the former ages more pure then the later since we admit no errours in either but make no question that the universality of Fathers in any two ages held the same doctrin and so the Faith of the second Tricentury being known we account that of the former undoubted especially we all believing the latter Fathers receiv'd their doctrin from the former not by reading their Books which belong'd to few but by being instructed from their mouths who had receiv'd it from them But he thinks his Reformers very probably maintain that Christian Religion has long been in a dangerous consumption declining still by little and little and losing in every Age some certain degree of its Primitive vigour and native complexion to which purpose he cites the words of Hegesippus out of Eusebius That this infirmity began as soon as the Apostles were dead This position sounds to me as if the opinions they cry out against for abominations enter'd so early into the Church and have continued in it so long that they can now reckon fifteen Centuries nor can I desire either a more ingenuous confession or stronger proof of the truth of those doctrines which the nature of Christianity has preserv'd with such exact care and constant tenderness that in so many ages not one of them has been forgotten not one of them ever oppos'd by those who in all generations have stil been accounted the sound party of Christians Besides I should expect that so foul a blemish as these bold accusers lay upon the Church viz. that she has been an Idolatrous and abominable Harlot ever since the death of the Apostles ought not to be grounded on bare probable conjectures but evidently convinced under penalty that otherwise the Calumniators should suffer at least as heavy a Censure as they attempt to pass against the Church But because for the maintenance of this odious slander he chiefly rely's on Hâ—gesippus's testimony let the witness be fairly examin'd and that according to the Authors own citation which runs to this effect After the Apostles death the Masters of Seduction began publickly and professedly to vent their falssy named Science against the preaching of the truth which in plain English signifies no more then that Hereticks rose up against the Church and is so far from arguing the Churches corruption that it strongly concludes her purity since the doctrin which falshood contradicts must necessarily be it self true Thus clearly it follows from these words that the wrong imputed corruption was out of the Church and soundnesse of Faith in her Communion But if we look into the Text exactly the meaning of that passage is this After the Apostles death the consistence of Heresie took its beginning that is Hereticks grew into a body daring to shew their heads where before they lurk'd for fear of the Apostles which expression manifestly proves They began to make congregations distinct from the true Church And this being evident we cannot be troubled with those words going before in Higesippus which say till then the Church was a virgin and uncorrupted for it is a phrase natural enough to call the body corrupted whose putrify'd parts are cut off or rotted away as those degenerate members were from the Church of God And so this very Daillè could cite upon another occasion these self-same Innovators under the direct notion of Hereticks when he thought it might better serve his turn THE THIRD SURVEY Of his 3d. and 4 th Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works AS to the third point of Forgery our Monsieur dilates himself exceedingly but how much to the purpose some few notes wil discover First he objects many counterfeit Books that are not now extant nor have been these many Ages and think you not there must necessarily arise a strange obscurity in our Controversies from such forgeries Then he complains that Transcribers have put wrong names to books either for the better selling them or out of ignorance and in some of them the question is about Authors almost of the same age all which is likewise little to the point for where the Ages opinion and not the particular credit of the Author's learning is requir'd the authority of one understanding writer ought generally to weigh as much as anothers and this is the case in controversies where the sense of the Church not that of private Doctors is the subject of our inquiry Neither must I forget his defamation of the ancient Christians as counterfeiters of the Sybils Prophesies out of the calumny of the wicked Celsey which neverthelesse we see Lactantius stands upon to the Heathens faces He omits not for a notorious piece of forgery that the Canons of the Council of Sardica are cited as of the Council of Nice wherin nothing is more certain then that the Canons were true though not admitted by the Greeks who being cal'd would not come to the Council So the question stands meerly upon this whether they ought to be cal'd the Canons of Nice being made by a Council gather'd afterwards to confirm the former which the Latines defend and the Greeks dislike Doubtless a main forgery to be urg'd by this temperate man whose charity no question would have winkt at small faults Yet because no ordinary satisfaction will content him though those Popes were all both commended by the Ages in which they liv'd and reputed Saints by the ensuing Church and One of them that great Saint Leo whose Oracles were so highly esteem'd in the Council of Chalcedon I will briefly set down the case The Arian Emperour Constantius though yet for fear not declar'd such summon'd a Generall Council of the Eastern and Western Churches to a Town cal'd Sardica There assembled betwixt 3 and 4 hundred Bishops The Arians seeing themselvs like to come to the worst by the number of the Orthodox party upon sought pretences went to another place cald Philippopolis where making an assembly of their own they term'd it from the Emperours Summons the Council of Sardica And partly by their diligence and sending circular Letters thorow Christendom partly by joyning with a great faction of Donatists but chiefly as it may be justly believ'd by the power of the Emperours Officers made the name of the Council of Sardica passe for the denomination of their Conventicle both in the East and thorow such remote parts as had not special intelligence of what pass'd in Sardica Hence any Canons pretended to be order'd at Sardica were blasted before known wherupon it fel out that the small party which knew the truth was forc'd in their collections of Canons to place these next to the Council of Nice as their order requir'd without a name and as an Appendix of the Council In this posture these Popes found them about an hundred yeers after and whether it was that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the Accident or whether they thought the action legitimate and the ground of it sufficient they urg'd them as
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
reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
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
captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
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
sufficient all the rest being ad abundantiam For 't is plain Lyrinensis held clearly the Catholik opinion that the Church never perished and consequently the Faith of one Age was with him the faith of all But this good guesser would perswade us no such evidence can be had and instead of proof makes this wild conjecture that for ought he knows the greatest part of the Fathers was of the contrary mind to those we have extant which is just such an argument as if one should suppose that were all the Roman Writers extant perhaps the greatest part would tel us Pompey overthrew Caesar and that the Roman Empire was alwaies after govern'd by a Senate and Tribuni plebis til the Goths over-ran it His third Exception is against those conditions That the Fathers must have said or testified such a truth clearly often and constantly which he thinks impossible to be found but let him leave that to the Actors He therfore rather chuses to fide with St. Austin but what says he He tels Julian the Pelagian Puto tibi eam partem or bis sufficere debere in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronari this after he had cited the testimonies of only Latin Fathers But when he had cited Fathers of both Churches he argues thus Si Episcopalis Synodus ex toto orbe congregaretur mirum si tales possent illic facile tot sedere quia nec isti uno tempore fuerunt sed fideles multis excellentiores paucos dispensatores suos Deus per diversas aetates temporum locorumque distantias sicut ei placet atque expediri judicat ipse dispensat Hos itaque de aliis atque aliis temporibus atque Regionibus ob Oriente Occidente congregatos vides c. In which Discourse St. Austin taking for a principle that the Writers in any age are ordinarily of the most eminent for learning and indeed of so high a degree that we cannot expect many such at the same time concludes the consent of Fathers which he had cited more assured and satisfactory then a General Council Now what apprehension he had of a General Council is wel known to any who has made a little acquaintance with that Saints writings Fain also would this pious man fix the slander upon Vincentius Lyrinensis of being a Semi-Pelagian out of far fetch'd surmises which I pardon him because that Father sits very hard upon his and his brethren-Separatists skirts In the ensuing chapter his pretence is to shew the Fathers did not write like Judges sitting upon a Bench to give sentence a cavil which neither any wil dispute with him nor is to his purpose But by the pursuit it appears he only rang'd about for an occasion to vilifie the Fathers by citing or publishing a catalogue of such weaknes as he had espyd in them The first he notes is of Hast they used in their works the next some mistakes in Chronology or History wherof one I cannot omit because he lays it upon them all generally That Nilus was one of the Rivers mention'd to water Paradise against which he cals for witnesse Scaliger and Petavius the former of whom I cannot blame seeing he was not born to reverence the Fathers the other in this confirms the censuring humour before spoken of in him But for the opinion it self it is very true as may appear in the Appendix to Institutiones Peripateticae Afterwards he nibbles at their Philosophy and Grammar then accuses their weak memories lastly quarrels with their Allegorical explications Surely if he had found an exact history of their lives he would have chid some of them for wanting good Voyces or being but indifferent Musitians or not having learnt in the French Academies to dance fence and complement a la mode THE EIGHTH SURVEY Of the two last Chapters of his second Book wherein he says many Fathers have agreed in the same Errours and objects certain vanities between the Ancient and Modern Church IN his fourth Chapter he proposes that the Fathers have not only err'd singly but whole Troops of them together which though it be nothing to the purpose as not touching the precise point controverted betwixt us since the Fathers authority is from their concurrence in attesting an universal Belief as witnesses and not in delivering their Judgment as Doctors Yet has our Gallant bestir'd himself notably in this point because his true intention was to take all reverence from the Fathers though he cunningly with a smooth tongue professes the contrary But he has another piece of legier-de-main very proper to abuse an unwary Reader For he neither distinguishes the quality of errours whither in Faith Philosophy or History nor their degree and so makes the good silly people of his Sect conceive every mistake of any Father an errour and every errour a gross one knowing that when he mentions the word errour in relation to the Fathers all his Hugonots presently imagin it to be in doctrin and great enough to condemn and forsake them Besides he never thinks of explicating what many signify's in respect to the number of the Fathers so that three or four may pass with him for a multitude Another jugling trick he has to cast any shadow of words into such a posture that they seem clearly convinc'd of errour As if a Father say God governs the World by Angels he 'l make it sound as if God knew not what was done here below Then of his own accord hee 'l take for granted divers positions as if they were confest errours which are first to be proved such as That some souls are kept in Receptacles till the day of Judgment c. The length of the Chapter and its confusedness in not distinguishing private errours from publick and the multitude of his mistakes favourable to his own side deter me from spending my time upon the fals proofs of a confessed or at least not controverted Conclusion For truly if I would take the pains I doubt not to make appear the greatest part of them are as weak as malicious towards the scandalizing those great Persons he calumniat's But because St. Hierom is accounted by the Sectaries their special friend and one that spares not to give them the truth home this grateful man in counterchange spends four whole leavs in his cōmendation as you may understand by his general judgment upon him telling us that the cours he ordinarily uses in his disputations is wresting the words of his Adversarys quite besides the Authors intention and framing to himself such a sense as is not at all to be found in them and then fiercly encountring this Gyant of his own making mixing withal base abusive Language and biting girds and the like tart expressions borrow'd from Prophane Authors in which kind of learning he was indeed very excellent Of this modest censure he pretends no less then one example for proof and that far short of justifying his bold imputation The
mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him he mistook at first St. Austins meaning from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never delt any better with others and after the sentence so impudently pronounc'd rely's upon this bare suspition as a sufficient evidence Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at call'd calumny and charges the same Father first about Gods knowing smal things but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledg but particular providence of which St. Paul said nunquid Deo cura est de bobus His second instance contradicts his former For it is that Saints are everywhere which is spoken of their knowledg not corporal presence Christ by whose company they are pretended to be everywhere being so by his sight and knowledg not by his presence corporally Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former yet would not make use of it to reconcile but aggravate the errours Thirdly he accuses him to say that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin but cites not a syllable except for Angels which so express'd is an undenyable truth being no more then that Angels by envy became Divels But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Ladies respects to their families that they did not marry the second time he interprets as intended against marriage it self I confess as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it he says more what is true then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases wherin the temperance not use is honourable He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrin indeed an intolerable heresy wherin all true Reform'd stomacks are fundamentally concern'd for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh a most wholsome custome was abolish'd by Jesus Christ but citing neither words nor place and afterward drawing it in by a fals consequence makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder then St. Hieroms The next errour is that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest but his words are so common they easily receive explication Again he is offended with him for denying faintly that the blessed eat in Heaven Lastly he accuses him of abusing St. Paul and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar because he says there was more in the inscription then the Apostle mention'd Secondly that he said he understood more then he could explicate Thirdly that to the Galathians he spake ordinary discourses because they were not capable of higher Of these three the first had no harm in it since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our Saviours Cross the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Popes authority And this great Patron of theirs cals him an arrant wooden Statue A pitiful thing One that had scarce any reaon in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language be a perfect foundation for a point of faith By these you may guess how he has dealt with others which were too long to examin Approaching to the end of his Chapter he specify's some errours unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers First that of the Chiliasts an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse The second is the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of Judgment which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled De medio animarum statu The third concerns rebaptization of Heteticks which also is cleared above only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it after the decision of the Council of Nice but his mincing the matter by saying in a manner shews it is only a largess of his good will and not any evidence he brings Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology and then the Angels having bodies and after that the Angels falling in love with women three points not very material Then again he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants but brings in rather testimonies of the practice which is not in question then of the necessity which is And lastly that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held Gods foresight of mens good and bad works to be the cause of predestination but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known it might as wisely have been omitted In this next Chapter he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintain'd against others some opinions in matters of very great importance which is but one half of what follows from or rather is directly contain'd in the conclusion of the former Chapter and therfore not denyed by us nor useful to him which was the cause why he would not there add though the place were very proper that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others and of the Church But to make a seeming new argument he left out this and exprest himself generally like a true deceiver that some defended against others and to give his discours the better relish he begins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion making him say that the Fathers opinions never clash one against another touching the points of our Religion for a Person so learned could not be ignorant that some errour might be found in a Father against the cōmon consent of the rest But his meaning was that not so many could dissent as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgment of the rest neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary In his first instance if he had put in that Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy against the communalty of Christians of their Age he had ruin'd his own proof which nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus as is declared and indeed was obliged to do if he intended to proceed pertinently But what should I pain my self in a question not controverted Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son Theodoret distinguishes his words saying if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son or of the same nature so he allows the saying but if he means that he
reduc'd to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion especially since an hundred yeers experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true Besides why does not this good Orator spend some time to shew us that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture as against the Fathers I confess he has hinted it sometimes like one that saw the objection so obvious it could not be forgotten yet was unwilling to wade the Ford for fear he should find it too deep To supply therfore his omission I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers as far as concerns these objections Which consists in this that the Fathers works are many and copious The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carry's her Mistresses Book to Church Whence it follows that as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelvs and Rocks and Whirlpools and whatever else is frightful to Sea men and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain either not at all endammaged by these perillous adventures or only so that they are easily avoyded by a careful Pilot wheras in a narrow Channel or Frith if we meet but half the number there will be no sailing without manifest danger So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture Every exception this Caviller alledges or at least provs may be true of their works and yet more then sufficient left to convince Hereticks but if Scripture be half as much disabled it wil utterly lose its Protestant pretended power of deciding controversys A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence the many Explications leave nothing untouch'd the Comparisons of one place to another may be more then there are words in the Text the places brought by one side and the other so short that Equivocation has force upon every one the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew whose titles breed a difference or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties the Method and Stile the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion much less to be the sole Judg to determin all contentions about faith Yes wil he say but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few I confess it but yet dare affirm there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversy's This is true but so do the Scriptures That there are supposititious works of the Fathers Hereticks pretend the same against our Scriptures That the Fathers speak according to others minds But the like is found in Scripture And so going on it will easily appear the same objections or equivalent might have bin made against Scripture if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down Now when these Books are put into a Vulgar language as is necessary to them who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture by being first Judge of the sense of it that is of what is Scripture for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose can it be less then madnes to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture And yet as I have before noted this Patron of Presbytery assures us that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion but what we know to be certainly true which is evident in his way to be nothing at all At last his own good nature has perswaded him to propose one profitable question What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies And his first resolution is in the design of his Book conformable to the fore-layd grounds that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions and not for our own A wonderful wise conclusion especially considering he says the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all For my part I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written which when I have found little imported what t was or whether I knew it or no this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study to know what such or such books say without any farther end Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in not that they are better even at this then their Adversaries but because they have no other As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledg to be sought after but being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words hang in the air not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground At least to maintain the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings as that such a position is not found in the Fathers Ergo not necessary to be believ'd and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles which they unanimonsly deliver But he has forgot his own arguments for since we have so few of their works how can we tel the greater part did not teach somwhat necessary to be believ'd which these have omitted since corruption enter'd into the Church immediatly after the Apostles decease why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy since the Fathers are so hard to be understood why may there not be many doctrins of importance which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them and since they oppose one another in so many things why may not at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith I cannot give over this discours concerning the testimony of the Fathers without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's and too great an easiness in our own party which once discover'd and perfectly understood makes our cause so evident that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity The business is this Wheras their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible ther 's not the least colour to doubt it we let our selvs by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions and so lose the face of Antiquity by disputing of some nice point As for example when the Presbyterian has ruin'd the whole fabrick of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation we unwarily suffer our selvs to be engag'd into the discussion of this partieular quaere Whether Bishops be de jure divino which cannot be determin'd by the vast body of Antiquity as the right and proper