reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
the non-precept and the reason thereof out of the first part nothing can be deduced out of the second this consequence is inferred Pagans would be equally scandaliz'd by the Permission as by the Precept Wherfore if it be commanded neither certainly ought it be permitted Although no law obliges one Divine to maintain the reasons of another yet I see no such evidence in this consequence as for it to renounce the reason for me thinks if those we call Saints were meant to be Gods we should of necessity be bound to worship them whence it follows if it be not necessary to worship them neither are they Gods nor the worship exhibited to them such as is due to God but only of that degree which we give excellent creatures a position so conformable to Nature that it can scandalize none but the enemies of Perfection who under pretence of avoiding Idolatry take away the due honour and excitation to Vertue But which way out of a non-Precept can be infer'd the non-Teaching of the Doctrin I cannot imagine since what those Doctors hold continues true at this day when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practiced For though in our prayers there be some directions to Saints yet generally Christians are not bound to such dâ—votions and they that are 't is but their own voluntary acceptance of the obligation to which such prayers are annexed THE THIRTEENTH ENCOUNTER Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion to be the signe of the true Church ALthough out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend makes the Churches Definition depend upon the Tradition of the point defined and not Tradition upon them as if because by Tradition we know the Churches Definitions to be true therfore we know the truth deliver'd by Tradition Nevertheless since there may be some truth in this reflexion That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition let us see what can be said against it T is first therfore put into consideration whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels or the Gospel that is as much as they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel if God would have us trust the Church he was not both to specifie so much very plainly in them and farther deliver such signs as were necessary ever to know Her by For answer I ask a cross question Whether if God Almighty would have all men see by the Sun he was first to tell them which It is and paint ' Its picture on every wall that so we might know which is the Sun And because any question may seem rather offensive then deserving any answer I proceed to the application and ask Whether any of those Christians of whom Saint John says exierunt ex nobis could doubt which was the Church wherof he had been a part and left it And since you cannot answer otherwise then affirmatively I think I need not repeat the same question of Arius and Pelagius and Luther If then God has provided for all these that they were taught to yeild obedience to the definitions of this Church so clearly that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher nor of what Church he spake how dare they presume to accuse him of deficiency in his providence The same Authority that gave you the Scripture and told you it was the Word of God said likewise that what she taught was no lesse the Word of God If you believe her report for the Book why refuse you it for the Doctrin If her recommends be not security enough for the one they will certainly prove far less for the other since unlesse I am strangely mistaken the doctrin of the Catholik Church is not so hard to believe as the story of the Bible let any Atheist or discreet Moore or Pagan be judge Oh but since the Evangelists wrote Gospels they wrote all they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel The Gospel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium that is the Good-spel or happy tidings of Christs comming so that the Book or Preaching which tels us Christ is come is a Gospel be there never so much more or lesse in the Book or Sermon how then it can be infer'd out of the name Gospel that the Apostles writ as much as they preach'd for it is not credible they preach'd all they wrote I am not able to comprehend The second consideration is how we know when the Church has defined To which I answer In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted when the Church had defined then when a Parliament had enacted Why then is there required more information But some Divines say more some less to be enough Let them be doing in the Schools as long as the practice goes on sufficiently for the Churches government Thirdly we are to consider Whether sufficient notes be left to know the Church by But who shall use these notes Catholicks They are in the Church Hereticks They know what Church they forsook Pagans They look not into the Scriptures to finde the Churches mark Peradventure those Hereticks whose separation is so long since that they remember not out of what Church they went But none are grown so aged yet However the marks of the Church are apparent enough in Scripture if there want not wil in the seeker to acknowledg them The fourth consideration is Whether points of Faith or to be of Faith be infinite new ones continually springing or finite if finite why are they not all delivered at once to make an end of incertitude and defining The answer is they are both finite and infinite finite in gross and wholy deliver'd by the Apostles wholy believed and practis'd by this present Church but infinite in the detail by which mans wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith For as soon as any sharp and crafty Heretik has varied some proposition necessary to the explication of a fore-believed Doctrin there may be occasion of setling some new proposition which shal be no other then a part of what was formerly believ'd in Substance though not so explicitly deciphred As he that professes Christ is a Man implies he has a mans Nature a mans Understanding and Will and Action though this word Man distinguishes not precisely these faculties nor does he that repeats all these qualities in particular say any more then he that said in general he was a Man Now then I answer the objection as Aesops Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea stop the Rivers said he and I will performe my bargain So say I hinder impertinent curiosities from importuning the Church and her Truths wil be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice without making new Definitions The last objection that it will appear a shift to say the Churches definitions are certain and yet
charity grant among Jews it might have been done as not a few think the very Law was lost in the times of their wicked Kings or other oppressions what inference can they make against Christian Tradition Of Books of Scripture peradventure there was a time when some one or rather any one might have been lost because it was in few hands shall we therfore conclude the same possibility of suppression when we treat of Doctrins universally profest by so many Millions when we dispute of Practices every day frequented by the whole Church Stil ther 's one jarring string that grates my ears with its loud discord though the stroak come not from the hand of these objectors yet I wil endeavour to put it in tune Some sick heads roving up and down in their extravagant phansies wil needs entertain a wild conjecture that at first our Saviour was indeed stil'd God and though the learned who had the knack of distinguishing knew wel enough the inward meaning then signify'd only a most eminent aud god-like person yet the common People understanding their Preacher simply as the letter sounded came by degrees universally to believe his true and real divinity But with what ingenuity can such rambling wits think the chief Principle of Christianity should be so negligently taught or accuse so many holy Saints of those purest times to be such deceitful Teachers Besides did not their rashness blind them they would easily see the raising the Person of Christ from humane to divine would necessarily infer a notorious change in the solemn Prayers of the Church and daily devotion of the People which certainly would give so great a stroak to both it could not possibly be attempted either undiscern'd or unresisted Lastly the Christian Faith being delivered not in a set form of words but in sense a thousand ways explicated enforc'd according to the variety of occasions and capacity of the learners how can any ambiguity of phrase endanger them into a mistake who attend not so much to the dead letter as the quickning sense so variously exprest so often incultated to them by their masters THE FIFTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the state of this Question Whether the Scripture can decide controversies THere remains yet a second part of our Apology for as this is the Catholicks principle to adhere to the authority of the Church that is to the living word written in their Breasts which governs all their actions relating to religion so on the other side whoever have at any time under the pretence of reformation oppos'd her Authority such have constantly rais'd up their Altar against Tradition upon the dead letter of the Scriptures Which as the Catholick Church highly reverences when they are animated by the interpretation of Tradition so by too much experience she knows they become a killing letter when abus'd against the Catholick sense in the mouths of the Devil and his Ministers But before we set our feet within the lists I am bound to take notice of an opposition no less common then slight and absurd and this it is When we retire to Tradition after both parties have lost their breath in beating the aerial outside of Scripture they presently cry out Cannot Aristotle cannot Plato make themselves be understood why then should not the Bible as wel determine Controversies If this were not after sixteen hundred years of experience after so much pains of our own since Luthers time idly cast away in tossing the windy balls of empty words without coming to resolution of any one point peradventure it were pardonable but now alas what can it be but an obstinate desire of darkness and a contempt of Gods Law and truth by a bold and irrational assertion and loud clamours to beat down the Catholick Church like Dametas in the Poem striking with both hands and his whole strength but winking all the while Let us therfore open our Eys and look thorow this objection Cannot Plato and Aristotle make themselvs be understood Yes but what then Ergo the Scripture can determine controversies The supposition wherin all venom ly's is conceal'd which thus I display As Aristotle wrote of Physicks and Metaphysicks so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen among Christians But Plato and Aristotle can make themselvs be understood concerning those Sciences therfore the Scripture can do as much concerning these Controversies This ought to be the discourse But had it been cloth'd in so thin and transparent a dress the Authors would have blusht to thrust it into light For t is a most shameless Proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the Controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world Beginning from Genesis to the Apocalyps let them name one Book whose theme is any now-controverted Point betwixt Protestants and Catholiks T is true the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. Johns Gospel was to shew the Godhead of Christ which the Arians afterward deny'd but that is not so directly his theme as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence the Divinity of his Person was to be deduc'd and yet the design so unsuccessful that never any Heresy was more powerful then that which oppos'd the truth intended by His Book But I suppose their reply wil be they purpose not to say the Scripture was written of our present controversies but of the precepts of good life and Articles of Faith necessary to them about which our controversies arise If this be their meaning their Assumption is as ridiculous as in the other their Major or chief Proposition For their argument must be framed thus As Scripture was written of the necessaries to good life so Aristotle and Plato of Physicks and Metaphysicks But Aristotle and Plato writ so plainly that all questions rising about their doctrin can be declared out of their words therfore all questions relating to good life may also be clear'd out of Scriptures Wherin the Minor is so ridiculous to any that have but open'd a Book of Philosophy that 't is enough not only to disanul the proof but discredit the Author And yet were it true the consequence would not hold For whoever considers what belongs to the explication of Authors knows there is a great advantage to discern the sense of those who proceed scientifically above the means to understand one that writes loose Sentences An Archimedes an Euclid a Vitruvius wil be of far easier interpretation where the Subject is of equal facility then a Theognis Phocyllides or Antoninus because the antecedents and consequents do for the most part force a sense on the middle propositions of themselvs ambiguous Now the works of Plato and Aristotle are generally penn'd though not always so rigorously yet stil with an approach to the Mathematical way The Scripture uses a quite different method delivering its precepts without connexion betwixt one another And though I deny not but peradventure the Articles of our belief have in themselvs as much
connexion as the severest discourses of those Philosophers yet the style wherin they are couch'd in the Bible is accommodated to vulgar capacities and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration But because no controversy can be clear and fit for decision unless it be prepar'd by an exact and rigorous stating the Question I first intend to set down my own sentiment which I conceive is also that of the Catholick Church and afterward what I collect to be the opinion of my Adversaries leaving them this free and just liberty to correct me if I mistake their mind First then we Catholiks no way doubt but the Scripture is the word of God and of infallible truth if rightly understood and that whoever being out of the Church receives the Scripture in that quality the ground of such reception if rational can be no other then because we taught him so and deliver'd it to him as such For I do not intend to dispute against those Spiritati who by an Enthusiastical light can judge of Scripture without sense and reason And to those who pretend either Fathers or other Christians out of our Church I answer my meaning is to comprehend in our Church the Fathers for so goes our position and consequently all Sects either receiv'd the Scripture immediately from us or from those who received it from us Secondly we doubt not but the Scripture is highly profitable for the enablement of Preachers to teach reprove confirm in all points of Catholik doctrin both concerning Speculation and Practice and by consequence that the Church were not so thoroughly furnisht for all kind of exigenccis without it for which reason it is of particular usefulness and indeed necessity to the Church Thirdly we confesse the Bible contains all parts of Catholik Doctrine in this sense that all Catholik doctrin may be found there by places and arguments be deducted thence nay more be topically or Oratorially proved out of it so that if an able Preacher be in a Pulpit where he speaks without contradiction with a full and free scope he may meerly discoursing out of Scripture carry any point of Catholik doctrin before the generality of his Auditory and convince at the present such a part of them as either are but indifferently speculative or have not taken pains in the question Fourthly I affirm that if any point be brought to an eristicall decision before Judges where the parties on both sides are obstinately bent to defend their own positions by all the art they can imagin so the question be not which part is true but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture the Catholik position may be victoriously evidenced by arguments purely drawn from thence compared and valued according to true Criticism without ayd of Fathers explications or any other extrinsecal helps Thus far I esteem all good Catholiks ought to hold and believe that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe de facto hold Now then to come to the true difference betwixt our Adversaries and us I understand it consists in this That having stated a material point as whether that which we see and touch in the Eucharist be truly Christs body or only a figure of it it self remaining substantially Bread and that this question be to be handled contentiously before Judges each party pretending to convince and demonstrate by quotation of places critically exalted to their highest force whether the Scripture I say be a sufficient Storehouse to furnish either side with Texts unavoidable and convincing beyond any shadow of reply in the judgement of sworn and expert judges who are wel practis'd what convincing signifies and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences This is that wherin I engage the Catholik Negative and suppose all Adversaries must hold the Affirmative And the first reason of my supposition is because I never see them attempt any other way of disputing but out of Scripture nor yet in that do they use so fair play as to put the places which favour them on the page of receipts and those which Catholiks bring to the contrary upon that of expences and then having by rules of good Criticism examined the qualities of both prefer that party which is more deserving Next I know not how that man dare shew his face before any person of common sense who shal first acknowledg he goes against the opinion of the whole present Age wherin he lives against the undoubted testimony of a thousand years before him against the known laws both spiritual and temporal publikely renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate empower'd by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws that shal accuse all his kindred Ancestors and whole Country of blindness and ignorance and pretend all the world is bound to desert them and follow him and this in a matter concerning no less an interest then Eternity and after all this so arrogant bawling and high demands being ask'd what evidence what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world shal be forc'd to confess he can but play at cross and pile with them to know which of the two sentences is true which fals For setting aside real and irrefragable conviction what is there left in speculation but meer contingency Now this strange boldness this incredible presumption was undeniably Luthers case and if his then certainly all his followers For neither is the weight and authority of so many ages become less pressing and efficacious against his adherents nor their first plea improved or amended but rather weaken'd if by his and all his fellows labours as yet no evidence is produced an infallible sign none is likely ever to be made Nor is the change of temporal laws and Princes any motive to him that goes upon pure reason and seriously ayms at the good of his soul. Again he whose discours is not convincing and yet wil be medling with truths of highest importance is either ignorant of that defect and then he deserves the name of a rash temerarious fellow that dares in a matter of such consequence advance Propositions by passion or precipitation whose quality himself understands not or else he knows he does not convince then let him at the beginning of his Sermon express so much and tel his Auditors he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation and propose new Tenets about it but in very deed he can neither prove the old Tenets are false nor those which he shall propose to be true Can any one think if the Auditory have either wit enough to discover so grosse an Impostor or never so little honesty to care what becoms of their souls or love to Christianity they wil not with great indignation pull his jump o're his eares and tumble him out of his Pulpit Now what difference is there so the mischief be done
so to Religion as to be accounted Articles of Faith if they contradict some other fore-taught Article then the Argument before explicated concerning the infallibility of Tradition and the creeping in of Errours against it returns to its force If neither of these why are they false or upon what grounds condemned But peradventure he excepts not against the Truths but the obligation to believe and profess them Admitting then the additional points to be in themselvs true why will not the Opposer assent to them has he a demonstration against them No for then they could not be true Has he such Arguments that nothing opposite is equivalent to their eminent credibility No for setting aside demonstration no argument can be comparable to the Churches Authority The reason therfore if the inward thoughts be faithfully sifted will at length appeare no other then the preferring his own Opinion before the judgement of the Church which being the effect of an obstinate and malepert pride makes no legitimate excuse for not believing THE FOURTH ENCOUNTER That unlearned Catholiks rely upon the infallibility of Tradition THe next exception is of main importance for it undermines the demonstration at the very root denying that the Church of Rome relys on Tradition and having divided the believers into learned and unlearned first undertakes to prove the unlearn'd not to be grounded on Tradition at least not for their whole Faith For if a question arise never thought on before and once a Council determine the Controversie that decree is accepted as if it had come from Christ by Tradition and all professe a readiness to obey and therfore are like to perform their word if occasion be offerd Besides in Catechisms and instructions the Common-people are not taught that the doctrine comes handed down to them from the Apostles In Sermons we see when any proposition of difficulty or concernment is treated proofs are alleag'd out of Scripture and ancient Fathers a practise even the fathers themselvs continually observe who having propos'd a point are ready to adde it is not they alone that teach this doctrin but the Apostles or Christ or some renouned Father never mentioning Tradition unlesse to oppose or disable it when some Hereticks have laid claim to it as the Quartadecimans Chyliasts Communicants of Infants and the like The charge I confess is fierce let us see what powder it bears what shot We agree the Church comprehends both learned and unlearned and so are bound to maintain that both sorts rely on Tradition As for the first objection then concerning the readiness to embrace a Councils definition with the same assent as if the truth were descended by Tradition I can either and indifferently grant or deny it Since if I please to grant it I have this secure retreat that a conditional proposition has no force unless the condition be possible and for the possibility of the condition I distinguish the subject which may be matter of Practice and Obedience or a speculative proposition Of the first I can allow the assent to be the same that is an equal willingness to observe it Of the second I deny it ever was or can be that a Council should define a question otherwise then by Tradition Therefore to rely on the Councils definition taks not away but confirms the relying on Tradition This if need were I could easily justifie by the expresse proceedings of all the principal Councils Thus the condition having never been put nor supposed ever will be all this Argument rests solely on the Objectors credit and is with as much ease rejected as it was proposed Now should I chuse according to my above reserv'd liberty to deny such equality of assent the Opponent has offerd no proof and so the quarrel is ended for though I could produce instances to the contrary I think it not fit to multiply questions when the argument can be solved with a simple denial But how the Opponent can justify the second branch of his exception that in Catechisms this doctrin is not taught I am wholly ignorant As far as my memory will serve me I never heard the Creed explicated but when the Catechist came to the Article of the Catholick Church he told them how Catholick signify'd an universality of place and time and that for this title of Catholick we were to rely on her testimony Likewise in the word Apostolick he noted that the Apostles were the founders of the Church and her doctrin theirs as being first receiv'd from them and conserv'd by the Church ever since and that for this reason we were to believe her Authority Thus you see that famous phrase of the Colliers faith is built on this very principle we maintain True it is Catechists do not ordinarily descend to so minute particularities as to tel ignorant people whether any position may be exempt from this general Law But then we also know the rule Qui nihil excipit omnia includit Sermons upon which the third instance is grounded are of another nature their intention being not so much literally to teach the Articles of Christian doctrin as to perswade and make what is already believ'd sink into the Auditory with a kind of willingness easiness that their faith be quickned into a principle of action to govern their lives the principal end perhaps for which the Scripture was deliver'd and recommended to us Therfore neither the common practice nor proper design or use of Sermons reaches home to make us understand on what grounds the hearts of Catholicks rely who after all disputations retire themselvs to this safe guard To believe what the Catholik Church teaches as none can be ignorant that has had the least convers with such Catholiks as profess not themselvs Divines For the last period of this objection where the Fathers are brought in to cry out against Tradition and Hereticks made the sole pretenders to that title 't is a bare assertion without so much as a thin rag of proof to cover it of which I believe hereafter we shall have particular occasion to discourse more largely Thus cannot all the diligence I am able to use find any ground of difficulty in the belief of the unlearned but that assuredly their faith is establisht on Tradition if they rely on the Church as it is Catholick and Apostolick which all profess from the gray hair to him that but now begins to lisp his Creed THE FIFTH ENCOUNTER That Catholick Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition T is time now to come to the second part and see what is objected against the learneder sort and the long Robe's Resolution of their faith into Tradition And first is brought on the stage a couple of great Cardinals Perron and Bellarmin the former saying out of St. Austin that the Trinity Freewill Penance and the Church were never exactly disputed before the Arians Novatians Pelagians and Donatists Whence is infer'd that as more was disputed so more was concluded therfore
their Souls But if they take Logick for an ability to discourse beyond the reach of ordinary prudence and that human evidence which governs our lives I see no occasion of expecting any such Logick in our present question The ninth attempt consists in a diligent survey of our Fortifications to spy out some breach or weaker place by which errour may creep into the Church This I cannot call an Argument for none are so unwise as to make such a consequence It may be therfore 't is unlesse they bring strong proof of this necessity in some particular instance that may shew it to be an exception from the common maxim à posse ad esse non valet consequentia And yet in this discourse I find not so much as the very posse which I thus declare If any should deny that George could leap over Pauls-steeple and a quaint Oratour to maintain the affirmative should largely discourse how the rise of the last footing the help of a good staffe the cast of his body and many such circumstances give advantage to the leap but never think of comparing these with the height of the Steeple no sensible person would say he had proved the possibility of performing such a wild and extravagant enterprize So he that discourses at large how errours use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of errour to the strength of resisting which consists in this principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition as also without considering the heat and zeal stil preserv'd alive in the Churches bowels from the great fire of Pentecost says no more towards proving an errour 's overrunning the Church then the Oratour we exemplified for Georges leaping over the Steeple Wherfore this attempt is so far from the business it deservs not the honour of being accounted an Argument Yet because we compar'd the propagation of the Catholique Faith to the perpetuation of Human kind let us propose the like discours against it and say that in Affrick or the Land of Senega there are under earth great mines of Arsnick Whereof one may at some time or other vapour a contagious smoak which encountring with a strong wind from the South may breed so great a Plague in all the North Countries that none can escape it and hereupon presently conclude that all on this side the Line are quite dead and those who seem to live and discourse are but phantasms and have nothing of real in them though I believe the instances brought in for declaration of so groundless a conceit may seem better to deserve that name THE SEVENTH ENCOUNTER Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new Beliefs to the Catholick Church THe first is of the Greeks Hieremie Nilus and Barlaam who profess to stand to Tradition and the first seaven General Councils and can be no way disprov'd say's the objector unless by what shall be as forcible against the Catholick cause But truly this instance is so lame it needs a new making before it be answered For the Author expresses not in what points of difference betwixt us and them he intends to urge it If about shavings or fastings and the like we shal have no quarrel against him if about the Procession of the holy Ghost I doubt he will find himself entangled in an equivocation betwixt the matter and manner of that mystery However that all arguments against them will serve against us is but the Authors liberal addition without any proof or means to guess at it That they accuse us to corrupt Tradition by sowing tares among it has two parts one justify's my plea that we rely on Tradition since they charge us with endeavouring to corrupt not disclaim it the other that we do indeed corrupt it is only said not proved and farther shews that the plea of the Greeks is non-Tradition alleadging only this that their Fathers do not deliver the doctrin of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us As little force has the Note cited out of Tertullian to prove that he thought more was to be believ'd then what was drawn from antiquity because he was content private men might begin good customs in their own houses For sure he could not believe that omnis fidelis could constituere for the whole Church or even for his neighbours house So that we need a great deal of Logick to draw from this remark the creeping of an errour into the Church not a word being so much as intimated that this good custom should be against what was already receiv'd which had been enough to make it rejected and not comprehended in Tertullians known judgment There is another instance strongly urg'd and largly dilated but if I guess right of so much less credit the more 't is opened It is out of a history by one Wadding an Irish man concerning two Treaties of two Kings of Spain with two Popes to tear from them a definition for the Immaculateness of our Ladies Conception I follow an Authors words who has read the book and it seems found a great violence in the carriage of the business which made him express it by the word tearing Who this Wadding is I know not for I have heard of more then one but whether this be any of them I am totally ignorant having never seen the Book nor any other signs by which to discover the Author Out of this Book they collect three arguments One from Waddings testimony another from the State of the question he handles a third from his practice joyntly with the practice of divers others of the same degree For the first I am desirous notice should be taken of the Authors condition When he wrote this book he was Secretary to the Bishop of Carthagena and He his Kings Ambassador to move the Pope to define our Ladies Conception without original sin and in solliciting this to use an extraordinary importunity Wherin I see two circumstances that concern the qualification of his Book One that he was to act a business of great heat and if his zeal were not conformable to the eagerness of his senders he was like to have little thanks for his pains The second that he was Secretary to an Ambassador by which he had priviledg to say and publish Dicenda Tacenda whether they were his own opinions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they any way advanc'd his cause Now this encouraged Secretary undertakes to affirm that many things have been defined against the opinions of some Fathers and in the present case he says peradventure it has been defin'd that our Lady was free from all actual sin He adds the validity of Hereticks Baptism the beatifical vision before the day of Judgment the spirituality of Angels the souls being immediatly created and not ex traduce the Assumption of our Lady and her delivery without pain To Wadding
we may add Salmeron who has the boldness to say Doctores quo juniores eo perspicaciores Poza is no les audacious in citing opinions defin'd against the Fathers Erasmus says myriades Articulorum proruperunt Fisher Bishop and Martyr and as learned as any in his age consents that Purgatory was brought in by little and little and Indulgences after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro puts in the rank of newly receiv'd Doctrines Indulgences Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost But beyond all is the fact of Clement the eighth a grave and wise Pope who desirous to end the controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits accused by them of Pelagianism neither sent for learned men by way of a Council to know what their Forefathers had taught them nor examin'd with which of them the purest Ages sided but refer'd the whole matter to what St. Austin said and so it had been defin'd had not Cardinal Perrons advice prevail'd And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion that he knew not himself what he held wheras before him all the ancients sided with the Jesuits Thus far that Book I know this term Defining is frequently used by our Divines in matters of the Churches determinations nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word if the thing be understood to wit that Defining is nothing els but the acknowledging and clearing a Tradition from the dirt and rubbidg opposers had cast upon it For the rest that some Fathers have had their eys ty'd in particular points so far as not to see the force of Tradition by which the Church had notice of the truth of some position is a thing not to be doubted And if it were fit or necessary I could bring instances of bold Divines in our days so blinded by arguments that they see not the light of Tradition in some particular questions and so the expressions only changed hold condemned heresies So short is the sphear of our discours if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our Logick or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the ability of our Reason But what consequence any can draw out of these sayings against Tradition I understand not unless this be taken for a Maxim that every one must necessarily know of a special point that it is deriv'd by Tradition because really 't is so an inconsequence I hope already sufficiently demonstrated Now if these two can stand together that truly the Church has a Tradition for a point and nevertheless some learned man may be ignorant of it this argument has no force at all As to the positions he cites for newly adopted into the family of faith he fairly shews the priviledg he and his Master had to speak any thing that sounded to his purpose and let his adversaries take care whether true or no For nothing is more clear then that the validity of Baptism by Hereticks was a Tradition and decided by it so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgment the spirituality of Angels are not yet held matters of Faith but only Theological conclusions as likewise the souls being concreated to the perfecting of the body Then for the blessed Virgin 's being free from actual sin as also her Assumption and her delivery without pain which others add these either are known by Tradition or not matters of Catholick Faith and so no ways advance our Adversaries pretences For Alphonsus de Castro 't is plain by his very expressions either he means the manner only or at most some circumstances unessential to the things and therefore certainly not cited without some violence offerd to his words Poza is a condemned Authour and Salmeron's saying not to be followed or to be understood as it is whence he took it in such things as later disputes have beaten out more plainly Erasmus was learned in Criticism and one whom if not others his very English Patrons Warham of Canterbury Fisher of Rochester and More in the Chancery exempt from all calumny of being a desertor of the ancient Faith besides his own Books especially his Epistle Ad Fratres inferioris Germaniae by effects demonstrate his loyalty whatever bad impressions a certain liberty of practising his wit too freely may have made in some even great and eminent persons But what he speaks concerning Articles of Faith he either took from the scoldings of some ignorant Divines who are ready to call every word they found not in their books when they were Schollers Heresie or else because truly he understood not what belong'd to Decisions in that kind There remain two Authorities really considerable one of the holy Bishop Fisher the other of the prudent Pope As for the first I conceive there is a great equivocation through want of care and warinesse in distinguishing For let us take either the Council of Florence or Trent in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points those Councils defin'd are either denied by the Greeks or brought in by private revelations or new interpretations of Scripture For how could he be ignorant that the Greeks had agreed to the Latin Church about the definition of Purgatory in the Council of Florence or forget himself so far as not to remember a publick practice Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of the Penal injunctions laid upon sinners Besides he says the Latins did not receive Purgatory at once but by little and little Whence 't is evident by the name Purgatory he means not only so much as is established in the Council but the manner also and circumstances were introduced by revelations of private persons and argumentations of Divines The like he expresses of Indulgences saying They began after men had trembled a while at the pains of purgatory Whence it is plain he contented not himself with the precise subject of the Councils Definitions or the sense of the Church but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them So that by speaking in general terms and not distinguishing the substance of Purgatory from the Accidents and dressing of it as likewise in Iudulgences not separating what the Church has alwaies practiz'd from the interpretative extention which Divines attribute to them he is mistaken to suppose new Articles of Faith may be brought into the Church Neither imports it that he uses those words No Orthodox man now doubts for that 's true of such Conclusions as are term'd Theological and generally receiv'd in the Schools yet are not arriv'd to the pitch of making a point of Catholick belief besides he expresses himself that this generality extends no farther then That there is a Purgatory In Clement the eighth's action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the Definition he went about to make And upon the immediate step we both joyntly
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
question St. Dennis tels us no Priestly function was compleat without the administration of the blessed Sacrament Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptiz'd This custom reached even to Infants but neither universally that is in all Churches nor indispensably For it was only then used when Bishops were present at Baptism as is apparent both because Communion was never administred anciently but after Confirmation and because it was always held for the complement of all Priestly Benedictions as is before declared Besides in some Churches there is not the least sign that ever it was given to Infants Another thing to be understood is that St. Austin uses to explicate the Communion to be an incorporation into Christs mystical Body of which no doubt but the Sacramental body is both a figure and cause This St. Austin himself upon the sixth of St. John plainly delivers and in his phrase takes the eating and drinking of Christs Body to be Faith or Baptism So do Orosius Prosper Fulgentius and Facundus either explicating or following him This equivocal manner of speaking makes those who are either not attentive enough or not willing to have him speak orthodoxly construe his words Grammatically that are spoken Allegorically which last his best Interpreters and most expert in his works accompt to be his opinion But to conclude this History After their loud and full cry as if the prey were in their sight which I believe wii never come within their reach for a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels let us see how necessary the African Church an objection more strongly urged thought Baptism it self was to Infants that is in how perpetual use And presently Tertullian the mainly cited and glorify'd for St. Cyprians Master tells us lib. de Bap. c. 18. Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismâ— utilior est St. Austin Disciple to the other two reports what hapned to himself having ask'd Baptism in his Childhood by reason of a sudden danger of death which being passed his Baptism was defer'd by his Mother Quia viz. post lavacrum illud major et periculâ—sior in sordibus delictorum eatus foret and adds ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi solus pater And that this was not the Faith of that house only but of the whole Country is evident from these words unde ergo etiam nunc de alijs atque alijs sonat undique in auribus nostris Sine illum faciat quod vult nondum enim Baptizatus est If then Baptism it self was not perpetually administred to Infants can we think the Eucharist was or is here any probability it was so us'd to children as not to be also often omitted and that lawfully Maldonatus a grave man otherwise exceeded and I wonder he is tolerated speaking so directly against the Council of Trent after the publishing of it But his assertion is manifestly fals Since 't is known Communion was not used to be given but after Confirmation and Baptism without Confirmation was held sufficient for salvation as is beyond cavil expressed by St. Hierom in Dialog cont Lucifer about the middle The last instance is of Prayer to Saints which is proved not to have proceeded by Tradition from the Apostles time by four arguments First because divers Fathers held that the souls of Saints were not receiv'd into Heaven till the day of Judgment therfore certainly they would teach no prayer to Saints The Antecedent I will not dispute not that I believe it but that I know not what it is to our question For suppose they are not may they not nevertheless pray for us we Catholicks think that Jeremy the Prophet was not in the Macchabees days admitted into Heaven yet we make no difficulty to believe that he did multum orare pro populo sancta civitate Those Fathers that are cited for the Receptacles are acknowledg'd to place the Saints in Sinu Abrahae and our Saviour teaches us that Dives prayed to Abraham The Protestants as well as we allow prayer to living Saints wherever then the dead Saints are are they worse then when they were living that they may not be prayed to But the principal answer to destroy utterly this objection is that those who say we learn by Tradition that Saints are to be prayed to say likewise we have learn'd by Tradition that Saints go to heaven that is are admitted to the fight of God before the day of Judgment The next proof is that prayer to Saints began with a doubting preface of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which I find my self no ways engaged to frame a particular answer having no farther ground from my Adversary who cites not any Author to explicate the meaning of this objection I remember Cardinal Richelieu at his death is reported to have taken his kinsman Marshal de Meilleray by the hand and told him that if the next world were such as was figured to us here I deliver what I conceiv to be the sense not the words he would not fail to pray for him Now some who had a hard opinion of that great Person would press out of this speech that he beleev'd not the Immortality of the Soul Whether this also be pretended to be the meaning of that Optative term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot judg for then I should easily admit it has some force against the Tradition of praying to Saints But if it be but an Oratorial expression and obtestation such as is in St. Paul when he presses men to good works by the like phrase I know not how it reaches any way to his intent and much less against the receiving of this use by Tradition except the objector suppose that truly the first Prayer he finds in writing was the first that ever was made which is neither proved nor probable The third opposition is out of Nicephorus Calixtus who reports that Prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus a Heretick The consequence I should make out of this antecedent is that seeing the Author 's being a Heretik a condemnd and hated Person could not hinder this institution to take root and be approved 't is a sign it had a deeper foundation then of his beginning not that it was before in the Liturgie but that it was an ordinary practice among Christians which use because we know no origin it has in Scripture must have been out of Tradition and not of a short time how our Adversary wil prove the contrary I am not able to make any likely conjecture The last argument is drawn out of the confession of our own Doctours who affirm there is no Precept for praying to Saints in the Church of God for so much is meant by those words sub Evangelio and yeild the reason that Pagans might not think themselves brought again to the worship of men Which Antecedent having two parts
try how solidly they proceed First then they cite certain Texts in which they say the Scripture gives us salvation But there is a wide difference betwixt giving salvation and being the whol means or adequat cause of it which is the point to be maintain'd if they wil prove the Scripture sufficient else all Faith Sacraments good works preaching c. must be absolutely excluded as unnecessary since of every one of them may be said it gives salvation Whence in common already appears these arguments are so weak and defective they carry not half way home to our question Yet let 's see at least how far they reach In the fifth of St. John Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because you think saith he you have eternal life in them Our Saviour was discoursing there of such as bore witness to him and having nam'd his Father and St. John at last he descends to the Scripture and tells them to this purpose You think to have life in the Scriptures though you deceive your selvs in that opinion for you have only the killing letter and not the verifying spirit Nevertheless search them for they bear witness that I am the true life to whom you will not through want of charity and love of God have recours to seek it Therfore you refuse me who come in the name of my Father a sign of Truth because I seek not mine own interest But you will receive Antichrist or some other who shall come in his own name which is a mark of deceit and falshood so pervers are you This is our Saviours discours of all which to this argument belong only these words You think you have life in the Scriptures that is if I understand the Text you deceive your selvs if you think you have life in them which surely must needs be a very strong reason to prove Scriptures give salvation though if the question were not of the Text I should make no difficulty of the conclusion And it may be noted that our Saviour descends to the proof of Scripture in the last place putting Miracles the first as motives able to convert Sodom and Gomorrha in the second Preaching specially they shewing some good affection to their Preacher St. John Lastly the mute words of Scripture And as for St. John our Saviour expresly says he cites him in condescendence to them that they might be the rather moved to embrace the truth by that esteem they had already entertain'd of their Preacher Wheras for Scripture there was only their own conceit which our Saviour seems to reprove as an humoursom and froward obstinacy that they would not be convinc'd by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles the easiest and surest way nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor whom themselvs confess to be a Prophet nor lastly make a diligent search without prejudice into Scripture which if interpreted with charity and humility might have led them to him and salvation The next place is John 20. These things are written that you may belive that Jesus is the Son of God and believing may have life in his name T is true both Scripture and Faith give life but not the least mention made here of any such quality in either of them This only is declar'd that the end of St. Johns writing the Gospel was not to make a compleat History either of our Saviours Acts or doctrin but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise that they might continue true believers in the Church of God live according to its Rules and be saved by so living that is by being true Christians or Jesuits which is certainly the sense of these words in his name or in the name of Jesus as to be baptiz'd in the name of Jesus signify's to be enroll'd among the company known to be his Now from this Text we may clearly collect that St. Johns Gospel was not written by the Authors intention for any such end as the argument urges Nor that it gives life more then this one Article does that Jesus is the true son of God Nor yet that this Article gives life but that life is to be had in the name of Christ whatever these words signify Only it may be infer'd that life cannot be had without this Article but not that this alone is able to give life or that it cannot be believ'd without St. Johns Gospel or that St. Johns Gospel of it self is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tradition So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be attain'd by Scripture alone or cannot be had without it The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place as I understand it is O Timothy be constant in the doctrin I have taught thee and this for two reasons One common to all converted by me because thou knowest who I am that deliver'd it to thee This is the first and principal reason the authority of the Teacher Another peculiar to thee because from thy infancy thou art vers'd in the holy Scriptures which are proper to make thee wise and understanding in the law of Jesus Christ or to promote and improve thy salvation which is obtained by the faith of Jesus So that he speaks not of Timothy's becomming a Christian but his becomming a through furnisht or extraordinary Christian a Doctor and Preacher And the ground on which I build this explication is derived from the words following where the Apostle expresses this vertue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove as also from this consideration that the sequel Be constant to my words or Doctrin because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christs doctrin is not very exact but rather opposite to the former and plainly inducing the contrary as if one should argue Follow not my doctrin because mine but because the Scripture teaches thee it which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle as appears in the vers immediatly precedent Be stedfast in those things thou hast learnt knowing by whom thou wert instructed wheras this other discourse is perfectly consequential Stand to my doctrin because the Scripture confirms and seconds it making thee able to defend and prove by arguments what I have simply taught thee to be true by the sole evidence of Miracles which beget Faith not Science But to grant our Adversary the less proper sense and consequence that the Scripture was to contribute to the salvation of Timothy himself still ther 's an equivocation in those words through or by the faith of Iesus Christ which may be refer'd to those to make thee understanding Either so that the sense be The Scriptures in which thou hast been vers'd since thy infancy will contribute
I fear not these few animadversions I have hastily collected sufficiently demonstrate to the sight of any that will but open their eyes how dangerous and damnable a a poyson lies hidden under that guilded hypocritical cover THE SECOND SURVEY Of the two first Chapters of his first Book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies THe intention of the Work being so pious so conformable to nature and the ways of the Author of nature you cannot chuse but expect the proofs very sound and convincing And if you will believe either my Lord of Bristow's judgment or my opinion we shall easily agree in his Elogium both of them and their Author that little material or weighty can be said on this subject which his rare and piercing observation has not anticipated To understand his perswasions the better I entreat you reflect upon two ways or rather two parts of one way ordinarily chosen by such jugling Orators as we before made mention of who use to employ their wits in contradicting open verities The first is to talk much of the common notion when the question is of a particular As if one would undertake to disswade a man from travelling to Rome because 't is a long journey he will plead the inconveniences which accompany long journeys and immediatly talk of Wildernesses wild Beasts great Robberies dangerous Rivers unpassable Mountains want of Company and disfurnishment of all accommodations by the way a thousand such frightful narrations which occur in the misfortunes of Shipwrack'd men and the desperate voyages of Romance-Lovers But never descend to consider whether all these be found in the way to Rome or what remedies are provided to correct such Symptomes knowing too wel that equivocation is easily couch'd and ambushed in common propositions but soon detected if a descent be made to particulars The other Fallacy is To assign real inconveniences but not tell you how far they annoy the Subject alledging many sad things but concealing how great they are As a man may have the Gout or Stone in so slight a measure that they shall never trouble him yet a third person who hears the melancholy relation may conceit and pitty his case as most deplorable because the Reporter not expressing the violence of these diseases leavs an impression in our minds of such a degree of pain and affliction as we ordinarily commiserate in those that suffer the extreamest fury of such vexatious tormentors These two Fallacies run in a manner through his whole Book which he divides into two parts very methodically In the former he pretends to shew 't is an excessive hard if not impossible task to know the meaning of the Fathers In the later that supposing their sense were known it imported little to the dispatch of controversies they being not infallible nor without all danger of errour grounding himself on this maxim that the understanding neither can nor indeed ought to believe any thing in point of Religion but what it knows to be certainly true Which had it come out of a Roman Catholicks mouth would have sounded gloriously and worthy the dignity of that Faith which God and Iesus Christ being the Author of have compleatly furnisht with clear and solid principles He perhaps would have offered you choice either of Faith or Knowledg produced in order to this as perfect demonstrations as Aristotle is ador'd for and towards that engaged you in the most evident directors of humane life and cleerly evidenc'd by the principles of common sense that if you refuse the Authority of the Roman Church you renounce all the certainties on which you build every serious action of your life in a word constrain'd you to deny or affirm somwhat that your self in another case will confess a meer madness to affirm or deny But in Monsieur Daille's mouth who in his next words will cast you upon the vanity of a broken breath which has been a boulting and searsing these hundred years without any profit in the certainty of its meaning I cannot pierce farther then that this glorious principle is assum'd as the readiest means to betray his Auditor into a despair of Christianity and then leave him in the gulf of Atheism However let 's see the nature of his proofs which for the first point he has screwd up to eleven The three first are that the Fathers works especially in the three first Centuries were very few and of matters far different from the present controversies and besides many fals writings father'd upon those Saints by unworthy persons of which last imputation my third Survey gives you a more exact particular Nor can I deny any of this but I find two exceptions which I believe would shrewdly trouble the Minister to answer One that those of the pretended Reformation who have so much modesty in them as not to renounce utterly the authority of the whole Church of Jesus Christ at one blow strive to shelter their nakedness in these three Centuries wherof these three arguments make me plainly see the reason Because by the paucity of Books the difference of Subject and pretence of Forgery they hope nothing can be made evident for those Ages and so the purity for which they cry up those days as only worth our conformity is in that sense the Poet says purae sunt plateae that is ther 's no body in the streets My other unsatisfaction is He does not shew that even in these ages and those very works which he acknowledges for the Authors home-born Children and to have descended incorrupted to our daies there is not sufficient to convince all Hereticks For though every particular point peradventure cannot in so few works and written so accidentally to our purpose be clearly demonstrated yet the generality of the Rule we are to follow in Christian doctrin is so manifestly set down in those very Fathers he admits that were their writings made our judges no man could possibly be an Heretick since as the material points the Fathers wrote against were different from ours so the formal ones as the deserting the Catholick communion the renouncing the testimony of Apostolical Seas and the hiding themselves under the leaves of Scripture were common to all the ancient as well as modern Hereticks But however if he cannot maintain that there is not enough left to convince the truth his proof is deficient and wholly useless to the end he brings it One observation more I cannot chuse but note He quarrels with some Catholick Doctors who prefer the second Tricentury before the first as to the right understanding the sense of the Fathers Which he says he takes for a confession of the want of testimonies in the former Ages and doubts not but in equal cleerness they would prefer the first Tricentury for point of purity before the latter But either his own opinion or mis-understanding our Tenets deceiv'd him For we do not imagin
the former ages more pure then the later since we admit no errours in either but make no question that the universality of Fathers in any two ages held the same doctrin and so the Faith of the second Tricentury being known we account that of the former undoubted especially we all believing the latter Fathers receiv'd their doctrin from the former not by reading their Books which belong'd to few but by being instructed from their mouths who had receiv'd it from them But he thinks his Reformers very probably maintain that Christian Religion has long been in a dangerous consumption declining still by little and little and losing in every Age some certain degree of its Primitive vigour and native complexion to which purpose he cites the words of Hegesippus out of Eusebius That this infirmity began as soon as the Apostles were dead This position sounds to me as if the opinions they cry out against for abominations enter'd so early into the Church and have continued in it so long that they can now reckon fifteen Centuries nor can I desire either a more ingenuous confession or stronger proof of the truth of those doctrines which the nature of Christianity has preserv'd with such exact care and constant tenderness that in so many ages not one of them has been forgotten not one of them ever oppos'd by those who in all generations have stil been accounted the sound party of Christians Besides I should expect that so foul a blemish as these bold accusers lay upon the Church viz. that she has been an Idolatrous and abominable Harlot ever since the death of the Apostles ought not to be grounded on bare probable conjectures but evidently convinced under penalty that otherwise the Calumniators should suffer at least as heavy a Censure as they attempt to pass against the Church But because for the maintenance of this odious slander he chiefly rely's on Hâ—gesippus's testimony let the witness be fairly examin'd and that according to the Authors own citation which runs to this effect After the Apostles death the Masters of Seduction began publickly and professedly to vent their falssy named Science against the preaching of the truth which in plain English signifies no more then that Hereticks rose up against the Church and is so far from arguing the Churches corruption that it strongly concludes her purity since the doctrin which falshood contradicts must necessarily be it self true Thus clearly it follows from these words that the wrong imputed corruption was out of the Church and soundnesse of Faith in her Communion But if we look into the Text exactly the meaning of that passage is this After the Apostles death the consistence of Heresie took its beginning that is Hereticks grew into a body daring to shew their heads where before they lurk'd for fear of the Apostles which expression manifestly proves They began to make congregations distinct from the true Church And this being evident we cannot be troubled with those words going before in Higesippus which say till then the Church was a virgin and uncorrupted for it is a phrase natural enough to call the body corrupted whose putrify'd parts are cut off or rotted away as those degenerate members were from the Church of God And so this very Daillè could cite upon another occasion these self-same Innovators under the direct notion of Hereticks when he thought it might better serve his turn THE THIRD SURVEY Of his 3d. and 4 th Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works AS to the third point of Forgery our Monsieur dilates himself exceedingly but how much to the purpose some few notes wil discover First he objects many counterfeit Books that are not now extant nor have been these many Ages and think you not there must necessarily arise a strange obscurity in our Controversies from such forgeries Then he complains that Transcribers have put wrong names to books either for the better selling them or out of ignorance and in some of them the question is about Authors almost of the same age all which is likewise little to the point for where the Ages opinion and not the particular credit of the Author's learning is requir'd the authority of one understanding writer ought generally to weigh as much as anothers and this is the case in controversies where the sense of the Church not that of private Doctors is the subject of our inquiry Neither must I forget his defamation of the ancient Christians as counterfeiters of the Sybils Prophesies out of the calumny of the wicked Celsey which neverthelesse we see Lactantius stands upon to the Heathens faces He omits not for a notorious piece of forgery that the Canons of the Council of Sardica are cited as of the Council of Nice wherin nothing is more certain then that the Canons were true though not admitted by the Greeks who being cal'd would not come to the Council So the question stands meerly upon this whether they ought to be cal'd the Canons of Nice being made by a Council gather'd afterwards to confirm the former which the Latines defend and the Greeks dislike Doubtless a main forgery to be urg'd by this temperate man whose charity no question would have winkt at small faults Yet because no ordinary satisfaction will content him though those Popes were all both commended by the Ages in which they liv'd and reputed Saints by the ensuing Church and One of them that great Saint Leo whose Oracles were so highly esteem'd in the Council of Chalcedon I will briefly set down the case The Arian Emperour Constantius though yet for fear not declar'd such summon'd a Generall Council of the Eastern and Western Churches to a Town cal'd Sardica There assembled betwixt 3 and 4 hundred Bishops The Arians seeing themselvs like to come to the worst by the number of the Orthodox party upon sought pretences went to another place cald Philippopolis where making an assembly of their own they term'd it from the Emperours Summons the Council of Sardica And partly by their diligence and sending circular Letters thorow Christendom partly by joyning with a great faction of Donatists but chiefly as it may be justly believ'd by the power of the Emperours Officers made the name of the Council of Sardica passe for the denomination of their Conventicle both in the East and thorow such remote parts as had not special intelligence of what pass'd in Sardica Hence any Canons pretended to be order'd at Sardica were blasted before known wherupon it fel out that the small party which knew the truth was forc'd in their collections of Canons to place these next to the Council of Nice as their order requir'd without a name and as an Appendix of the Council In this posture these Popes found them about an hundred yeers after and whether it was that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the Accident or whether they thought the action legitimate and the ground of it sufficient they urg'd them as
question may to wit what is the true government of the Church but by minute canvasing of private Texts which is a far more difficult and altogether unnecessary method Just so it happens in almost all Controversy's For no doubt but Decision of matters of Faith was anciently perform'd in Councils if the scandal grew so high as to force such general meetings These Hereticks absolutely renounce preferring their private conceits before the judgment of all the Bishops in the world and then if you press them with the palpable absurdity of so insolent and destructive a tenet they presently cast a figure and instead of handling the plain duty of obedience to the supream Ecclesiastical Authority transform the question into a meer speculative subtlety as Wherin consists the infallibility of Councils For the Mass our Reformers take it quite away everywhere breaking down the Altars and abolishing the whole Glory of Gods service which is unquestionably ancient so many Liturgy's to this day and the general practice of the Church stil continuing This done they wil dispute of the antiquity of the word Missa or Transubstantiatio For the Popes authority they at one stroak cut a pieces the ligue and common bond of Christianity in the unity of one head and force us to wrangle either about his infallibility or whether his power of Appeals be from Church-Laws or Christs commands and the like They blot out the memories of Martyrs both in their solemn Feasts and Tombs things undisputable in the glorious flourishing of the Church and quarrel about what honour is due to their Lives Reliques and Pictures They disclaim the publick practice of praying for the dead everywhere frequented they deny the universal profession of Purgatory in all ages avow'd and then turn their exception upon How and When our prayers obtain their effect They pul down Monasteries and Nunnery's and abandon the extraordinary and exemplary way of holy life which no impudence can deny to have been practis'd all the time the Church it self has bin publick and then dispute whether St. John Baptist or the Esseni were Religious men or no or when Vows came first in Hypocrits if you reverence Antiquity restore the face of Antiquity If you truly honour Jesus Christ and his Saints and vertuous life and any thing but an Ear-itch to be claw'd by the phrase of Scripture embrace what has been Christian life from the beginning If not fill up the measure of your first Reformers till the Judgments of God overtake you and make you pay the whol reckoning for theirs and your own dissembling I fear I have already wearied the patience of my Reader I am sure I have long since quite tir'd my own being unwillingly drawn by the many turns and windings of the subtle Fox I pursue far beyond the cours intended at the beginning To conclude then at last I doubt not but he who has not perus'd Mr. Daille's Book will nevertheless out of what I say see plainly those Noble Lords whose Elogies are posted before it had great reason highly to esteem him For truly his nimble Wit his exact Method his polite Style his interlarding all with poignant and bitter Jeers his knowledg in Greek his cunning in Topicks of all which those eminent Wits were perfect Judges being qualities themselvs were excellently endow'd with could not chuse but draw extraordinary praises from those eloquent Pens whose Masters had not the leasure by tedious turning over Books and deep reflections upon the occasion of the cited places to ponder the weight of the proofs or see thorow the malice of the Project which was of no less perniâ—lous consequence then to slander and disparage the most glorious Persons of the World to blast the credit of all true Vertue and Honour in their chief supports to disable the sole Mistress of good life here and so wholly to obstruct the only way to eternal happiness hereafter FINIS Sr. K. D. L. Digby L. Falkl.