition but by the Churches direction how shall we know in her exposition of Scripture and deciding of controversies that she doth erre unlesse we know it from her also seeing her authority in the one is as good as in the other and by those reasons that we may deny the truth of the one we may deny the other And if she say she have expounded Scripture truly and decided controversies aright by the rule of Scripture and Tradition who shall gainesay her Can any man be so foolish as to think his word is of more credit than the whole Churches Or that his reason is better then hers Or that if she may erre from her rule he may not do so also And if their infallibilities be both of the same strength who in his right mind would not believe millions affirming the same thing rather than one or some few affirming the contrary If there were a rule so plaine and clear that all men understood it and none could pervert it then there were no need of a judge or directer but if the rule be obscure or liable to misinterpretation as all words are let them be expressed never so plainly then it is meet that there should not onely be a Judge but that this Judge should be infallible seeing the businesse concerns the salvation of mankind and not be subject to the petty after-examinations of proud and discontented people as if one or more of them did know the meaning of the rule better than the Judge when that Judge is the universall Church And that which these men affirm in this matter amounts to this wise Maxime That the Church is infallible while she is infallible and so is the Devill § 6. Frivolous then and without foundation is that late started distinction of points fundamentall and not fundamentall and the assertion built thereon That the Church may erre in the one and not in the other and so by consequence we are not bound to believe her in all things Indeed in regard of the materiall object or thing to be believed some points
Disciplines you shall find none Tradition is shewed thee for the Author custome the confirmer and faith the observer And in the first age S. Clement speaking of S. Peter reports thus of him g Clem. Ro. Ep. 1. de S. Petre prope fin His daily preaching amongst other divine commandements was this c. every one as farre as he understands and is able to love God with all his heart and his neighbour as himself to relieve the poor to cloath the naked to visit the sick to give drink to the thirsty to bury the dead and diligently to perform their funeralls and to pray and give alms for them § 8. Concerning Traditions in the fift age S. Augustine saith h Lib. 4. de bapt con Donat c. 24. That which the whole Church doth hold and is not instituted by Councells but is alwaies retained is rightly believed not to be delivered but by Apostolique authority And S. Chrysostome i In 1 Thes 2. In 1 Thes hom 4. It is manifest that the Apostles did not deliver all things by Epistle but many things without writing And as well these as those are worthy of the same credit wherefore let us esteem the Tradition of the Church to be believed It is a Tradition seek no further In the fourth age S. Basil speaks thus k Lib. de Spirit sancto c. 27. The opinions which are kept and preached in the Church we have partly out of written Doctrine partly we have received by the Tradition of the Apostles brought to us in a mystery Both which have the same power to piety and no man contradicted these who hath but mean experience of Ecclesiasticall rights In the third age * Heres 61. we must use Traditions saith S. Epiphanius for all things cannot be received from divine Scripture wherefore the holy Apostles have delivered some things by Tradition even as the holy Apostle saith As I have delivered to you and elswhere so I teach and have delivered in Churches In the second age S. Irenaeus thus expostulateth * lib. 3. c. 4. But what if the Apostles neither had left Scriptures unto us ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to them to whom they committed the Churches And in the first age S. Dennys tells us that c Areopag c. 1. Eccles Hierar those first leaders of our Priestly Office delivered to us those chief and supersubstantiall things partly in writings partly in unwritten institutions I could give plenty of proofs in all other particulars But as the cluster of grapes which was brought out of Canaan to the Israelites was a testimony of the fruit the Land brought forth Numb 13.23 So this small parcell of antiquity taken out of their great store is proof sufficient that the most antient Church even in all the first ages and the Scripture it selfe in the judgement of those Fathers did teach the same Doctrines that the Roman Church now doth and hath had a perpetuall and uninterrupted succession in those Doctrines and her Pastors and is therefore the self-same Church with the Apostles A thing fore-told by Daniel who cals it a Kingdom which shall never be dissolved Dan. 7.14 And in which the Maxime of wise Gamaliel is verified if this counsell or work be of men it will come to nought but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it Act. 5.38 39. § 9. But among the Protestant Churches I found no such thing neither Antiquity in their Doctrine but contrariwise their Doctrine condemned by Antiquity as I have shewed before nor yet in the bodie of their Professors And though they alledge some places of the Fathers in proof of their Doctrines yet they corrupt the meaning as may easily appear to those that divesting themselves of all interest can and will indifferently examine the places who shall find that they make not for them Nor indeed can they for my former alledged reason namely that if Antiquity had understood them so to wit in the Protestant sense some or other would either have reproved them for so frequently elswhere affirming the Roman Doctrines as Protestants confess they did as I have shewed or for affirming those Protestant doctrines which were contradictory to them which seeing they did not 't is manifest they believed no such contradictions in their writings but understood those places which Protestants alledge as Catholiques now doe as making nothing to the Protestants purpose But for their Catholique doctrines it is manifest that they cannot be interpreted to comply with the Protestant Religion for if they could why do the most learned Protestants accuse them of Popery It is a rule of * De doct Christ lib. 3. cap. 25. 26. S. Augustine in the interpretation of Scripture which is also as proper for the Fathers and agreeable to reason that where there are many cleer places on the one side and some few obscure places on the other the obscure must give place to the cleer and be reduced to an agreement with them in meaning which rule if it be observed it will easily appeare whether the Fathers were of the Roman or the Protestant Church As for the Antiquity of the body of the Professors of the Protestant religion it whom the antient Apostolicall Church hath her resurrection which like Epimenid◠they say fell asleep when she was yong and waked not till she was old no man knowing what was become of her in the mean while I could not indeed find i◠more antient than some very old men somewhat above sixscore yeares old Pa◠that died in England but few years agoe might have been grandfather to the Religion or at least elder brother to the Father thereof Martin Luther who in the year 1517. like a prodigious Comet began to appear and ingendring with the devill blasted the beauty of the Spouse of Christ and filled the Christian world with Heresie and bloud And in the year 1529. Luther and his Disciples received the name of Protestants from their Protestation and Appeal from the decree of the Diet of Spira in which title the nation of England I think doth more triumph than any of Luthers ofspring And whereas they do pretend some of them to have alwaies had a Being before that time it will fitly be examined in the next mark of the Church which is visibility For the maxime of law will hold good in this case IDEM EST NON ESSE ET NON APPARERE it is all one not to be and not to appear For the present seeing no more of them than yet we doe we may speak to them in the words of Tertullian * Tertul. de praescript 17. QUI ESTIS VOS UNDE ET QUANDO VENISTIS who are you from whence and when came you for either they are as young as Luthers Apostasie or else older than Christ and his Apostles even Jewes and so old that the mark is quite worn out of their mouth CHAP. XIII Of visibility the
English translates it thus whosoever shall eat this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily putting and for or thereby making the Apostle speak of the receiving of the bread and wine unworthily in an united sense whereas he speakes of them in a divided sense Thus in very many places do they deal with the Scripture like the Elephant when he goes to drink who troubles the cleer water with his feet because he will not see the deformity of his face So they trouble and defile the sense of Scripture either in words or exposition because they would not see the deformity of their Errors Many falsifications also and corruptions of Catholique Authors by the Protestant writers I have met with as where they speaking something by way of supposition they alledge them as if they speak it positively and absolutely where they bring the objections of Heretiques they alledge them as speaking the words in their owne names where they relate with reprehension the sayings of wicked men they alledge them as saying those words themselves which is as if they should charge S. Mathew himselfe with the words of the Pharisees against our Saviour Behold a glutton and a drinker of wine Math. 11.19 But I will not be particular in this matter because many that have been guilty in this case have been called to a strict account by their Catholique answerers And when they are pressed by Catholiques with plaine and direct proofes O what serpentine wriglings and windings to escape the assaulters doe they make O what perverse ridiculous contradictory answers and evasions do some of them make in which they doe at once shew both much wit and much folly for fooles could not speak as they doe and wise men would not In so much that a Answer to a Jesuites challenge chapt of limb Patrum Bishop Vsher Primat of Armagh a very learned man to avoid the confession of Christs descent into hell according to the Article of the Creed in the plaine sense thereof doth so turn it and winde it that he makes the sense of the words He descended into hell to be He ascended into heaven to such pittifull refuges doth the weaknesse of a bad cause drive them And thus they that have the most learning amongst them being by unhappy accident bred up in an erroneous Religion and thereby presuming it to be true do bend all the endeavours of their learning to the maintenance of their errors and the obscuring of the truth which learning if it were directed to the right end might by just title claime a place in the first file of desert even like a torch which turned downward is extinguished with that wax which held upward would make it bright and glorious But though their learning were a hundred times doubled yet as Aarons serpent devoured the Magicians serpents Exod. 7.12 so the wisedome of God which is in his Church will confound the sensuall wisdome of all her opposers seeing there is no wisdome nor prudence nor councell against God Prov. 21.30 § 3. I further observed that the arguments of Protestants for themselves were very fallacious most frequently in that which the Logicians call FALLACIA CONSEqUENCIA which is when the consequence is not justly inferred for example they argue thus the Sacrament is called a figure of Christs body therefore it is not his true and reall body which is a false Consequence for it may be both even as Christ is called a figure of the substance of his father Heb. 1.3 and yet is also the same substance Christ saith come unto me therefore we may go to no body else which is false for we may go to him and others also The Apostle saith that we are Justified by faith therefore say they not by works whereas we are justified by both We must confesse our sinnes to God therefore not to a Priest whereas wee must do both Christ is the head of the Church therefore the Pope is not whereas both are in severall capacities The like might be said in many others by which kind of arguing unlearned people are exceedingly deluded think that while one thing must be done that must be done only the veine of that word only invented by Luther in the matter of justification by faith running through the whole body of their Religion § 4. Moreover I found this contradiction amongst the Patrons of Protestancy that some of them reject the Fathers and accuse them of being infected with the errors which prevailed in their times and what were their errors even all that they taught contrary to their Protestant doctrines so making themselves the rule to judge the Fathers by and not the Fathers which any wise man would think more fit a rule to themselves who no doubt knew the Scriptures also and what was agreable or contrary to them better than they Protestants being herein like carpenters who wear their rule at their backs casting behind them neglecting those that should guide their belief But other Protestants ashamed of this insolency pretend for the credit of their cause that the Fathers are altogether on their side and then with much labour hunt out some obscure passages most liable to be wrested and triumph therein as if they had found a demonstration which when they are sifted either they make nothing for them or else quite against them who in this case are like to a man ready to be drowned who to save himselfe will catch hold on a naked sword with which he cuts his fingers So Protestants sunk into the despaire of their cause think to save themselves by that which serves but to encrease their overthrow They pretend also to answer many plaes of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques and to give their words a Protestant meaning and thereby run the Fathers into manifest contradiction of themselves in regard that the Fathers have but some oblique passages which seem and but seem to make for them as whoever spake so exactly nay who can possibly speak so exactly as that his words may not be made to seem different from his meaning but they have whole Bookes Sermons Tractates and a world of dispersed places of purpose in the maintenance of Catholique truths And though they say that the Fathers taught Protestant doctrine and they give a Protestant sense though very incongruous to many of the places of the Fathers alledged by Catholiques yet they dare not use those words and Phrases of the Fathers as of the Masse the Altar the Sacrifice concerning reall presence prayers to Saints and for the dead merits satisfaction and Purgatory with the like in their prayers Sermons and books which if they speak Protestant Doctrine in the true sense of the Fathers as they say they do why do they not with the sense make use of the words and speeches also I can conceive no other reason but for fear the peoples understandings not so fraught with prejudice nor acquainted with their uncouth evasions should carry them