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
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
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
perhaps that his Hyperbolical way of Expression of a thousand Augustines Hieromes and Gregories all which joyned together he in too disdainful a manner casts down beneath the feet of one single Pope But this height of Expression may be somewhat excused in him considering that such Excesses as these are very ordinary with all high and free-spirited Persons But the Practice of the Church of Rome it self will be able to inform us more truly and clearly what esteem they have of Antiquity For if we ought to stand to the Fathers and not to depart from any thing that they have Authorized nor to Ordain any thing that they were ignorant of how comes it to pass that we at this day see so many several Observations and Customs which were observed by the Ancients now quite laid aside And whence is it that we find in Antiquity no mention at all of many things which are now in great request amongst us There are as it were three principal Parts in Religion namely Points of Belief of Ceremony and of Discipline We shall run them over lightly all three and so far as is necessary only for our present purpose that so we may let the world see that in every one of these three parts they have both abolished and established very many things expresly against the Authority of the Ancients As for the first of these we have formerly given the Reader some Tasts only in the preceding Chapters For we have seen that the Opinion of the greatest part of the Ancient Church touching the State of the Soul till the time of the Resurrection which besides is at this day also maintained by the Greek Church was condemned not much above two hundred years since by the Church of Rome at the Council of Florence and a quite contrary Belief there established as an Article of the Christian Faith We have seen besides that the Opinion of the Fathers of the Primitive Church and even down as far as to the end of the sixth Century after our Saviour Christ and afterwards was that the Eucharist was as necessary to Salvation as Baptism and that consequently it was therefore to be administred to little Children And yet for all this the Council of Trent hath condemned this Opinion as an Error in Faith withal Anathematizing by a Canon made expresly for that purpose all those who ever should maintain the same Let him be Accursed say they whoever shall say that the Eucharist is necessary for little Children before they are come to years of discretion Only that the Fathers might not take offence hereat as having so fearful an Affront put upon them these men have endeavoured to perswade both them and others that they never did believe that which themselves have most clearly and in express Terms protested that they did believe as we have before made it appear which is to double the injury upon them rather than to make them any reparations for it seeing that they deal with them now not as Hereticks only but as Fools also whom a man may at pleasure perswade that they do not believe that which they really do believe We have abundantly heard out of St. Hierome's mouth how that the Opinion of the Chilasts was of old maintained by several of the Ancient Fathers which yet is now condemned as an Error in Faith And indeed the number of these kind of differences in Opinions is almost infinite It was accounted no Error in those days to believe that the Soul was derived from the Father down to the Son according to the ordinary course of Generation but this Opinion would now be accounted an Heresie The Ancients held That it would be an opposing of the Authority of the Scriptures if we should bang up the Picture of any Man in the Church and that we ought not to have any Pictures in our Churches that That which we worship and adore be not painted upon a Wall But now the Council of Trent hath Ordained the quite contrary and says That we ought to have and to keep especially in our Churches the Images of Christ of the Virgin the Mother of God and of the other Saints and that we are to yield unto them all due Honour and Veneration All the Ancient Fathers as far as we can learn out of their Writings believed That the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in Original Sin If now the Fathers of the Council of Trent accounted them to be the Judges of Faith what moved them then to imagine that we ought not to believe that they maintained any such Opinion For having delivered their Definitive Sentence in a Decree there passed to this purpose and declared That this Sin which hath spread it self over the whole Mass of Mankind by Propagation and not by Imitation hath seised on every Person in particular They at length conclude That their Intention is not to comprehend within this number the Blessed and Vnspotted Virgin Mary the Mother of God Which Words of theirs it is impossible so to expound as that they shall not in plain Terms give the Lie to All the Fathers For if they mean by these Words that the Virgin Mary was conceived without Sin they flatly establish an Opinion which is contradictory to that of the Fathers which is the grossest manner of giving them the Lie that can be If they mean here no more than this which Sense yet their Words will hardly be ever made to bear that it is not known as a certain Truth that the Virgin Mary was conceived in Sin they however honestly say in plain Terms That these Good Men affirmed as True that which is yet Doubtful and maintained as Certain that which was but Problematical onely and Questionable The Council of Laodicea which is inserted into the Code of the Church Universal putteth not into the Canon of the Old Testament any more than Twenty two Books onely excluding by this means out of this number the Book of Tobit of Judith the Book of Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and the two Books of the Maccabees Melito Bishop of Sardis Origen Cyril of Hierusalem Gregory Nazianzene S. Hilary and Epiphanius do all of them the same Athanasius Ruffinus and S. Hierome expresly reject these very Books and cast them out of the Canon And yet notwithstanding the aforesaid Council of Trent Anathematizeth all those who will not receive as Holy and Canonical all these Books with every part of the same as they are wont to be read in the Church and as they are found in the Old Latin Edition commonly called the Vulgar Translation Where besides the Affront which they have offered to so many of the Ancient and most Eminent among the Fathers and indeed to the Whole Primitive Church it self which received this Conon of Laodicea in amongst its Vniversal Rules they have also established a Position here which was not till then so much as ever heard
what hath been so temperately learnedly and judiciously written by Monsieur Daille our Protestan-Perron And what the same Lord in a Treatise which will shortly be publisht saith concerning the Popish Perron viz. Him I can scarce ever laudare in one sense that is quote but I must laudare in the other that is praise who hath helpt the Church to all the advantages which wit learning industry judgment and eloquence could add unto her is as true of this our Protestant I shall add but one Lords Testimony more viz. the Lord George Digbies in his late Letters concerning Religion in these words p. 27 28. The reasons prevalent with me whereon an inquiring and judicious person should be obliged to rely and acquiesce are so amply and so learnedly set down by Monsieur Daillé in his Employ des Peâ—â—s that I think little which is material or weighty can be said on this subject that his rare and piercing observation hath not anticipated Were it needful to wander to Foreigners for Testimonies I could tell you how highly this Author is esteemed by the Learned and Famous Doctor Andr. Rivet upon whole importunity his Book des Images and other Tracts have been translated but writing to Englishmen I will only name the judicious Doctor Jer. Taylor Libert of Proph. Sect. 8. n. 4. in these words I shall chuse such a topick as makes no invasion upon the great reputation of the Fathers which I desire should be preserved sacred as it ought For other things let who please read Mr. Daillé du vrai usage des Peres Et siquis eueulo locus inter Oscines I must ingenuously profess that it was the reading of this rational Book which first convinced me that my study in the French Language was not ill employed which hath also enabled me to commend this to the World as faithfully translated by a judicious hand And that if there were no other use of the Fathers there is very much while Testem quem quis adducit pro se tenetur accipere contra se is a rule in reason as well as Civil Law and that the works of Cord. Perron for whose monstrous understanding they are the words of Viscount Faulkland p. 59. Bellarmine and Bironius might with most advantage to their party and no disgrace to them have been employed in seeking citations being built upon the principle That whatever the Fathers witness to be tradition and the doctrine of the Church must be received of all for such and so relied on And this principle being here throughly examined You have here as sufficient a constitation of Perrons Book against K. J. and by consequence of the Marquess of Worcesters against K. C. and Dr. Vanes and other Epitonizers of the Cardinal as you have of Mr. Cressys in the Preface to the Lord Faulkland by the learned I. P. Chr. Coll. Aug. 1. 1651. T. S. THE PREFACE ALl the Difference in Religion which is at this day betwixt the Church of Rome and the Protestants lies in some certain Points which the Church of Rome maintaineth as important and necessary Articles of the Christian Faith Whereas the Protestants on the contrary neither believe nor will receive them for such For as for those things which the Protestants believe for their part and which they conceive to be the Fundamentals of Religion they are so evidently and undeniably such as that even their Adversaries themselves do also allow of and receive them as well as they for as much as they are both clearly delivered in the Scriptures and expresly set down by the Ancient Councils and Fathers and are indeed unanimously received by the greatest part of Christians in all Ages and Parts of the World Such for example are these Maxims following Namely That there is a God who is Supreme over all and who created the Heavens and the Earth That having created Man after his own Image this Man revolting from his Obedience is faln together with his whole Posterity into most extreme and eternal misery and become infected with Sin as with a mortal Leprosie and is therefore obnoxious to the Wrath of God and liable to his Curse That the Merciful Creator pitying Mans Estate graciously sent his Son Jesus Christ into the World That his Son is God Eternal with him and that having taken Flesh upon himself in the Womb of the Virgin Mary and become Man He hath done and suffered in this Flesh all things necessary for our Salvation having by this means sufficiently expiated for our Sins by his Blood and that having finished all this he is ascended again into Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of the Father from whence He shall one day come to judge all Mankind rendering to every one according to their Works That to enable us to communicate of his Salvation by His Merits He sendeth us down His Holy Spirit proceeding both from the Father and the Son and who is also one and the same God with Them in such sort as that these Three Persons are notwithstanding but One GOD who is Blessed for ever That this Spirit enlightens our Vnderstanding and begets Faith in us whereby we are justified That after all this the LORD sent his Apostles to Preach this Doctrine of Salvation throughout the whole World That These have planted Churches and placed in each of them Pastors and Teachers whom we are to hear with all reverence and to receive from them Baptism the Sacrament of our Regeneration and the Holy Eucharist or Lords Supper which is the Sacrament of our Communion with Jesus Christ That we are likewise all of us bound to love GOD and our Neighbour very fervently observing diligently that Holy Doctrine which is laid down unto us in the Books of the New Testament which have been inspired by His Spirit of Truth as also those other of the Old there being nothing either in the one or in the other but what is most true These Articles and some other few the like which there perhaps may be are the substance of the Protestants whole Belief and if all other Christians would but content themselves with these there would never be any Schism in the Church But now their Adversaries add to these many other Points which they press and command Men to believe as necessary ones and such as without believing of which there is no possible hope of Salvation As for example That the Pope of Rome is the Head and Supreme Monarch of the whole Christian Church throughout the World That He or at least the Church which he acknowledgeth a true one cannot possibly erre in matter of Faith That the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to be adored as being really Jesus Christ and not a piece of Bread That the Mass is a Sacrifice that really expiates the Sins of the Faithful That Christians may and ought to have in their Churches the Images of God and of Saints to which they are to use Religious Worship bowing down before them That it is
our Age where this great Person hath given us his Judgment of most of the Authors of the Greek Church Now this Help we may make use of two manner of ways The one is in justifying a Book if it be found mentioned by these Authors The other is in rejecting it if they say nothing of it As for the first of these it concludes onely according to the Quality of the Authors who make mention of a suspected Book For some of the Fathers themselves have made use of these kind of Forgeries as we have formerly said others have favoured them because they served their turn some have not been able to discover them and some others have not been willing to do so whatsoever their Reason hath been I shall not here repeat the Names of any of those that have done these things themselves And as for those that have favoured them there are good store of examples as Justin Martyr Theophilus and others who alledge the Sibylls Verses as Oracles which are notwithstanding the greatest part of them forged Clemens Alexandrinus the most Learned and most Polite of all the Fathers in S. Hierome's judgment how often doth he make use of those Apocryphal Pieces which go under the Names of the Apostles and Disciples to whom they were most falsly attributed citing under the Name of Barnabas and of Hermes such Writings as have been forged under their Names And did not the VII Council in like manner make use of a supposititious Piece attributed to Athanasius as we have shewed before and likewise of divers others which are of the same stamp That even the Fathers themselves therefore have not been able always to make a true discovery of these false Wares no Man can doubt considering that of those many necessary Qualifications which we reckoned up before as requisite in this Particular they may oftentimes have failed in some S. Hierome himself the most knowing Man among all the Latin Fathers especially in Matters of this nature sometimes lets them pass without examination as there where he speaks of a certain Tract against Mathematicians attributed to Minutius Foelix If at least saith he the Inscription represent unto us the right Author of the Book And in another place whatsoever his reason was he delivers to us for Legitimate Pieces the Epistles that go about under the Name of S. Paul to Seneca and of Seneca to S. Paul which notwithstanding Cardinal Baronius holds for suspectâ—â— and spurious as doubtless they are But even those Men who have been able to discover these false Pieces have not sometimes been willing to do it either being unwilling to offend the Authors of them or else not daring to cast any disrepute upon those Books which having many good things in them had not in their judgment any false or dangerous Positions in them And this is the reason why they made choice to let such things pass rather than out of a little tenderness of conscience to oppose them there being in their apprehension no danger at all in the one and much trouble and envy in the other And therefore I am of opinion That S. Hierome for example would never have taken the pains nor have undergone the envy in laying open the Forgeries of Ruffinus if the misunderstanding that hapned to be betwixt them had not engaged him to it Neither do I believe that the African Fathers would ever have troubled themselves in convincing the false Allegation of Zozimus but for their own Interest which was thereby called in question For wise and sober Men never use to fall at variance with any Body till they needs must neither do they quickly take notice of any Injury or Abuse offered them unless it be a very great one and such as hath evident danger in it which was not at all perceived or taken notice of at first in these Forgeries which nevertheless have at length by little and little in a manner born down all the good and true Books These Considerations in my opinion make it clearly appear That the Title of a Book is not sufficiently justified by a Passage or two being cited out of it by some of the Ancients and under the same Name As for the other way which rendreth the Authority of a Book doubtful by the Ancients not having made any mention of it I confess it is no more demonstrative than the other forasmuch as it is not impossible that any one or divers of the Fathers may not have met with such a certain Wriâ—â—r that was then extant or else perhaps that they might omit some one of those very Authors which they knew Yet notwithstanding is this the much surer way of the two there being less danger in this case in rejecting a True Piece than in receiving a Forged one the want of the Truth of the one being doubtless much less prejudicial than the receiving the opposite Falshood of the other For as it is a less sin to omit the Good than to commit the Evil that is opposite to it in like manner is it a less Errour not to believe a Truth than to believe the Falshood which is contrary to it And thus we see what confusion there is in the Books of the Ancients and what defect in the Means which is requisite for the distinguishing the False from the True insomuch that as it often falls out it is much easier to judge what we ought to reject than to resolve upon what we may safely receive Let the Reader therefore now judge whether or no these Writings having come down along through so many Ages and passed through so many Hands which are either known to have been notoriously guilty or at least strongly suspected of Forgery the Truth in the mean time having made on its part but very weak resistance against these Impostures it be not a very hard matter to discover amidst the infinite number of Books that are now extant and go under the Names of the Fathers which are those that truly belong to them and which again are those that are falsly imposed upon them And if it be so hard a matter to discover in gross onely which are the Writings of the Fathers how much more difficult a Business will it be to find out what their Opinions are touching the several Controversies now in agitation For we are not to imagine that it is no great matter from which of the Fathers such an Opinion hath sprung so that it came from any one of them for there is altogether as much difference amongst these Ancient Doctors both in respect of Authority Learning and Goodness as among the Modern Besides that an Ages being higher or lower either raiseth or lesseneth the Repute of these Writings in the esteem both of the one Party and of the other as it were so many grains as years And certainly not altogether without good reason it being most evident to any one that hath been but the least versed in the
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
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
true than doth the Faith of the Former depend upon a Cause which is not Infallible and consequently is Null Now these Different opinions are reconciled by saying that the Church accounting neither of these Beliefs as necessary to Faith a Man is not presently an Heretick for holding the False opinion of the two nor yet is he to be counted Orthodox meerly for holding the True one Seeing therefore that this Particular concerns the Communion of the Church and our Salvation also which dependeth thereon it will behove us to know certainly in what Degree the Ancients placed those Articles which are at this day so eagerly pressed upon the Protestants and whether they held them in the same or in a Higher or else in a Lower Degree of Necessity than they are now maintained by the Church of Rome For unless this be made very clear the Protestants though they should confess which yet they do not that the Fathers did indeed really believe the same might yet alledge for themselves that notwithstanding all this they are not bound to believe the same for as much as all opinions in Religion are not presently Obligatory and such as all Men are bound to believe seeing that there are some that are indeed necessary but some others that are not so They will answer likewise that these opinions are like to those at this day controverted betwixt the Dominicans and the Franciscans or to those other Points debated betwixt the Sorbonists and the Regulars wherein every one is permitted to hold what he pleaseth They will urge for themselves the Determination of the Council of Trent which in express terms distinguisheth betwixt the opinions of the Fathers where having thundred out an Anathema against all those that should maintain that the Administring of the Eucharist was necessary for little Infants they further declare that this Thunderbolt extended not to those Antient Fathers who gave the Communion to little Infants for as much as they maintained and practised this being moved thereunto upon Probable Reasons only and not accounting it necessary to Salvation Seeing therefore that some Errors which have been condemned by Councils may be maintained in such a certain Degree without incurring thereby the danger of their Thunderbolts by the same reason a Man may be ignorant of and even deny some Truths also without running the hazard of being Anathematized Who can assure us may the Protestants further add that the Articles which we reject are not of this kind and such as that though perhaps they may be true it is nevertheless lawful for us not to believe My opinion therefore is that there is no Man now that seeth not that it concerns the Doctors of the Roman Church if they mean to convince their Adversaries out of the Fathers first to make it appear unto them that the Antients held the said Points not only as True but as Necessary also and in the very same Degree of Necessity that they now hold them Now this must needs prove a business of most extream Difficulty and much greater here than in any of the other particulars before proposed And I shall alledge no other Argument for the proof of this than that very Decree we cited before where the Council of Trent hath declared that the Fathers did not Administer the Communion to Infants out of any opinion that it was necessary to Salvation but did it upon some other probable Reasons only For we have not only very good reason to doubt whether the Fathers held this opinion and followed this practice as probable only but it seemeth besides with all Reverence to that Council be it spoken to appear evidently enough out of their Writings that they did hold it as Necessary For do but hear the Fathers themselves and St. Augustine in the first place who saith That the Churches of Christ hold by an Antient and as I conceive saith he an Apostolical Tradition that without Baptism and the Communicating of the Lords Table no Man can come either into the Kingdom of God or unto Salvation or Eternal Life And afterwards having as he conceives proved this out of the Scriptures he addeth further Seeing therefore that no Man can hope either for Eternal Life or Salvation without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ thus doth he call the Sacrament of the Eucharist according to the language of his Time as hath been proved by so many Divine Testimonies in vain is it promised to Infants without the participating of these And some three Chapters before treating of those words of our Saviour in S. John Except you eat my Flesh and drink my Blood you can have no Life in you which words he understandeth both there an◠〈◊〉 where of the Communicating of the Eâ—charist he makes a long Discourse to prove that they extend as well to little Infants as to people of riper Ag◠〈◊〉 there any man saith he that dares affirm that thiâ— spâ—ech belongeth not to little 〈…〉 oâ— that they may have life in them without participating of this Body and of this Bloâ—d And this is this constant manner of speaking in eight or ten other Passages in his Works which are too long to be here inserted Pope Innocent I his Contemporany speaketh also after the same manner proving against the Pelagians that Baptism is Necessary for Infants to render them capable of Eternal Life for as much as without Baptism they cannot Communicate of the Eâ—charist which is necessary to Salvation S. Cyprian also long before them spake to the very same sense and this Maldonate affirmeth to have been the opinion of the six first Centuries These things considered we must needs think one of these two things following namely that either the Council of Trent by its Declaration hath made that which hath been to be as if it never had been which is a Power that the Poet Agathâ— in Aristotle would not allow to God himself or else that the Fathers of this Council either out of forgetfulness or otherwise mistook themselves in this account of theirs touching the opinion of the Ancient Church in this particular which in my judgment is the more favourable and the more probable Conceit of the two and if so I shall then desire no more For if these great Personages who were chosen with so much Care and Circumspection out of all parts of Christendom and sent to Trent to deliberate upon and determine a Business of the greatest Importance in the World and were directed by the Legats of so exquisite a Wisdom and digested their Decrees with a judgment so Ripe and slow-paced as that there is scarcely any one word in them but hath its Design if after all this I say these Men should be â—ound to have erred in this their Inquiry in affirming that the Fathers held only as Probable that which they evidently appear to have held as Necessary If Pope Pius VI. with his whole Consistory consisting of
all of the same Judgment and Opinion in Point of Religion And certainly this is a most clear Truth For if there be any Contradiction amongst them or Dissenting in Opinion they will leave our Controversies more Perplexed rather than Decided and in stead of Uniting will rather Distract us and rend us into many Parts That we may therefore be able to come to the knowledge of the Truth in this Particular it will concern us first of all to examine whether that which Bessarion addeth hereupon be true also or not namely That the Opinions of the Fathers do never clash one with the other touching the Points of our Religion Now although this were so yet would it not Necessarily follow from hence that their Judgment must needs be therefore Infallible forasmuch as even an Error may either by the Consent of the several Parties or by Accident or else by some other the like means happen to meet with an Unanimous Entertainment by several Persons But now in case this should prove to be false then certainly we may make this Infallible Conclusion That we ought to seek out for other Judges of our Controversies than the Writings of the Fathers We shall therefore shew by way of addition to the rest of our Proofs that this Assertion of his is more Bold than True and that there are very many Real Differences to be found among the Ancient Fathers in Matters of Religion We have already touched before upon some of them by the bye onely as lying in our way speaking of other Matters and therefore we shall onely lightly run them over again as namely first of all That Disagreement in Opinion of the most Ancient among the Fathers Justine Martyr Irenaeus and Tertullian on the one side and Dionysius Alexandrinus Gregory Nazianzene and S. Hierome on the other the First of these promising us very seriously the Delights and Pleasures of a Thousand years and the Diamonds and the Saphires of a New Earthly Jerusalem with all its Glory and Prosperity but the other very coursely and in downright Terms reproving this their Conceit as being an idle Fancy fit to be entertained by Little Children and Old Women only and which seems to have been derived rather from the Dreams of the Jews than from the Doctrine of the Apostles The like to this was that Difference betwixt the Bishops of Asia and Pope Victor about the Observation of Easter-day and of Cyprian and Stephen about the Baptism of Hereticks in all which Differences the Heat was so high as that it went on as far as to Excommunicating each other If Bessarion now could but make it appear to us that these were not Real but Seeming Contradictions onely I should then make no question at all but that he would as easily reconcile Fire and Water or whatever things else in Nature are the most Contrary the one to the other We have heard that Tertullian maintained That the Soul was Ex Traduce and was propagated from the Father to the Son by the Natural Course of Generation and that S. Augustine likewise enclined to the same Opinion to whom if we will believe S. Hierome we must add a very considerable number of the Western Church also who were all of the same Perswasion But S. Hierome rejects them all and their Opinion and says That the Soul is created Immediately by God at the very instant that it is united to the Body adding withal as we have formerly noted unto you That this is the Belief of the Church in this Point S. Hierome and those of his Faction held That all that Reprehension used by S. Paul to S. Peter which we find mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians was onely a Feigned Business purposely Acted betwixt the two Apostles by an Agreement made betwixt themselves S. Augustine with those of his Side maintains the contrary and says That the thing was Real and was meant heartily and seriously and as it is related by S. Paul and that there was no Cunning or Under-hand Dealing in the Business or any Scene laid betwixt S. Peter and him And S. Hierome pursued this Dispute with so much heat and earnestness as that besides those Epistles of his which are full of Gall and Choler written against S. Augustine touching this Particular he yet in his Commentaries also which were Pieces that he wrote in his Quieter Tempe◠many times takes occasion to gird underhand at S. Augustine upon this old Quarrel betwixt them So that certainly he must needs be quite out of his Wits whoever shall seriously go about to maintain that these two Fathers were perfectly of One Opinion and agreed upon this Point Justine Martyr is of Opinion that it was the Real Ghost of Samuel that appeared to Saul being raised up by the Enchantments of the Witch at Endor Others say it was but a Fantasm Some of them hold That the meeting together of the Faithful at the Eucharist thrice a week is an Apostolical Tradition Others believe the contrary Some enjoyn us to Fast on Saturdays others forbid the same under the penalty of being accounted no less than the Murtherers of Christ Some of them conceive that our Saviour Christ suffered Death in the Fortieth or Fiftieth year of his Age Others again would perswade us that he died in the Thirtieth or Thirty first year of his Age Both which Opinions are manifestly contrary to the Text of the Gospel which tells us clearly That after his Baptism that is to say after the Thirtieth year of his Age he conversed above Three and under Five years upon the Earth Some of them as we are informed by these Latinized Greeks allow of these Terms Cause and Effect in the Doctrine of the Trinity but some others again do not so Some of them are of Opinion That there is a certain Order or Distinction of Priority in the Persons of the Trinity others again there are who will not endure to hear of this Expression Those of the Western Church call the Son only The Image of the Father but the Greek Church maketh this Name extend to the Holy Ghost also S. Basil will not allow of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in discoursing of the Son Others again make use of it without any scruple at all I doubt very much whether Bessarion had ever seen the Apologies and Invectives of S. Hierome and of Ruffinus who were yet both of them Fathers and of good Repute too in the Church both that of their own time and of the Ages following although they were not both of them of equal Esteem Neither do I believe he remembred that Quarrel that there was betwixt Theophilus and Epiphanius on the one part and S. Chrysostome on the other For certainly their Carriage toward each other in this their Debate doth not shew them to have been so very good Friends and so well agreed upon the Point debated But now to overthrow this
by him making good that which is Doubtful by that which is Certain and clearing that which is Obscure by that which is Evident And this is the Rule that I conceive we ought to walk by in the Disputes that are betwixt us at this day The Word of God is our Common Book let us therefore search into It for that upon which we may ground our own Belief and by which we may overthrow the Opinion of our Adversary As for example it is there said clearly and expresly That that which our Saviour Christ took at his Last Supper was Bread and herein we All agree But it is not at all there expressed whether this Bread were afterward changed or annihilated or not And this is now the Question in Dispute amongst us We ought therefore according to the Counsel of Scholarius to prove this by some other things which are there delivered clearly And if thou dost this thou hast got the Victory If not I do not at all see why or how thou canst oblige any one to believe it In like manner the Scripture telleth us in as express Terms as may be That our Saviour Christ commanded His Apostles to Take and Eat and to Drink that which He gave them in Celebrating the Eucharist But It doth not at all say that he commanded them to Offer the same in Sacrifice either Then or Afterwards And this is now the Question which it concerns those of the Church of Rome if they will have us believe it to prove by some other things which are clearly and expresly delivered in the Word of God The Scripture in like manner saith expresly That Jesus Christ is the Mediator betwixt God and Man and That He is the Head of the Church and That He purgeth us by His Blood from our Sins Now in all this both Sides are fully agreed But it is not at all there expressed That the Departed Saints are Mediators and That the Pope is the Head of the Church and That our Souls are in part cleansed from their Sins by the Fire of Purgatory And herein lies the Controversie betwixt us The Learned Scholarius his Opinion herein would now be that certainly those who propose these Points as Articles of Faith deduce and collect them from some things which are clearly delivered in the Scriptures for otherwise they are not to be pressed as Truths And although that in matters of Religion or indeed in any other things of Importance a Man may very well be excused for not believing a thing when there appears not any such Reason as may oblige him to believe it yet notwithstanding if those who reject the Articles now debated betwixt us have a mind to go further yet and to prove positively the Falseness of them you see this Author hath laid them down the way by which they are to proceed He accounteth those very absurd that require at your hands that you should shew them all things expresly delivered in the Scripture and this ought principally to be understood of Negative Propositions of which no Science giveth you any certain account forasmuch as to go about to number them all up would be both an infinite and also an unprofitable useless piece of Work It is sufficient to deliver the Positive Truth For as whatsoever rightly followeth thereupon is True in like manner whatsoever clasheth with or contradicteth the same is False wouldst thou therefore demonstrate those Propositions that are pressed upon thee to be False Do but compare them with those things that are clearly and expresly delivered in the Scripture And if thou findest them contrary to any thing there set down receive them not by any means As for example If a Protestant not contenting himself with having answered all those Reasons which are brought to prove that there is such a Place as Purgatory shall yet desire to go further and to make it appear that the Opinion is False he is in this case to have recourse to the Scriptures and to examine it by those things which are there clearly and expresly delivered touching the State of the Soul after it is departed this Life and touching the Cause and Means of the Expiation of our Sins and the like And if the Opinion of Purgatory be found to contradict any thing there delivered then according to Scholarius it ought not to be received by any means But the brevity which we proposed to our selves in this Discourse permitteth us not to prosecute this Point any further As for the Second Question it is no very hard matter to resolve it For although we do not indeed allow any Supreme and Infallible Authority to the Writings of the Fathers yet do we not therefore presently account them Vseless If there were nothing of Vse in Religion saving what was also Infallible we should have but little good of any Humane Writings Those who have written in our own Age or a little before are of no Authority at all either against the one or the other Party Yet notwithstanding do we both read them and also reap much benefit from them How much more advantage then may we make by studying the Writings of the Fathers whose Piety and Learning was for the most part much greater than that of the Moderns S. Augustine believed them not in any thing otherwise than as he found what they delivered to be grounded upon Reason and yet notwithstanding he had them in a very great esteem The like may be said of S. Hierome who had read almost all of them over notwithstanding that he takes liberty sometimes to reprove them something sharply where he finds them not speaking to his mind Though you should deprive them not onely of this Supremacy which yet they never sought after but should rob them also of their Proper Nomes yet notwithstanding would they still be of very great Vse unto us For Books do not therefore profit us because they were of such or such a Man 's Writing but rather because they instruct us in those things that are Good and Honest and keep us out of Errour and make us abhor those things that are Vicious Blot out if you please the Name of S. Augustine out of the Title of those excellent Books of his De Civitate Dei or those other which he wrote De Doctrinâ Christianâ His Writings will instruct you never a whit the less neither will you find any whit the less benefit by them The like may be said of all the rest First of all therefore you shall find in the Fathers very many earnest and zealous Exhortations to Holiness of Life and to the Observation of the Discipline of Jesus Christ Secondly you shall there meet with very strong and solid Proofs of those Fundamental Principles of our Religion touching which we are all agreed and also many excellent things laid open tending to the right understanding of these Mysteries and also of the Scriptures wherein they are contained In this very particular their Authority may be of