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
try how solidly they proceed First then they cite certain Texts in which they say the Scripture gives us salvation But there is a wide difference betwixt giving salvation and being the whol means or adequat cause of it which is the point to be maintain'd if they wil prove the Scripture sufficient else all Faith Sacraments good works preaching c. must be absolutely excluded as unnecessary since of every one of them may be said it gives salvation Whence in common already appears these arguments are so weak and defective they carry not half way home to our question Yet let 's see at least how far they reach In the fifth of St. John Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because you think saith he you have eternal life in them Our Saviour was discoursing there of such as bore witness to him and having nam'd his Father and St. John at last he descends to the Scripture and tells them to this purpose You think to have life in the Scriptures though you deceive your selvs in that opinion for you have only the killing letter and not the verifying spirit Nevertheless search them for they bear witness that I am the true life to whom you will not through want of charity and love of God have recours to seek it Therfore you refuse me who come in the name of my Father a sign of Truth because I seek not mine own interest But you will receive Antichrist or some other who shall come in his own name which is a mark of deceit and falshood so pervers are you This is our Saviours discours of all which to this argument belong only these words You think you have life in the Scriptures that is if I understand the Text you deceive your selvs if you think you have life in them which surely must needs be a very strong reason to prove Scriptures give salvation though if the question were not of the Text I should make no difficulty of the conclusion And it may be noted that our Saviour descends to the proof of Scripture in the last place putting Miracles the first as motives able to convert Sodom and Gomorrha in the second Preaching specially they shewing some good affection to their Preacher St. John Lastly the mute words of Scripture And as for St. John our Saviour expresly says he cites him in condescendence to them that they might be the rather moved to embrace the truth by that esteem they had already entertain'd of their Preacher Wheras for Scripture there was only their own conceit which our Saviour seems to reprove as an humoursom and froward obstinacy that they would not be convinc'd by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles the easiest and surest way nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor whom themselvs confess to be a Prophet nor lastly make a diligent search without prejudice into Scripture which if interpreted with charity and humility might have led them to him and salvation The next place is John 20. These things are written that you may belive that Jesus is the Son of God and believing may have life in his name T is true both Scripture and Faith give life but not the least mention made here of any such quality in either of them This only is declar'd that the end of St. Johns writing the Gospel was not to make a compleat History either of our Saviours Acts or doctrin but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise that they might continue true believers in the Church of God live according to its Rules and be saved by so living that is by being true Christians or Jesuits which is certainly the sense of these words in his name or in the name of Jesus as to be baptiz'd in the name of Jesus signify's to be enroll'd among the company known to be his Now from this Text we may clearly collect that St. Johns Gospel was not written by the Authors intention for any such end as the argument urges Nor that it gives life more then this one Article does that Jesus is the true son of God Nor yet that this Article gives life but that life is to be had in the name of Christ whatever these words signify Only it may be infer'd that life cannot be had without this Article but not that this alone is able to give life or that it cannot be believ'd without St. Johns Gospel or that St. Johns Gospel of it self is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tradition So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be attain'd by Scripture alone or cannot be had without it The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place as I understand it is O Timothy be constant in the doctrin I have taught thee and this for two reasons One common to all converted by me because thou knowest who I am that deliver'd it to thee This is the first and principal reason the authority of the Teacher Another peculiar to thee because from thy infancy thou art vers'd in the holy Scriptures which are proper to make thee wise and understanding in the law of Jesus Christ or to promote and improve thy salvation which is obtained by the faith of Jesus So that he speaks not of Timothy's becomming a Christian but his becomming a through furnisht or extraordinary Christian a Doctor and Preacher And the ground on which I build this explication is derived from the words following where the Apostle expresses this vertue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove as also from this consideration that the sequel Be constant to my words or Doctrin because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christs doctrin is not very exact but rather opposite to the former and plainly inducing the contrary as if one should argue Follow not my doctrin because mine but because the Scripture teaches thee it which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle as appears in the vers immediatly precedent Be stedfast in those things thou hast learnt knowing by whom thou wert instructed wheras this other discourse is perfectly consequential Stand to my doctrin because the Scripture confirms and seconds it making thee able to defend and prove by arguments what I have simply taught thee to be true by the sole evidence of Miracles which beget Faith not Science But to grant our Adversary the less proper sense and consequence that the Scripture was to contribute to the salvation of Timothy himself still ther 's an equivocation in those words through or by the faith of Iesus Christ which may be refer'd to those to make thee understanding Either so that the sense be The Scriptures in which thou hast been vers'd since thy infancy will contribute
Apostles that I say in Constantines time the publike doctrin of Christianity was the doctrin of the Apostles Besides the communication of Christians being very difficult and infrequent during those persecutions the contagion also of heresies scatter'd it self slowly among Christians in those times And here I shall note a ridiculous cavil very common not only in the mouths of the more rash and shallow Protestants but even in the writings of many of their gravest and most solemn Doctors who cry out against the Ignorance of our Church as the cause of our errors and yet put the Ages in which they insult that Frigebat Scriptura cum vetustis Autoribus some hundreds of years after the time wherin they acknowledg the doctrins term'd errours were already flourishing as if they could proceed from a defect which follow'd them A slander so palpably absur'd that all the charity I have can scarce perswade me to think they are not blinded rather with malice then ignorance that dare vent such gross contradictions And now having abridg'd as 't were the whole sense of Rushworths Dialogues concerning Tradition into this short compendium I will apply my pen to answer what exceptions are taken against either the forme or matter of that Discourse THE SECOND ENCOUNTER Defeating three oppositions made against Tradition THe first objection against the form is that I put my Adversary to prove his position instead of going about to maintain my own This they imagin because I bid them assign the Age which they take to be as much as a demand of them to prove that in such a time came in the error but 't is a plain mistake For I do not require they should prove the errour began in such an Age but only exact of them for Argument sake to name the Age in which they find most difficulty for me to conclude or wherin they conceive the sinnews of my discours will be most slack and feeble for the force of the main argument is indifferent to any Age they can pitch upon equally demonstrative in all and so by striking at every one concludes against all This I say not any way to disclaim the advantage we Catholicks have whilst we press our adversary to prove his Thesis being no less a just then strong and secure retreat and which I reserve my self the liberty of retiring to perhaps at another time but now I only urge him to name one Age at hazzard meerly to give way to the prosecution of the argument a Justice I might do for my self if I would without his courtesie and have all the laws of disputation bear me out in it It is therefore to litle purpose to demand whether I ask of the first man that held such an opinion or when it came to be universal though the question be plainly of this later for we hold it was ever so nor is there any art necessary to answer it the argument made being indifferent to all The skill therefore required is only to know what belongs to the form of demonstrating for the most part indeed not found in the quaint discourses of Rhetoricians But the Adversary thinks when the Question is put concerning a Doctrine's being Vniversal it must suppose none to hold the contrary opinion as if we could not know what is the publick Faith of France because perhaps a few conceal'd persons may believe somwhat different Wherin he reflects not that Heresie signifies the cleaving to a private opinion so that when there were any such in former ages that very thing made them Hereticks how good wits or great learning so ever they had if they dissented from the doctrine deliver'd by their forefathers He presses Catholiks cannot tell when the communicating of Children began since St. Austin thinks it an Apostolical Tradition We answer we are of that mind too but with this qualification that it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles not all in some Countries not all in some circumstances not all And therfore 't was neither superstition to use it nor sacriledg to leave it off how strongly soever the opponent avers one of these two to be unavoydable The second opposition made against the form is that 't is a fallacy of that kind called Soritae in which the Scepticks found so great difficulty that they used to press them against the Stoicks and other dogmatists as insoluble and manifestly demonstrating there was no science But to understand the meaning of this objection the demonstration propos'd is to begin from the Apostles time and so it must be supposed that the next Age after the Apostles in any controversy against new doctrins examin'd no farther then on which side stood the verdict of the Apostles wherof they could not be ignorant The Argument therfore pressed that the next that is the third Age must of necessity take the same method against its Novellists convincing them of falsity because their doctrine was contrary to that of those who had heard the Disciples of the Apostles speak And so since the Tradition of Faith was convey'd from age to age stil with this caution that the latter was to believe such a doctrin because receiv'd from the former upon this warrant that it descended lineally from Christ in the same manner to them as they deliver'd it to their posterity it necessarily follows that this doctrin could not but continue pure even to our present time unless some age should prevaricate all bounds of truth and nature and deliver somthing to the following age as traditionally deriv'd from Christ which had not been so receiv'd This argument so propos'd though I know not whether so understood seem'd to the opponent like the ratiocination of one Mr. Thinn a melancholy Philosopher who perswaded himself a person might be found that could leap from off Pauls for sure he needed a high standing to Rome because 't was possible some man might leap full twenty foot and no doubt but another somwhat more and still another more then he and so without end therfore among all one quick springer would be found who could make his jump from hence to the Capitol But certainly he that weigh'd the two arguments might without extraordinary study have found there was some difference in their form Mr. Thinn being oblig'd to take variety of men undetermined but this argument engaging only sixteen ages and peradventure not needing above six or in rigour some three and those such as have had a real existence wheras the Worlds durance and latitude are not sufficient to find men enough to justify Mr. Thinns Proces This I say was obvious enough to any mean understanding not preoccupated with prejudice against the conclusion But one who had understood how Aristotle unwrapped Zeno's fallacies might easily have known that Infinity it self could not add more then one full foot to Mr. Thinns leapers if the encrease were made by sub-proportional parts wherof the first was one half foot and if by equal quantities as Feet or Inches he
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
Ousia being deriv'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ens and Ens or Substantia and in Greek Ousia signifying primarily what the Schools term Suppositum that we see with our eys a demonstrable singular named substance as Bucephalus Athos c. which among men if restrain'd to particulars is call'd Socrates or Plato if used at larg in the common name a person these men very Catholikly said three Ousia's and one Hypostasis meaning three Persons and one God But the Fathers of the Council of Nice by much pondering these words by their debates with the Arians and to determine a rule in speaking that Catholicks might not be subject through equivocation to be drawn into errour agreed upon the contrary because Hypostasis was more commonly in use for that we call a Person and Ousia was rather a School term fetch'd from Philosophers books and therfore might with less violence to common language be taken in a secondary sense Thus it became the rule of speaking in the Church to say three Hypastases and one Ousia Besides those speeches which Perron cites are not so harsh but as in a rigorous interpretation they are fals so in a moderate sense they contain undeniable truths Philosophers divide instruments into Conjuncta and Separata and among the Conjuncta number up our Arms and Legs c. which are our very substance It does not therfore follow if the Son be called an Instrument that his substance is distinguish'd from the Substance of his Father because the Instrumentality consists in nothing but the difference of their notional conceits of Being and Knowledg wherof Knowledg seems to be but the Vehiculum of Being towards the operation or effect So likewise whoever works by a power that is not in himself otherwise then from another in whom 't is principialiter and as the Greek speaks both anciently and at this day Authoritativè may not improperly be said to be commanded though the other be not his Master or Better Neither is there such rigour in the genders of aliud and alius but that aliud is many times apply'd to the person and only Ecclesiastical use grounded on the height of propriety and distinction of Genders binds us to this manner of speaking which for unity and charity sake we observe Out of what has been discours'd about the name Ousia we may easily solve the seeming contradiction of the Council of Antioch to that of Nice for if Ousia may signify a person as we have shew'd it does in its best and chiefest signification then Homoousion signifies the same person So that the Conncil of Antioch denying Christ to be Homoousios to his Father deny'd no more then that he was the same person with his Father which no subtlety can ever prove to be against the Fathers of the Nicen Council Nor is this said to reconcile contradictories but discover equivocations For that this was the true reason of the opposition is easily deduc'd out of both St. Athanasius and St. Hillary and the question which St. Hierom made to St. Damasus But it may be urged if there were a verbal Tradition how could the Christians through want of caution contradict one another or had it been as known a part of Religion as the Resurrection how could Constantine have so slighted it when it first rose or Alexander the holy Bishop for a while have remain'd in suspence To this I answer If by verbal Tradition be understood that the Tradition was deliver'd in set words certainly those set words could not be doubted of though their sense must needs be capable of eternal controversy but the meaning of verbal here intended is only as contradistinguisht to written Tradition which being in set words whose interpretation is continually subject to dispute is therfore opposed to Oral or mental where the sense is known and all the question is about the words and expressions Nevertheless suppose it had been deliver'd in a set and determinate phrase and that Hereticks began to use other words a controversy might be about those terms which the Hereticks introduc'd and many might demur uncertain of the question in such new expressions as we see those who rely on Scripture are in perpetual quarrels about the sense wheras to Catholicks the sense of their Faith is certain though the words be sometimes in question The reason therfore why at Arius his first broaching that desperate heresy Alexander remain'd a while in suspence was not that he understood not his own Faith but because he apprehended not what Arius meant nor whether his propositions were contrary to the receiv'd truth But when once Arius broke into those speeches that Christ was a creature and that there was a time when Christ was not then that holy Bishop likewise broke into those words Quis unquam talia audivit and this is the crime which Socrates reprehends in Arius that he began to move points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formerly not question'd but receiv'd with an uniform consent and credulity As for Alexanders praising somtimes one somtimes the other party it proves no more then that he was a prudent man though Ruffinus seems to tax him of oversoftness But because few falsities can be void of all truth and few truths at least before much discussion totally free from all mixture of circumstantial errour therfore it could not be otherwise then wel to praise both sides ingenuously according as they spake truth and reason and discommend them when they fell into falsities As for Constantine's slighting the Question at first it shews no more but that then he did not penetrate the consequence of it or rather was not well enform'd concerning it For ordinarily the craftiest and most active party are they who make the first report and if themselves be in the wrong as many times such are more eager and diligent then those that hold the right their remonstrance is accordingly And so it was for Constantine receiv'd his first information at Nicomedia very probably too from Eusebius Bishop of that City a most perverse adherent to Arius nor did Constantine himself know wherin the question consisted as appears by this that in his whol Letter there is not one word of explication of the point but only in common that it was of slight questions not belonging to the substance of Faith the Arians stil craftily endeavouring to diminish the importance of the controversie Besides we have good ground to believe that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arius and sollicited into a secrâ—â— favour of this errour from whom 't is likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council for determining the point out of Scripture Nor imports it that the Bishops contradicted not this proposition of the Emperour in words because they had reason to follow it though not to that end to which the Emperour propos'd it viz. the solution of the question but to the conviction of the Arians and satisfaction of the world For to speak to the
Grandfather as though such a graceless entail could prejudice the law of Nature Though not so absurd yet as weak is another Objection taken from the Jewish Cabala however it seems worthy of thanks to the Suggestor What it was is not hard to guess our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it when he reproach'd the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fathers or Elders to the ruin of Gods commands But to decipher it better I ought to divide it into matter and form The form I call the Rules the matter what was deliver'd or found out by these Rules As for the matter it seems in some way proportion'd to the proceedings of certain of our Divines who pretend to be mysticall and their imployment is in the sublime mysteries of our Faith to invent or imagin what they think congruous circumstances to move the affections to petty devotion which imaginations as they are fram'd out of good intentions so have they many weaknesses and little or no doctrin in them Conformable to this we may conceive that after there were no more Prophets among the Jews who fail'd them not long after the second building of their Temple the Rabbins began to frame explications on their Books of holy Scripture and the mysteries learn'd from the Prophets These interpretations according to the degree of their skil and prudence some perform'd better some worse But as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation not having principles of true knowledg naked before their Eys but wrapt up in Metaphors and Allegories all together went among them for sound Law Til after our Saviours time and the dispersion of that generation some foolish knave to give authority to this mess of good and bad jumbled together invented the story how Moses had deliver'd this doctrin to the Sanhedrin and they had conserv'd it by traditional conveyances from Father to Son A story as impossible and incredible to one who penetrates into the carriage of that Nation as the Fables of Jeoffrey of Monmouth and King Arthur's conquering Hierusalem Now if we look into the form we shal find it more ridiculous then any Gypses canting or the jugling of Hocus Pocus and as pernicious to true Doctrin as any Pseudomancy To make good this censure I shal in short describe their form it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture by three abuses of the Letter which as far as my memory servs me for I have not the books necessary are these One by taking every letter of a word for a whole word beginning with that letter Another by changing letters according to certain rules fram'd by themselvs The third to find numbers of years or other things by the numbers which the letters of the word compound in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers So much being deliver'd in short I cannot conceive any indifferent judgment so blunt that he sees not how far these ridling ways of explication are from the natural intention of a Writer and how destructive to all truth if used otherwise then for pleasure and as a disport of chance and encounter Our Country man Doctor Alablaster invented a far more convenient trick by purely dividing words and joyning the ends of the former to the beginnings of the following as we also do somtimes in English to disguise common words and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks But he found this age too subtle to cozen any considerable number with such trivial bables Wheras the Cahala gain'd upon the Valentinians and Gnosticks to build prodigious errours in very good earnest upon their more ridiculous invention I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased somtime to give way to such toyes through luxury of wit and gayety of humour But it is one thing to play for recreation and a far different to establish a Basis of Faith and doctrin which is abominable on such Chimerical dreams And yet this it is our Opposer would Father upon no less then Moses and the Sanhedrin and all the sacred Magistracy of the old Law Let us give a step farther and see if it were true how like it were to our case The Tradition we speak of is the publick preaching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church setled by the Apostles thorow the World This Cabala a doctrin pretended as deliver'd to few with strict charge to keep it from publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and cozenage as in our case there is impossibility The Moderns therfore who profess Cabala may say they receiv'd it from their predecessors but they can yeild no account why any Age may not have chang'd that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber and so ther 's no possibility of farther assurance then the vote of a Council of State for its being deriv'd any higher But the Arguer demands whether they cannot ask me In what age or year their doctrin was corrupted And I answer they may very boldly But if I assign an age or year can they acquit themselvs in point of proof clearly they cannot for since there was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrin it being forbidden to be divulg'd 't is evident that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age He urges farther the notoriousness of the ly so impudent as few would venture on not reflecting that he speaks of a secret altogether incapable of notoriousness May not they add says he the dispersion of their Churches through so many Countries and Languages I yeild they may but to no purpose unless they continue Sanhedrins in every Country For otherwise this dispersion will prove but the derivation from their Council of Tiberias or such like time which is nothing to the succession from Moses Add to this that the Nation since Christs time is infamous for falsifying doctrins and corrupting Scriptures and even in our Saviours time and long before their Rabbins were justly branded with the foul imputation of frequent forgery their Sects and heresies being grown up to that desperate height as to deny there were any spirits or shall be any Resurrection which is the very top of impiety But what is no less to be consider'd then any thing yet offer'd the very subject of the question is different The Church we speak of is a vast and numerous body spread o're the world and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remain'd perpetually visible from Christs time to ours however some Heretick may pretend the invisible part viz. that the Faith has been interrupted But for the Sanhedrin what assurance nay what probability is there of deriving its pedegree from Moses to the daies of our Saviour In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges in the division of the Tribes in the raign of their Kings in the
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
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
understand For when I learn'd Latin Pater signified the immediate progenitour of the Son and St. Paul was of that opinion telling his Converts They had no Father but himself because he had in person begotten them by the Gospel and though by ampliation this word has included also the Parents of our Fathers and upwards even to Adam yet how it comes so to signifie the most remote as to exclude the neerest is beyond my skil in Grammar Pray let this good Definitor reflect upon himself if the first remembred of his race had died without Issue how could he have been one of his Forefathers no more had there been no Preachers after the first three hundred yeers till our time should we have accounted those Primitive Ones our Fathers That they are Fathers then is because they begot Preachers who continued the propagation of the same doctrine to our daies which we profess they did among us and that therfore we are their Spiritual Off-spring they our Fathers But Daillè and his Consorts fault is not that they contract the compass of the Fathers but that they acknowledge any For they are all Mushroms sprung up as new as the morning not so much as one from another if they be true to their tenets every one of them is bound to say to Calvin as wel as to the Saints I believe not for thy word but I have heard it from the Apostles own mouths in the Scripture Though indeed I have no reason to quarrel much with Him upon this point for if he acknowledges the word Fathers he denies the Thing or Vertue of it in them since to be a Father is to propagate Christs doctrine to posterity which quality he must of necessity deny them whilst he thinks their doctrine not to be that of Christ and that it ought by every private man be brought to the test of the Bible and so far accepted or refus'd as to the grave judgement of some judicious Blue-apron seems agreeable to the sense of Scripture This then is the pious design of this Authour To infinuate a belief that since the Apostles daies there has not been a sufficient living Witnesse of what they taught the world or what Christ taught them In which there are two notorious propositions infolded worthy to be look'd into First that these good Christians at one leap free themselves from all the bands of Community and Society of mankind and from all subjection to the Kingdom of Christ which they flatly deny For Nature teaches us there can be no Government without Judges I mean living Definitors and Deciders of occasional debates therefore if Christ has left no Judges upon Earth he has no kingdom here such Judges I speak of as should administer His Law for he came not to plant temporal Kings but a spiritual Regiment wherin if he has had no Judges since the Apostles decease his Kingdom expir'd with them Now then the whol drift of this Writer is to establish an absolute Anarchy where every one indifferently shall be Master without control in that great and principal Mystery of training up souls to eternal happiness which by how much more dark and difficult the spiritual conduct to future bliss is then temporal government to present wealth and security so much more unreasonable and unnatural must the position be that dissolvs all obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiours and abolishes all Order in the Church An assertion justly to be abhor'd by any who has the least spark of love to that only great Good the salvation of his Soul The other Proposition is that since the Apostles time there has been no publik either true doctrine or good life in that part of the World which we call Christian. I do not mean there may not have appeared some vertuous actions in private persons though perhaps the consequence might be driven so far but that all visible Companies have had both their Doctrine spotted with foul tenets and their consequent practises polluted with Superstition and Idolatry For as this is one of the main grounds for their rejecting the Fathers so the reason à priori which they alledge being once admitted evinces the truth of the Conclusion I charge upon them it being evident that if because man is fallible the Fathers are insufficient to propagate truth to their posterity and out of the position of insufficiency must of necessity follow the consequence of defect certainly then the following generations had not sufficient instruction either for belief or actions And indeed the Reformers themselvs acknowledg as much since they esteem the Fathers errours so gross that it was fit to leave the communion of that Church wherin they are defended rather then accept of such abominations Now if this be not to deny all good life and the main and universal fruit of Christs passion even in those preferr'd Ages I have lost my little wits This therfore I say is the aym and project of his Book to prove That since Christs time there has been no sufficient living testimony of the Truth of Religion no command or government of Christians as Christians and lastly no holiness or good life nor any fitting direction among mankind brought in and stated by our kind Saviour and wisest Law-giver Jesus Christ. Now how great an encouragement and advance this may prove either towards vertue or study of Religion I understand not This I know if any would purposely seek to draw off our hearts from all hope of heaven and practice of vertue I cannot imagin a more efficacious argument then First to tell how much pains our Saviour had taken to plant a right Faith and Christian life in so many years of example and Preaching closing all with such strange unparalleld suffrings Nay that he had sent the Holy Ghost in so manifest and glorious a manner from heaven upon his Disciples to fire their hearts with zeal and impower their hands to Miracles giving them Commission to publish his new Law over all the World and solemnly engaging to assist them for ever And yet afterwards bring in proofs how notwithstanding all this soon as these Apostles were dead Idolatry and corruption both of doctrin and manners began presently to appear in the greatest and best Members of the Church even the immediate Disciples of the Apostles and in short time so over-run the whole World that the means of Salvation was generally lost and the way to heaven obstructed with an universal deluge of vice and superstition These proofs are the work of our excellent Author whence I think it no boldness to conclude this Treatise of the right use of the Fathers is the perfectest piece that ever was written for the utter extermination of Christian doctrin and absolute ruin of all vertue For when I turn o're the Book I cannot but acknowledg it full of as good Topicks cast into as neat a stile and qualify'd with as seeming a fit temper conveniently to betray unwary souls as any modern I ever read but
contrary from three lines of Hegesippus but upon the essential notion of the Church which is to be the conserver of Christs doctrin upon the whole body of Ecclesiastical History which contains nothing but either the propagation of the faith or the expulsion of those that would corrupt it And lastly upon the universality of Christian writers whose profession and businesse it has always been to instruct the Church in the doctrin of Christ and oppose all abuses that offer'd to insinuate themselvs under the name of reformation or whatever other specious mask Heresy has put on to cover the ilfavordness of her face And now we may safely proceed to the second ground that if the testimony of Fathers convince the quiet possession of any doctrin in one age it concludes the same of all ages that are known to communicate with it which is in effect with all precedent and subsequent Ages whom either that acknowledges or who acknowledg that for their Teacher and Mistress This consequence from the former principle is so evident that I may boldly yet without presumption infer if we can prove one Age we prove all But to make it plainer let me borrow out of our Adversaries ingenuity that the same doctrin has endur'd these thousand years which restrains our controversy only to the first six hundred and that common sense cannot say Popery was rank in the sixth Age but it must have been well grown in the fifth which will still contract our strife to the compass of four hundred years wherof three were undoubtedly acknowledg'd Parents and Mistresses of the fourth and the fourth of two or three following one of which is confest to be universally over-run with Popery So that we need no more pains but only to prove that some one Age of the first six hundred years embrac'd any doctrin of a nature substantial and considerable as is above exprest to convince all the rest of the same belief else the Adversary must shew the latter Age disavowing the faith of their Ancestors and anathematizing it as heretical and in the same or equivalent terms as our late Reformers cry out against the Catholik unity or Catholicks against their division For if the younger Ages reverence and plead conformity with the ancienter 't is impossible they should have changed any doctrin of importance or necessity My third ground is that when we speak of the Faith of the Church we intend not to say No single person may think otherwise or be ignorant of it and yet live bodily and exteriourly in the communion of that Church but we speak of the professed and publick belief of all both Clergy and Laity which meet at Gods service in such a Church As all that meet at Charanton are supposed to agree in the Articles which the Kings Edicts permit to be held by the pretenders to Reformation Yet I believe there are few Englishmen who consent to all though they resort thither So that by this position it may stand with the general or universal faith of one part of the contradiction that some few maintain the opposite Judgment By these three grounds you wil finde most of his doubts and pretended difficulties in the five last chapters taken away and the possibility of demonstrating a point out of the Fathers rendred very apparent and practicable wherfore we have now a little leasure to shake out his other bundle of Rags and see whether we can espy any thing there that may entangle a weak Divine THE SEVENTH SURVEY Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherin he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges THis Chapter he begins very modestly and says the Fathers testimonies of the Churches Faith are not alwaies true His first example is in that question Whether our soul comes by creation or from our Parents in which St. Hierom brings the verdict of the Churches against Ruffinus but 't is evident this objection fails because we doubt not some one or few learned men may hold against the tenet of the Church they live in His second exception he cites out of Johannes Thessalon whom he makes in his translation say the Church held Angels had subtile and aery bodies but in his marginal Greek a language few understand and so not many are like to discover his art there is no such thing only this that the Church knows Angels to be intelligent creatures but not whither they are incorporeal or have subtile bodies His third instance is where Petavius reprehends St. Epiphanius for saying It was an Apostolical Tradition to meet thrice a week to communicate I doubt wrongfully For what probability can there be that some Apostle should not have left such a Custom in some Province if it were on foot in St. Epiphanius his time besides this Petavius is noted for an easie censurer of his betters nor does the matter deserve any farther inspection The next he borrows from the same Authour against Venerable Bede and 't is a meer equivocation upon the ambiguity of this word fides which may signifie an Historical perswasion or a Traditional certitude in which last sense Petavius took it whereas Venerable Bede pronounced it in the former His second Chapter tels us the Fathers confess they are not to be believ'd upon thsir own bare words Where I must intreat my Reader to observe that If the Fathers he brings speak of one or few we acknowledge they are not to be trusted on their word and so have no controversie with him But if he would make them speak of the whole Collection he cites nothing to the purpose but all he brings reach no farther then the first sense and have no opposition with the saying of others who command us to follow the doctrin and even the words of our Ancestors He is offended with Sozomen for saying None of the Ancients ever affirm'd the Son of God had any beginning of his generation considering certain passages of theirs which yet himself has confessed before that St. Athanasius Basil and others have cleared from any such sense He calumniats an excellent place of Vincentius Lyrinensis explicating what the universality of Fathers means and how their sentence is of force His first quarrel is that Lyrinensis requirs they must have lived and died both for doctrin and manners in the communion of the Catholik Church which he says cannot be known unless first we are sure their doctrin was sound Not seeing alas that their living and dying with reputation of Sanctity gives them this honourable prejudice To be esteem'd both for life and doctrin sincere and unsuspected Catholiks til the contrary be proved His second quarrel is against the number Lyrinensis assigns to be al or the greatest part which certainly is meant of Authors then extant who had written in some age before the controversie arose wherof such a number as may make us understand what was the belief of that Age is