lawful and also very useful to pray to Saints departed and to Angels That our Souls after death before they enter into Heaven are to pass through a certain Fire and there to endure grievous Torments thus satisfying for their Sins That one neither may nor ought to receive the holy Eucharist without having first confessed himself in private to a Priest That none but the Priest himself that consecrated the Eucharist is bound by right to receive it in both kinds And a great number of other Opinions which their Adversaries protest plainly That they cannot with a safe conscience believe And these Points are the ground of the whole Difference betwixt them the one Party pretending That they have been believed and received by the Church of Christ in all Ages as revealed by him and the other maintaining the contrary Now seeing that none of these Tenets having any ground from any Passage in the New Testament which is the most Ancient and Authentick Rule of Christianity the Maintainers are fain to fly to the Writings of the Doctors of the Church which lived within the four or five first Centuries after the Apostles who are commonly called the Fathers my purpose is in this Treatise to examine whether or no this be a good and sufficient means for the decision of these Differences And for this purpose I must first presuppose two things which any reasonable Person will easily grant me The first is That the Question being here about laying a Foundation for certain Articles of Faith upon the Testimonies or Opinions of the Fathers it is very necessary that the Passages which are produced out of them be clear and not to be doubted of that is to say such as we cannot reasonably scruple at either touching the Author out of whom they are alledged or the Sense of the Place whether it signifie what is pretended to For a Deposition of a Witness and the Sentence of a Judge being of no value at all save onely for the reputation of the Witness or Judge it is most evident that if either proceed from Persons unknown or suspected they are invalid and prove nothing at all In like manner if the Deposition of a Witness or Sentence of a Judge be obscure and in doubtful Terms it is clear that in this case the Business must rest undecided there being another Doubt first to be cleared namely What the meaning of either of them was The second Point that I shall here lay down for a Foundation to the ensuing Discourse is no less evident than the former namely That to allow a sufficiency to the Writings of the Fathers for the deciding of these Controversies we must necessarily attribute to their Persons very great Authority and such as may oblige us to follow their Judgment in Matters of Religion For if this Authority be wanting how clear and express soever their Opinions be in the Articles now controverted it will do nothing at all toward their Decision We have therefore here two things to examine in this Business The first is Whether or not we may be able now certainly and clearly to know what the Opinion of the Fathers hath been touching the Differences now in hand The second Whether their Authority be such as that whatever faithful Person shall clearly and certainly know what their Opinion hath been in any one Article of Christian Religion he is thereby bound to receive that Article for True For if the Church of Rome be but able to prove both these Points it is then without all dispute that their Proceeding is good and agreeable to the End proposed there being so many of the Ancient Fathers Writings alledged at this day by them But if on the contrary side either of these Two things or both of them be indeed found to be doubtful I should think that any Man of a very mean Judgment should be able to conclude of himself That this way of Proof which they have hitherto made use of is very insufficient and that therefore they of necessity ought to have recourse to some other more proper and solid way in the Proof of the Truth of the said Opinions which the Protestants will not by any means receive THE FIRST BOOK CHAP. I. REASON I. Touching the Difficulty of knowing the Sense of the Fathers in reference to the present Controversies in Religion drawn from hence Namely Because there is very little extant of Their Writings for the Three First Centuries IF we should in this particular take the same course which some Writers of the Church of Rome make use of against the Holy Scriptures it would be a very easie matter to bring in question and render very doubtful and suspected all the Writings of the Fathers For when any one alledgeth the Old or New Testament these Gentlemen presently demand How or by what means they know that any such Books were truly written by those Prophets and Apostles under whose Names they go If therefore in like manner when these Men urge Justin Irenaeus Ambrose Augustine and the like one should take them short and demand of them How and by what means they are assured that these Fathers were the Authors of those Writings which at this day go under their Names it is very much to be doubted but that they would find a harder Task of it than their Adversaries in justifying the Inscriptions of the Books of Holy Writ the Truth whereof is much more easie to be demonstrated than of any Humane Writings whatsoever But I pass by this too-artificial way of Proceeding and onely say That it is no very easie matter to find out by the Writings of the Fathers what hath really beeen their Opinion in any of those Controversies which are now in debate betwixt the Protestant and the Church of Rome The Considerations which render the knowledge of this so difficult are many I shall therefore in this First Part handle some of them onely referring the rest to the Later examining them one after another The first Reason therefore which I shall lay down for the proving of this Difficulty is The little we have extant of the Writings of the Ancient Fathers especially of the First Second and Third Centuries which are those we are most especially to regard For seeing that one of the principal Reasons that moveth the Church of Rome to alledge the Writings of the Fathers is to shew the Truth of their Tenets by the Antiquity which they reckon as a Mark of it it is most evident that the most Ancient ought to be the most taken notice of And indeed there is no question to be made but that the Christian Religion was more pure and without mixture in its beginnings and Infancy than it was afterwards in its Growth and Progress it being the ordinary course of Things to contract Corruptions more or less according as they are more or less removed from their first Institution As we see by experience in States Laws Arts and Languages the Natural Propriety of
also contrary perhaps either to the sense or the affection of the person from whom they proceeded Thus before the springing up of that pernicious doctrine of Arius who so much troubled the Ancient Church there waâ— very little said of the Eternity of the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ or if the Fathers said any thing at all of it it was only in passage and by the By and not by design and hence it is also that what they have delivered in this particular is as obscure and hard to be rightly understood as those other Passages of theirs that relate to our present Controversies Do but explain the meaning a little if you can of this passage of Justin Martyr in his Treatise against Tryphon wherâ— he saith that The God which appeared to Moses and to the Patriarâ—hs was the Son and not the Father for as much as the Father is not capable of Local Motion neither can properly be said to ascend or descend and that No Man ever saw the Father but only heard his Son and his Angel who is also God by the will of the Father Which words of his cannot be very well explained without allowing a difference of Nature in the Father and the Son which were to establish Arianisme Do but observe what Tertullian also â—ays in this particular namely That the Father bringing him forth out of himself made his Son and That the Father is the Whole Substance and the Son a Portion and a Derivation of that Whole and many other the like Passages which you meet with here and there in that excellent Piece of his written against Praxeas which will hardly be reconciled to any good construction In like manner doth Dionysius Alexandrinus call the Son The Work or Workmanship of the Father which are the very Terms that were so much quarrelled at in Arius And the LXXX Fathers who condemned Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch said expresly That the Son is not of the same essence with the Father that is to say they in express Terms denied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantiality of the Son which was afterwards established in the Council of Nice It were no very hard matter to make good this Observation in reference to all the other Disputes that have arisen in the Church against Macedonius Pelagius Nestorius Eutyches and the Monothelites to wit that the Fathers have spoken very obscurely of these matters before the Controversies were started as persons that spoke accidentally only thereof and not of set purpose It is now a good while since that S. Hierome said That before that Arius that Impudent Devil appeared in the World the Fathers had delivered many things Innocently and without taking so much heed to their words as they might have done and indeed some things that can hardly escape the Cavils of wrangling spirits And this hath also been observed by some of the most learned among the Moderns as namely Cardinal Perron and the Jesuit Petavius a Man highly esteemed by those of his own Party who writing upon Epiphanius and endeavouring to clear Lucian the Martyr from the suspicion of being an Arrian and a Samosatenian saith * That in this Question touching the Trinity as also in divers others it hath so fallen out that most of the Ancient Fathers who wrote before the springing up of those particular Heresies in the Church have in their Writings let fall here and there such things as are not very consonant to the Rule of the Orthodox Faith Since therefore they have done thus in other Points what marvel is it if they have likewise done the same in these particular Controversies at this day debated amongst us and that having lived so long before that the greatest part of these Controversies were started they have spoken to them so obscurely doubtfully and confusedly For my part I think it would have been the greater wonder of the two if they had done otherwise and shall account it as a very great signe of Forgery in any Piece which is attributed to Antiquity when ever I find it treating expresly and clearly of these Points and as they are now adays discoursed of Do but compare the expressions of the most Ancient Fathers touching the Divinity and Eternity of the Son of God with their expressions touching the Nature of the Eucharist and certainly you will find that the one are not more wide of the Truth at this day professed touching this last Point than the other were from the Doctrine long since declared in the Council of Nice The Council of Nice expresly and positively declared That the Son is Consubstantial with the Father the Council of Antioch had before denied this Whether the Fathers therefore affirm or deny that the Eucharist is really the Body of Christ they will not however therein contradict thy opinion whosoever thou art whether Romanist or Protestant any more than the Fathers of the Council of Antioch seem to have contradicted those of the Council of Nice We may add hereto that as the Arians ought not in reason to have alledged in justification of their opinion any such Passages of the Ancient Fathers as had innocently in passage only and in discoursing on other subjects without any thought of this opinion of theirs fallen from them so neither to say truth is there any reason that either Thou or I should produce as Definitive Sentences upon our present Controversies which have been started but of late years any such Passages of the Fathers as were written by them in treating of other matters many Ages before the breaking forth of our Differences whereof they never had the least thought and concerning which they have confequently delivered themselves very diversly and obscurely and sometimes also seemingly contradicting themselves And as we find that some of the Faithful Christians who lived after these Primitive Fathers have endeavoured to reconcile their sayings to the Truth which they professed as Athanasius hath done in some Passages of Dionysius Alexandrinus and of the Fathers of the Council of Antioch in like manner ought we to use our utmost endeavour to make a handsome interpretation of all such passages in the Writings of these Men and the like as seem to clash with the true Orthodox Belief touching the Eucharist and the like other Points and withal not accounting it any great wonder if we sometimes chance to meet with Passages which seem to be utterly inexplicable For it may so fall out that they may be really so seeing it is very possible that in the Points touching the Person and the Natures of the Son of God some such expressions may have fallen from them as is very well known to those who are versed in their Writings Possibly also we may meet with some Passages of theirs which though they may be explicable in themselves may notwithstanding appear to us to be Indissoluble by reason perhaps of our wanting some one of those
his own Opinions and Observations as Apostolical and which hath not used his utmost endeavour to gain them the Repute of being Vniversal S. Hierome allows every particular Province full liberty to do herein as they please Let every Province saith he abound in its own Sense and let them account of the Ordinances of their Ancestors as of Apostolical Laws It is true indeed that he speaks in this place onely of certain Observations of things which are in themselves indifferent But yet that which he hath permitted them in these Matters they have practised in all other I shall not here trouble my self to produce any other Reasons to prove the Difficulty of this Inquiry because I should then be forced to repeat a great part of that which hath been already delivered For if it be a very hard matter to attain to any certain knowledge what the Sense of the Writings of the Fathers is as we have proved before how much more difficult a thing will it be to discover whether their Opinions were the Opinions of the particular Churches wherein they lived or else were the Opinions of the Church Universal in their Age the same things which cause Obscurity in the one having as much or rather more reason of doing the like in the other And if you would fully understand how painful an Undertaking this is do but read the Disputations of the Learned of both Parties touching this Point where you shall meet with so many Doubts and Contradictions and such diversity of Opinions that you will easily conclude That this is one of the greatest Difficulties that is to be met withal throughout the whole Study of Antiquity CHAP. XI Reason XI That it is impossible to know exactly what the Belief of the Ancient Church either Vniversal or Particular hath been touching any of those Points which are at this day controverted amongst us BEfore we pass on to the Second Part of this Treatise it seemeth not impertinent to give the Reader this Last Advertisement and to let him know that though all these Difficulties here before represented were removed yet notwithstanding would it still be impossible for us to know certainly out of the Fathers what the Judgment of the whole Ancient Church whether you mean the Church Universal or but any considerable Part thereof hath been touching the Differences which are now on foot in Religion Now that we may be able to make the truth of this Proposition appear it is necessary that we should first of all explain the Terms We understand commonly by the Church especially in these Disputations either all those Persons in General who profess themselves to be of the said Church of what Condition or Quality soever they be or else in a stricter sense the Collective Body of all those who are set over and who are Representatives of the Church that is to say the Clergy So that whether you speak of the Church Universal or of some Particular Church as for example that of Spain or of Carthage this Term may be taken in either of these two senses For by the Church Universal we understand either all those Persons in general who live in the Communion of the Christian Church whether they be of the Laity or of the Clergy or else those Persons onely who are Ecclesiastici or Church-men as we now call them For in the Primitive Times all Christians that lived in the Communion of the Catholicks were called Ecclesiastici In like manner by the Church of Carthage is meant either generally All the Faithful that live in the particular Communion of the Christian Church of Carthage or else particularly and in a stricter sense the Bishop of Carthage with his whole Clergy Now I do not believe that there is any Man but will easily grant me that if we take the Church in the First sense it is impossible to know by way of Testimony given of the same what the Sense and Judgment of it hath been in each several Age touching all the Points of Christian Religion We may indeed collect by way of Discourse what hath been the Belief of the True Members of the Church For there being some certain Articles the Belief whereof is necessarily requisite for the rendring a Man such an one whosoever rightly understands which these Articles be he may certainly conclude that the True Church whether Universal or Particular hath believed the same But now in the first place this doth not extend to all the Points of Christian Religion but onely to those which are Necessary besides which there are divers others concerning which we may have not only different but even contrary Judgments too and yet not thereby hazard the loss either of the Communion of the Church or of our Inheritance of everlasting Salvation So then this Ratiocination concludeth not save onely of those who are the True Members of the Church For as for those who make but an outward Profession onely of the Truth it being not at all necessary that they should be saved there is in like manner no more necessity of their embracing those Beliefs which are requisite for that end They may under this Mask hide all manner of Opinions how Impious soever they be Lastly that which makes most for our purpose is That this Knowledge is acquired by Discourse whereas we speak here of such a Knowledge as is collected by the hearing of several Witnesses who give in their Testimonies touching the thing which we would know Now the Fathers having written with a purpose of informing us not what each particular Man believed in their time but rather what they thought fit that all Men should have believed we must needs conclude That certainly they have not told us all that they knew touching this particular And consequently therefore partly their Charity and partly also their Prudence may have caused them to pass by in silence all such Opinions either of whole Companies or of particular Persons as they conceived to be not so consonant to the Truth But supposing that they had not any of these considerations and that they had taken upon them to give us a just Account each Man of the Opinions of his particular Church wherein he lived it is evident however that they could never have been able to have attainēd to the end of this their Design For how is it possible that they should have been able to have learnt what the Opinion of every single Person was amongst so vast a Multitude which consisted of so many several Persons who were of so different both Capacities and Dispositions Who will believe that S. Cyprian for example knew all the several Opinions of each particular Person in his Diocess so as to be able to give us an account of the same Who can imagine but that among such a Multitude of People as lived in the Communion of his Church there must needs have been very many who differed in Opinion from him in divers Points of Religion Even
taken up all of them with their particular Charges and Imployments did not know of some opinions of the Prelates of their Age or that either their Modesty or their Charity or the little Eloquence and Repute they had abroad might have made them conceal the same The other Objection is drawn from hence because that these Doctors of the Ancient Church who held some opinions different from those which we read at this day in the Fathers did not publish them at all But I answer first of all that every Man is not able to do so In the next place those that were able were not always willing to do so Divers other Considerations may perhaps also have hindred them from so doing and if they are Wise and Pious Men they are never moved till they needs must And hence it is that oftentimes those opinions which have less truth in them do yet prevail because that Prudence which maintains the True Opinion is Mild and Patient whereas Rashness which defends the False is of a Froward Eager and Ambitious Nature But now let us but imagine how many of the Evidences of this Diversity of opinion may have been made away by those several ways before represented by us as namely having been either devoured by Time or suppressed by Malitious Men for fear lest they should let the World see the Traces of the Truth which they would have concealed But that I may not be thought to bring here only bare Conjectures without any proof at all I shall produce some Examples also for the confirming and clearing of this my Assertion Epiphanius maintains against Aerius whom he ranks among his Haeresiarchae or Arch Hereticks that a Bishop according to the Apostle Saint Paul and the Original Institution of the thing it self is more than a Priest and this he endeavours to prove in many words answering all the Objections that are made to the contrary If you but read the Passage I am confident that when you had done you would not stick to swear that what he hath there delivered was the general opinion of all the Doctors of the Church it being very unlikely that so Great and so Renowned a Prelate would so slatly have denied the opinion which he disputed against if so be any one of his own familiar friends had also maintained the same And yet for all this Saint Hierome who was one of the Principal Lights of our Western Church and who lived at the same time with Epiphanius who was his intimate Friend and a great admirer of his Piety saith expresly that Among the Ancients Bishops and Priests were the same the one being a name of Dignity and the other of Age. And that it may not be thought that this fell from him in discourse only he there falls to proving the same at large alledging several Passages of Scripture touching this Particular and he also repeats the same thing in two or three several places of his Works Whereby it evidently appears that even Positions which have been quite Contradictory to the opinions which have been delivered and maintained by some of the Fathers and proposed in what terms soever have notwithstanding been sometimes either maintained or at least tolerated by some others of 〈◊〉 less Authority S. Hierome himself hath â—alâ— extreamly foul upon Ruffinus and hath traduced divers of his opinions as most Pernicious and Deadly and yet notwithstanding we do not any where find that ever he was accounted as an Heretick by the rest of the Fathers But we shall have occasion hereafter to consider more at large of the like Examples and shall only at present observe that if those Books of S. Hierome which we mentioned a little before should chance to have been lost every Man would then assuredly have concluded with Epiphanius that no Doctor of the Ancient Church ever held that a Bishop and a Priest were one and the same thing in its Institution Who now after all this will assure us that among so many other opinions as have been rejected here and there by the Fathers and that too in as plain terms as these of Epiphanius none of them have ever been defended by some of the Learned of those times Or is it not possible that they may have held them though they did not write in defence of the same Or may they not perhaps have written also in deâ—ence of them and their Books have been since lost How small is the number of those in the Church who had the Ability or at least the 〈◊〉 to write And how much smaller is the number of thoâ—â— whose Wriâ—ings have been able to secure themselves against either the Injury of Time or the Malice of Men It is objâ—cted against the Protestants as we have touched before that S. Hierome commendeth and maintaineth the Adoration of Reliques But yet he himself testifieth that there were some Bishops who defended Vigilantius who held the contrary opinion whom he according to his ordinary Rhetorick calleth His Consorts in Wickedness Who knows now what these Bishops were and whether they deserved any such usage at S. Hieromes hands or no For the Expressions which he useth against them and against their opinion are so full of Gall and of Choler as that they utterly take away all credit from his Testimony But we have insisted long enough upon this Particular and shall therefore forbear to instance any further in others For as much therefore as it is Impossible to discover exactly out of the Fathers what hath been the sense and judgment of the Ancient Church whether taken Universally or Particularly or whether you take the Church for the whole Body of Believers or for the Prelates and Inseriour Clergy only I shall here conclude as formerly that the Writings of the Ancients are altogether Insufficient for the proving the Truth of any of those Points which are at this day controverted amongst Us. THE SECOND BOOK CHAP. I. That the Fathers are not of sufficient Authority for the Deciding of our Controversies in Religion Reason I. That the Testimonies given by the Fathers touching the Belief of the Church are not always True and Certain WE have before shewed how hard a matter it is to discover what the Sense of the Fathers hath been touching the Points at this day controverted in Religion both by reason of the small number of Books we have left us of the Fathers of the First Centuries and those too which we have treating of such things as are of a very different nature from our present Disputes and which besides we cannot be very well assured of by reason of the many Forgeries and monstrous Corruptions which they have for so long a time been subject to as also by reason of their Obscurity and Ambiguity in their Expressions and their representing unto us many times the Opinions rather of others than of their Authors besides those many other Imperfections which are found in them as namely their not informing us in
the Truth when as in his old age taking Pen in hand he reviewed and corrected all that he had ever written during his whole Life faithfully and ingenuously noting whatsoever he thought worthy of reprehension and giving us all those his Animadversions collected together in the Books of his Retractations which in my judgment is the most glorious and most excellent of all those many Monuments which he hath left to Posterity whether you consider here the Learning or the Modesty and Sincerity of the Man S. Hierome reporteth that Origen also long before had in his old age written an Epistle to Fabianus Bishop of Rome wherein he confesseth That he repented him of many things which he had taught and written Neither is there any doubt but that some such like thing may have hapned to most of the other Fathers and that they may have sometime disallowed of that which they had formerly believed as true Now from this consideration there falls in our way a new Difficulty which we are to grapple with in this our Inquiry into the true genuine sense of the Fathers touching our present Controversies For seeing that the Condition and Nature of their Writings is such it is most evident that when we would make use of any of their Opinions it will concern us to be very well assured that they have not only sometime either held or written the same but that they have moreover persevered in them to the end Whence Vincentius Lirinensis in that Passage of his which is so often urged for the making use of the Ancient Authors in deciding our present Controversies thinks it not fit that we should be bound to receive whatsoever they have said for certain and undoubted Truth unless they have assured and confirmed it unto us by their Perseverance in the same as he there speaketh Cardinal Perron also evidently sheweth us the same way by his own practice for disputing about the Canon of the Holy Scriptures which he pretendeth to have been always the very same in the Western Church with that which is delivered unto us by the III Council of Carthage where the Maccabees are reckoâ—ed in among the rest and finding himself hardly pressed by some certain Passages alledged by the Protestants out of S. Hierome to the contrary he answereth the Objection by saying among other things That this Father when he wrote the said Passages was not yet come to the ripeness of his Judgment and perfection of his Studies whereas afterwards when he was now more fully instructed in the truth of the Sense of the Church he changed his Opinion and retracted as this Cardinal saith both in general and in particular whatsoever he had before written in those three Prologues where he had excluded the Maccabees out of the Canon And so likewise to another Objection brought to the same purpose out of the Commentaries of S. Gregory the Great he gives the like answer saying That S. Gregory when he wrote that Piece was not yet come to be Pope but was a plain Deacon only being at that time employed at Constantinople as the Popes Nuncio to the Greeks Now these Answers of his are either insufficient or else it will necessarily follow from hence That we ought not to rest certainly satisfied in the Testimony of any Father except we first be assured that not only he never afterwards retracted that Opinion of his but that besides he wrote it in the strength and ripeness of his Judgment And see now how we are fallen into a new Labyrinth For first of all from whence and by what means may we be able to come truly and certainly to the knowledge of this Secret when as we can hardly meet with any light Conjectures tending to the making of this Discovery namely Whether a Father hath in his old age changed his Opinion touching that Point for which it is produced against us or not If they had all of them been either able or willing to have imitated the Modesty of S. Augustine we should then have had little left to trouble us But you will hardly find any either of the Ancients or of those of Later times that have followed this example unless it be Cardinal Bellarmine who hath lately thought good to revive this Piece of Modesty which had lain dead and buried for the space of so many Ages together by writing a Book of Retractations which Book of his is very diversly received by the Learned as well of the one as of the other Religion But yet if you will stand stiff upon it with Cardinal Perron and not allow the saying of a Father to be of any value unless it were written by him after the Ripeness of his Studies I shall then despair of our ever making any Progress so much as one step forward by this means in the business in hand For will the one and the other Party say upon every Testimony that shall be produced against them how do we know whether this Father had yet arrived to the Ripeness of his Judgment when he wrote this Book or not Who can tell whether or no those days of his Life that he enjoyed after the Writing hereof might not have bestowed as well clearness on his Understanding as Whiteness on his Head and have changed his Judgment as well as his Hair We suppose here that no such thing appeareth in any of his other Writings How many Authors are there who have changed their Opinions and yet have not retracted what they had formerly written But suppose now that we should have lost that particular Tract wherein the Author had given Testimony of the changing of his Opinion what should we do in this cafe If Time should have deprived us of S. Augustine's Retractations and some other of his later Writings as it hath of an infinite number of other Pieces both of his and other of the Fathers which would have been of as great importance to us we must certainly have thought that he had believed that the Cause of Predestination is the Prescience or Foreseeing of the Faith of Men reading but what he saith in one of the Books which he first wrote namely That God hath not elected the Works of any Man according to his Prescience seeing that it is He himself that gives the same to a Man But that he hath elected his Faith by His Presâ—ience that is He hath elected those who He foresaw would believe his Word that is to say He made choice of them to bestow His Holy Spirit upon that so by doing Good Works they might attain everlasting Life Now would the Pelagians and Semipelagians have brought this Passage as an infallible Argument that S. Augustine was of their Opinion but that his Retractations and his other Books which were written afterwards in his later time clearly make it appear that this Argument is of no force at all forasmuch as this Learned Father having afterwards better considered of this Point wholly altered