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
to thy salvation so that thou understand them according to the Faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally deliver'd to thee and this is in direct terms the Catholick Rule that the interpretation of Scripture is to be govern'd by Tradition or by the faith and doctrin so receiv'd and formally depends from the first words Remain constant to my doctrin Or by another explication which is more material and flat and most incredible That the old Scripture for of that only the Apostle speaks no other being written while Timothy was a child should be able without relation to the knowledg of Christ by other means to make a man understanding enough to be saved by the Faith of Him as may be seen by Sr. Peters being sent to Cornelius So that of these three senses the first is nothing to our adversaries purpose and nevertheless is the best The second positively and highly against him the third incoherent to the words precedent and following and in it self an incredible proposition But give it the greatest force the words can by any art be heightned to they come nothing neer the state of the question proposed which concerns the decision of all quarrels carried on by litigious parties Whereas this Text is content with any sufficiency at large to bring men to salvation a point not precisely now controverted betwixt us Besides Timothy being already a Christian 't is a pure folly to think the Apostle sent him to the Scriptures to chuse his Religion The words immediatly following the place explicated are urged for a new Argument They are these All Scripture is inspired from God and profitable to teach to reprove to correct to instruct in justice that is good life that the man of God become perfect being furnisht to every good work The paraphrase according to my skil is thus The holy Writ I spake of is any Book inspir'd from God and profitable to teach things unknown reprehend what is amiss to set straight what is crooked to instruct in good life that the Church of God or any member therof may become perfect being by instructions and reprehensions applyed out of Scripture by such preachers as Timothy fitted to any good work or all kinds of good works This I conceive the natural meaning and most conformable to the Text were we to seek the interpretation of it indifferently without any eye to our present controversy And in this sense 't is a cleer case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and apply'd by a Preacher in order to the perfecting of those that hear him But if by importunity the adversary will needs have it that the Scripture should give the quality of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the person himself that reads it to content him I shall not hinder him of his mind but only prove it nothing to his purpose For still this must be the sense that it produces in the reader the excellencies requir'd in a Preacher namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him as teaching reprehending c. so that one way or other still the Scripture is apply'd to furnish him with Precepts Arguments Examples and such like instruments of perswasion but of giving the first Catechism or binding ones self Apprentice to the Bible to learn the first rudiments of Christian profession ther 's not the least word or syllable that colours for such a conceit nor can it indeed consist with the direct meaning of the place since the being already a Christian is plainly suppos'd in Timothy by St. Pauls institutions viva voce before any exhortation to this use of Scripture So that here is no question concerning the first choyce of Faith but of perfection after Faith much less any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Another place is Acts 26. where St. Paul defending himself before Agrippa and Festus against the Jews accusation who calumniated him that he spake in derogation of the Law and brought in a new doctrin to the disturbance of the people made only this answer that he preach'd nothing but what the Prophets had foretold His words are these The Iews for this teaching Christs doctrin finding me in the Temple would have kill'd me But I having obtain'd succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoke nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass as that Christ was to suffer that he was to be the first should rise from death to life and preach light both to Iews and Gentils This is the true interpretation of the Greek Text as far as ly's in my power to explicate it according to the intention of St. Paul I deny not but the words singly taken may be interpreted I have persisted testifying to great and little and in my Sermons saying nothing but what c. But this explication is neither so proper to his defence nor at all advances the Adversaries cause For since St. Paul tells us directly what the points are of which he spake whatever can be gathered out of them only this is said that these three points were foretold by Moses and the Prophets and on the other side the discours is imperfect running thus I preach'd indeed many other things yet nothing but what was in Moses and the Prophets to wit that Christ was to suffer c. His meaning therfore is that since he was in hold his perpetual endeavours had been to shew that these things he was accused to have preach'd against the law were the very marrow of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets and that wheras the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King who by force of Arms should restore the house of Israel to a great and flourishing estate the truth was quite contrary for according to the doctrin of Moses and the Prophets He was to be a passible man to suffer death afterwards to rise again triumphantly as the first fruits of the Resurrection and to send his Disciples both to Jews and Gentiles to spread the light of the Gospel throughout the world What advantage against the necessity of Tradition can be drawn out of this place of Scripture which doth not so much as talk of the extent of Catholick doctrin much less come within kenning of our Controversy is beyond my reach This I know that to say all points of Catholick doctrin can be sufficiently prov'd out of Moses and the Prophets is an assertion I believe our Adversaries themselvs will deny as being both ridiculous in it self and absolutely discrediting the necessity of the new Testament and yet clearly without maintaining so gross absurdities they can make no advantage of this Text. THE SEVENTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion WE are at last come to those places in which they most glory
Ousia being deriv'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ens and Ens or Substantia and in Greek Ousia signifying primarily what the Schools term Suppositum that we see with our eys a demonstrable singular named substance as Bucephalus Athos c. which among men if restrain'd to particulars is call'd Socrates or Plato if used at larg in the common name a person these men very Catholikly said three Ousia's and one Hypostasis meaning three Persons and one God But the Fathers of the Council of Nice by much pondering these words by their debates with the Arians and to determine a rule in speaking that Catholicks might not be subject through equivocation to be drawn into errour agreed upon the contrary because Hypostasis was more commonly in use for that we call a Person and Ousia was rather a School term fetch'd from Philosophers books and therfore might with less violence to common language be taken in a secondary sense Thus it became the rule of speaking in the Church to say three Hypastases and one Ousia Besides those speeches which Perron cites are not so harsh but as in a rigorous interpretation they are fals so in a moderate sense they contain undeniable truths Philosophers divide instruments into Conjuncta and Separata and among the Conjuncta number up our Arms and Legs c. which are our very substance It does not therfore follow if the Son be called an Instrument that his substance is distinguish'd from the Substance of his Father because the Instrumentality consists in nothing but the difference of their notional conceits of Being and Knowledg wherof Knowledg seems to be but the Vehiculum of Being towards the operation or effect So likewise whoever works by a power that is not in himself otherwise then from another in whom 't is principialiter and as the Greek speaks both anciently and at this day Authoritativè may not improperly be said to be commanded though the other be not his Master or Better Neither is there such rigour in the genders of aliud and alius but that aliud is many times apply'd to the person and only Ecclesiastical use grounded on the height of propriety and distinction of Genders binds us to this manner of speaking which for unity and charity sake we observe Out of what has been discours'd about the name Ousia we may easily solve the seeming contradiction of the Council of Antioch to that of Nice for if Ousia may signify a person as we have shew'd it does in its best and chiefest signification then Homoousion signifies the same person So that the Conncil of Antioch denying Christ to be Homoousios to his Father deny'd no more then that he was the same person with his Father which no subtlety can ever prove to be against the Fathers of the Nicen Council Nor is this said to reconcile contradictories but discover equivocations For that this was the true reason of the opposition is easily deduc'd out of both St. Athanasius and St. Hillary and the question which St. Hierom made to St. Damasus But it may be urged if there were a verbal Tradition how could the Christians through want of caution contradict one another or had it been as known a part of Religion as the Resurrection how could Constantine have so slighted it when it first rose or Alexander the holy Bishop for a while have remain'd in suspence To this I answer If by verbal Tradition be understood that the Tradition was deliver'd in set words certainly those set words could not be doubted of though their sense must needs be capable of eternal controversy but the meaning of verbal here intended is only as contradistinguisht to written Tradition which being in set words whose interpretation is continually subject to dispute is therfore opposed to Oral or mental where the sense is known and all the question is about the words and expressions Nevertheless suppose it had been deliver'd in a set and determinate phrase and that Hereticks began to use other words a controversy might be about those terms which the Hereticks introduc'd and many might demur uncertain of the question in such new expressions as we see those who rely on Scripture are in perpetual quarrels about the sense wheras to Catholicks the sense of their Faith is certain though the words be sometimes in question The reason therfore why at Arius his first broaching that desperate heresy Alexander remain'd a while in suspence was not that he understood not his own Faith but because he apprehended not what Arius meant nor whether his propositions were contrary to the receiv'd truth But when once Arius broke into those speeches that Christ was a creature and that there was a time when Christ was not then that holy Bishop likewise broke into those words Quis unquam talia audivit and this is the crime which Socrates reprehends in Arius that he began to move points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formerly not question'd but receiv'd with an uniform consent and credulity As for Alexanders praising somtimes one somtimes the other party it proves no more then that he was a prudent man though Ruffinus seems to tax him of oversoftness But because few falsities can be void of all truth and few truths at least before much discussion totally free from all mixture of circumstantial errour therfore it could not be otherwise then wel to praise both sides ingenuously according as they spake truth and reason and discommend them when they fell into falsities As for Constantine's slighting the Question at first it shews no more but that then he did not penetrate the consequence of it or rather was not well enform'd concerning it For ordinarily the craftiest and most active party are they who make the first report and if themselves be in the wrong as many times such are more eager and diligent then those that hold the right their remonstrance is accordingly And so it was for Constantine receiv'd his first information at Nicomedia very probably too from Eusebius Bishop of that City a most perverse adherent to Arius nor did Constantine himself know wherin the question consisted as appears by this that in his whol Letter there is not one word of explication of the point but only in common that it was of slight questions not belonging to the substance of Faith the Arians stil craftily endeavouring to diminish the importance of the controversie Besides we have good ground to believe that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arius and sollicited into a secrâ—â— favour of this errour from whom 't is likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council for determining the point out of Scripture Nor imports it that the Bishops contradicted not this proposition of the Emperour in words because they had reason to follow it though not to that end to which the Emperour propos'd it viz. the solution of the question but to the conviction of the Arians and satisfaction of the world For to speak to the
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
Grandfather as though such a graceless entail could prejudice the law of Nature Though not so absurd yet as weak is another Objection taken from the Jewish Cabala however it seems worthy of thanks to the Suggestor What it was is not hard to guess our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it when he reproach'd the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fathers or Elders to the ruin of Gods commands But to decipher it better I ought to divide it into matter and form The form I call the Rules the matter what was deliver'd or found out by these Rules As for the matter it seems in some way proportion'd to the proceedings of certain of our Divines who pretend to be mysticall and their imployment is in the sublime mysteries of our Faith to invent or imagin what they think congruous circumstances to move the affections to petty devotion which imaginations as they are fram'd out of good intentions so have they many weaknesses and little or no doctrin in them Conformable to this we may conceive that after there were no more Prophets among the Jews who fail'd them not long after the second building of their Temple the Rabbins began to frame explications on their Books of holy Scripture and the mysteries learn'd from the Prophets These interpretations according to the degree of their skil and prudence some perform'd better some worse But as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation not having principles of true knowledg naked before their Eys but wrapt up in Metaphors and Allegories all together went among them for sound Law Til after our Saviours time and the dispersion of that generation some foolish knave to give authority to this mess of good and bad jumbled together invented the story how Moses had deliver'd this doctrin to the Sanhedrin and they had conserv'd it by traditional conveyances from Father to Son A story as impossible and incredible to one who penetrates into the carriage of that Nation as the Fables of Jeoffrey of Monmouth and King Arthur's conquering Hierusalem Now if we look into the form we shal find it more ridiculous then any Gypses canting or the jugling of Hocus Pocus and as pernicious to true Doctrin as any Pseudomancy To make good this censure I shal in short describe their form it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture by three abuses of the Letter which as far as my memory servs me for I have not the books necessary are these One by taking every letter of a word for a whole word beginning with that letter Another by changing letters according to certain rules fram'd by themselvs The third to find numbers of years or other things by the numbers which the letters of the word compound in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers So much being deliver'd in short I cannot conceive any indifferent judgment so blunt that he sees not how far these ridling ways of explication are from the natural intention of a Writer and how destructive to all truth if used otherwise then for pleasure and as a disport of chance and encounter Our Country man Doctor Alablaster invented a far more convenient trick by purely dividing words and joyning the ends of the former to the beginnings of the following as we also do somtimes in English to disguise common words and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks But he found this age too subtle to cozen any considerable number with such trivial bables Wheras the Cahala gain'd upon the Valentinians and Gnosticks to build prodigious errours in very good earnest upon their more ridiculous invention I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased somtime to give way to such toyes through luxury of wit and gayety of humour But it is one thing to play for recreation and a far different to establish a Basis of Faith and doctrin which is abominable on such Chimerical dreams And yet this it is our Opposer would Father upon no less then Moses and the Sanhedrin and all the sacred Magistracy of the old Law Let us give a step farther and see if it were true how like it were to our case The Tradition we speak of is the publick preaching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church setled by the Apostles thorow the World This Cabala a doctrin pretended as deliver'd to few with strict charge to keep it from publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and cozenage as in our case there is impossibility The Moderns therfore who profess Cabala may say they receiv'd it from their predecessors but they can yeild no account why any Age may not have chang'd that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber and so ther 's no possibility of farther assurance then the vote of a Council of State for its being deriv'd any higher But the Arguer demands whether they cannot ask me In what age or year their doctrin was corrupted And I answer they may very boldly But if I assign an age or year can they acquit themselvs in point of proof clearly they cannot for since there was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrin it being forbidden to be divulg'd 't is evident that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age He urges farther the notoriousness of the ly so impudent as few would venture on not reflecting that he speaks of a secret altogether incapable of notoriousness May not they add says he the dispersion of their Churches through so many Countries and Languages I yeild they may but to no purpose unless they continue Sanhedrins in every Country For otherwise this dispersion will prove but the derivation from their Council of Tiberias or such like time which is nothing to the succession from Moses Add to this that the Nation since Christs time is infamous for falsifying doctrins and corrupting Scriptures and even in our Saviours time and long before their Rabbins were justly branded with the foul imputation of frequent forgery their Sects and heresies being grown up to that desperate height as to deny there were any spirits or shall be any Resurrection which is the very top of impiety But what is no less to be consider'd then any thing yet offer'd the very subject of the question is different The Church we speak of is a vast and numerous body spread o're the world and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remain'd perpetually visible from Christs time to ours however some Heretick may pretend the invisible part viz. that the Faith has been interrupted But for the Sanhedrin what assurance nay what probability is there of deriving its pedegree from Moses to the daies of our Saviour In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges in the division of the Tribes in the raign of their Kings in the
charity grant among Jews it might have been done as not a few think the very Law was lost in the times of their wicked Kings or other oppressions what inference can they make against Christian Tradition Of Books of Scripture peradventure there was a time when some one or rather any one might have been lost because it was in few hands shall we therfore conclude the same possibility of suppression when we treat of Doctrins universally profest by so many Millions when we dispute of Practices every day frequented by the whole Church Stil ther 's one jarring string that grates my ears with its loud discord though the stroak come not from the hand of these objectors yet I wil endeavour to put it in tune Some sick heads roving up and down in their extravagant phansies wil needs entertain a wild conjecture that at first our Saviour was indeed stil'd God and though the learned who had the knack of distinguishing knew wel enough the inward meaning then signify'd only a most eminent aud god-like person yet the common People understanding their Preacher simply as the letter sounded came by degrees universally to believe his true and real divinity But with what ingenuity can such rambling wits think the chief Principle of Christianity should be so negligently taught or accuse so many holy Saints of those purest times to be such deceitful Teachers Besides did not their rashness blind them they would easily see the raising the Person of Christ from humane to divine would necessarily infer a notorious change in the solemn Prayers of the Church and daily devotion of the People which certainly would give so great a stroak to both it could not possibly be attempted either undiscern'd or unresisted Lastly the Christian Faith being delivered not in a set form of words but in sense a thousand ways explicated enforc'd according to the variety of occasions and capacity of the learners how can any ambiguity of phrase endanger them into a mistake who attend not so much to the dead letter as the quickning sense so variously exprest so often incultated to them by their masters THE FIFTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the state of this Question Whether the Scripture can decide controversies THere remains yet a second part of our Apology for as this is the Catholicks principle to adhere to the authority of the Church that is to the living word written in their Breasts which governs all their actions relating to religion so on the other side whoever have at any time under the pretence of reformation oppos'd her Authority such have constantly rais'd up their Altar against Tradition upon the dead letter of the Scriptures Which as the Catholick Church highly reverences when they are animated by the interpretation of Tradition so by too much experience she knows they become a killing letter when abus'd against the Catholick sense in the mouths of the Devil and his Ministers But before we set our feet within the lists I am bound to take notice of an opposition no less common then slight and absurd and this it is When we retire to Tradition after both parties have lost their breath in beating the aerial outside of Scripture they presently cry out Cannot Aristotle cannot Plato make themselves be understood why then should not the Bible as wel determine Controversies If this were not after sixteen hundred years of experience after so much pains of our own since Luthers time idly cast away in tossing the windy balls of empty words without coming to resolution of any one point peradventure it were pardonable but now alas what can it be but an obstinate desire of darkness and a contempt of Gods Law and truth by a bold and irrational assertion and loud clamours to beat down the Catholick Church like Dametas in the Poem striking with both hands and his whole strength but winking all the while Let us therfore open our Eys and look thorow this objection Cannot Plato and Aristotle make themselvs be understood Yes but what then Ergo the Scripture can determine controversies The supposition wherin all venom ly's is conceal'd which thus I display As Aristotle wrote of Physicks and Metaphysicks so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen among Christians But Plato and Aristotle can make themselvs be understood concerning those Sciences therfore the Scripture can do as much concerning these Controversies This ought to be the discourse But had it been cloth'd in so thin and transparent a dress the Authors would have blusht to thrust it into light For t is a most shameless Proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the Controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world Beginning from Genesis to the Apocalyps let them name one Book whose theme is any now-controverted Point betwixt Protestants and Catholiks T is true the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. Johns Gospel was to shew the Godhead of Christ which the Arians afterward deny'd but that is not so directly his theme as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence the Divinity of his Person was to be deduc'd and yet the design so unsuccessful that never any Heresy was more powerful then that which oppos'd the truth intended by His Book But I suppose their reply wil be they purpose not to say the Scripture was written of our present controversies but of the precepts of good life and Articles of Faith necessary to them about which our controversies arise If this be their meaning their Assumption is as ridiculous as in the other their Major or chief Proposition For their argument must be framed thus As Scripture was written of the necessaries to good life so Aristotle and Plato of Physicks and Metaphysicks But Aristotle and Plato writ so plainly that all questions rising about their doctrin can be declared out of their words therfore all questions relating to good life may also be clear'd out of Scriptures Wherin the Minor is so ridiculous to any that have but open'd a Book of Philosophy that 't is enough not only to disanul the proof but discredit the Author And yet were it true the consequence would not hold For whoever considers what belongs to the explication of Authors knows there is a great advantage to discern the sense of those who proceed scientifically above the means to understand one that writes loose Sentences An Archimedes an Euclid a Vitruvius wil be of far easier interpretation where the Subject is of equal facility then a Theognis Phocyllides or Antoninus because the antecedents and consequents do for the most part force a sense on the middle propositions of themselvs ambiguous Now the works of Plato and Aristotle are generally penn'd though not always so rigorously yet stil with an approach to the Mathematical way The Scripture uses a quite different method delivering its precepts without connexion betwixt one another And though I deny not but peradventure the Articles of our belief have in themselvs as much
connexion as the severest discourses of those Philosophers yet the style wherin they are couch'd in the Bible is accommodated to vulgar capacities and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration But because no controversy can be clear and fit for decision unless it be prepar'd by an exact and rigorous stating the Question I first intend to set down my own sentiment which I conceive is also that of the Catholick Church and afterward what I collect to be the opinion of my Adversaries leaving them this free and just liberty to correct me if I mistake their mind First then we Catholiks no way doubt but the Scripture is the word of God and of infallible truth if rightly understood and that whoever being out of the Church receives the Scripture in that quality the ground of such reception if rational can be no other then because we taught him so and deliver'd it to him as such For I do not intend to dispute against those Spiritati who by an Enthusiastical light can judge of Scripture without sense and reason And to those who pretend either Fathers or other Christians out of our Church I answer my meaning is to comprehend in our Church the Fathers for so goes our position and consequently all Sects either receiv'd the Scripture immediately from us or from those who received it from us Secondly we doubt not but the Scripture is highly profitable for the enablement of Preachers to teach reprove confirm in all points of Catholik doctrin both concerning Speculation and Practice and by consequence that the Church were not so thoroughly furnisht for all kind of exigenccis without it for which reason it is of particular usefulness and indeed necessity to the Church Thirdly we confesse the Bible contains all parts of Catholik Doctrine in this sense that all Catholik doctrin may be found there by places and arguments be deducted thence nay more be topically or Oratorially proved out of it so that if an able Preacher be in a Pulpit where he speaks without contradiction with a full and free scope he may meerly discoursing out of Scripture carry any point of Catholik doctrin before the generality of his Auditory and convince at the present such a part of them as either are but indifferently speculative or have not taken pains in the question Fourthly I affirm that if any point be brought to an eristicall decision before Judges where the parties on both sides are obstinately bent to defend their own positions by all the art they can imagin so the question be not which part is true but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture the Catholik position may be victoriously evidenced by arguments purely drawn from thence compared and valued according to true Criticism without ayd of Fathers explications or any other extrinsecal helps Thus far I esteem all good Catholiks ought to hold and believe that all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe de facto hold Now then to come to the true difference betwixt our Adversaries and us I understand it consists in this That having stated a material point as whether that which we see and touch in the Eucharist be truly Christs body or only a figure of it it self remaining substantially Bread and that this question be to be handled contentiously before Judges each party pretending to convince and demonstrate by quotation of places critically exalted to their highest force whether the Scripture I say be a sufficient Storehouse to furnish either side with Texts unavoidable and convincing beyond any shadow of reply in the judgement of sworn and expert judges who are wel practis'd what convincing signifies and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences This is that wherin I engage the Catholik Negative and suppose all Adversaries must hold the Affirmative And the first reason of my supposition is because I never see them attempt any other way of disputing but out of Scripture nor yet in that do they use so fair play as to put the places which favour them on the page of receipts and those which Catholiks bring to the contrary upon that of expences and then having by rules of good Criticism examined the qualities of both prefer that party which is more deserving Next I know not how that man dare shew his face before any person of common sense who shal first acknowledg he goes against the opinion of the whole present Age wherin he lives against the undoubted testimony of a thousand years before him against the known laws both spiritual and temporal publikely renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate empower'd by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws that shal accuse all his kindred Ancestors and whole Country of blindness and ignorance and pretend all the world is bound to desert them and follow him and this in a matter concerning no less an interest then Eternity and after all this so arrogant bawling and high demands being ask'd what evidence what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world shal be forc'd to confess he can but play at cross and pile with them to know which of the two sentences is true which fals For setting aside real and irrefragable conviction what is there left in speculation but meer contingency Now this strange boldness this incredible presumption was undeniably Luthers case and if his then certainly all his followers For neither is the weight and authority of so many ages become less pressing and efficacious against his adherents nor their first plea improved or amended but rather weaken'd if by his and all his fellows labours as yet no evidence is produced an infallible sign none is likely ever to be made Nor is the change of temporal laws and Princes any motive to him that goes upon pure reason and seriously ayms at the good of his soul. Again he whose discours is not convincing and yet wil be medling with truths of highest importance is either ignorant of that defect and then he deserves the name of a rash temerarious fellow that dares in a matter of such consequence advance Propositions by passion or precipitation whose quality himself understands not or else he knows he does not convince then let him at the beginning of his Sermon express so much and tel his Auditors he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation and propose new Tenets about it but in very deed he can neither prove the old Tenets are false nor those which he shall propose to be true Can any one think if the Auditory have either wit enough to discover so grosse an Impostor or never so little honesty to care what becoms of their souls or love to Christianity they wil not with great indignation pull his jump o're his eares and tumble him out of his Pulpit Now what difference is there so the mischief be done
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
persons you may learn not to be affected to your Preachers above what I have written to you about a dozen lines before to wit that they are all ordain'd for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Mysteries to the end one of you do not swell with pride or choller against another in any mans behalf and so breed Schisms and contentions among your selves This is the meaning of the Apostle as will appear to any judicious understanding that can be content to read and diligently weigh the whole composition of the discours And here we are unwillingly constrain'd to observe the desperate shifts of many of our adversaries into which either the rashness of their passions or necessity of their caus engages them for so in the Text we now treat they presently snapt at a piece of a sentence where they found this charming word written and that was enough for them without ever troubling their heads to consider or sense or connexion in order to the framing a legitimate argument For had they but taken the immediatly precedent line These I have disguized into Apollo and my self for you and then brought in the words cited That you may learn in us not to be wise above what is written the nonsense would have declar'd it self and stumbled the Reader who could not but presently have check'd at the inconsequence And the verse following would be likewise incongruous to these that you be not sweld one against another for any man For what connexion can either the words precedent or subsequent have with this that You are to learn your Faith out of the Scripture and yet I have translated the Latin Sapere or Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the true sense for the objectours advantage wheras the true meaning is not to esteem them higher or bear themselvs as if their Masters were higher and thus the very English Translation yeilds it The latter place is out of the first to the Galathians where he warns them that whoever comes to preach any doctrin besides that which He had taught them they should refuse him communion or account him execrable This passage I have always esteem'd very strong and pregnant for Tradition and our Adversaries call it a most illustrious proof against it I confess at first I was at a loss to imagine how they could frame an argument out of so unfavourable a Text but at last I perceiv'd it might perhaps be thus St. Paul said they preach'd nothing but what was written as he testify's to Agrippa so then all he preach'd was Scripture But he commands them to receive no other doctrin but what he deliver'd them Therfore he enjoynd them to make Scripture the Rule of their Faith This is as far as I can find the full epitome of their discourse upon this Text. But considering that what is in Scripture may be deliver'd by preaching without any mention of Scripture me thinks though all St. Paul taught the Galathians had been written yet it follows not He commanded the Galathians to hold the doctrin from Scripture For those two words what we Evangeliz'd to you and what you have receiv'd signify so plainly preaching that I can collect nothing from this place but that they were to hold their Faith because He had preach'd it then which 't is impossible to imagine a more efficacious argument to demonstrate Tradition And to this effect he exaggerates his own quality that he was one who had not receiv'd his doctrin from man nor by the entermise of man but immediatly by revelation from Christ and afterwards upbraiding the Galathians for their inconstancy asks them whether they had receiv'd their Christianity by the works of the Law or ex auditu fidei by hearing of the Gospel So that in effect his command is to the Galathians to stand to his preaching that is to Tradition for their Faith and this not only against all men but even Angels should they come down from Heaven to preach any thing contrary For that the word praeter may signify contrary is too well known to be insisted on But that it signify's so here the particular occasion of this discourse makes evident St. Paul expressing that some intruded themselves seeking to overturn the Gospel of Christ and charging upon them that wheras they had begun in spirit they ended in flesh and the like Wherfore it is plain he spake of doctrin contrary to what he had preach'd But if praeter be taken for besides it will signify besides Tradition not besides Scripture there being not the least mention of Scripture Now how soundly it is proved that St. Paul taught nothing but what was written is before examin'd which yet if admitted true were nothing to the purpose For 't is not the Catholik position that all its doctrins are not contain'd in Scripture but not held from thence nor to be convinced out of the naked letter especially in a pertinacious dispute A question certainly not so much as dream'd of in this place of St. Paul And now to close this whole discourse I shall only add one short period as a prudential reflection upon the different fitness and proportion these two methods have in order to determine controversies That in case where any two parties disgree Tradition is very seldom of much as pretended by both and if at all still in points of less importance wheras Scripture is continually alledg'd by all sides how numerous soever their factions be and how fundamental soever their differences An evident sign the way of resolving by Tradition is incomparably preferrable to that of judging by the bare letter of Scripture especially if still upon examination one of the pretended opposite Traditions prove indeed either not sufficiently universal or not positively contrary to the other but perhaps a particular custom of some Province as Rebaptization or only a meer negative Tradition as that of the Greeks concerning the Holy Ghost THE EIGHTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies I Have omitted the petty quiblets of Criticism which our Adversaries use to press in divers of the places I explicated not only because they are often fals most commonly strain'd and always such pigmy bulrushes that they merit no admission into a grave discours but chiefly because considering largely the Antecedents and consequents to the Texts alledged I found the substance of them wholly mistaken and nothing to our purpose and that such arguments are the abortive issue of immature brains not able to distinguish the force of Canon shot from a Faery's squib or a boys pot-gun And I dare had I good conditions maintain that in all the differences betwixt Protestants and us Catholicks they cannot produce one place of Scripture in which the words can bear a sense that comes home to the state of the question I know many urge those of the Decalogue against Images To which I answer with words analogical to those of
St. Paul Who speaking to the Galathians protested that whoever circumcis'd himself as a thing necessary or because of the old Commandment was bound to keep the whole Judaical law So say I whoever condemns Images upon this prohibition of Moses is bound to keep all the law of the Jews For if these words be a law to us because they are written in theirs all that 's written in their law must be so to us since he that made one made all and for whom he made one and deliver'd it to them for them he made and deliver'd all the rest as one entire body of law to be observ'd by them He therfore that counts himself bound by this Law must if he have common sense esteem himself equally obliged to all the rest Upon the same reason hangs the keeping of the Sabhath day for of all the Decalogue these are the only two points unrepeated in the new Testament so that all the rest we are bound to accept in vertue of that but these two we cannot Wherfore whoever holds The Sabbath day is commanded by God either does so because he finds it in the old Law and to him I protest he ought in consequence to this judgment submit to all that law and become a Jew or els because he finds it in observation among Christians that is in Tradition and to him I protest he is bound to embrace all that comes down by Tradition namely the whole Roman Catholick Faith Therfore every rigorous observer of the Sabbath is bound in common sense either to be a Jew or a Catholick To make an end I know our adversaries alledg many sentences of Fathers to prove the sufficiency of Scripture wherof the most part I am sure are as far beside the state of the question as those places of Scripture we come now from examining However I finde my self not concern'd to look into them pretending no farther at this present then to consider the ground upon which those I oppose rely for their assurance that Scripture is sufficient to decide controversies according to the state of the question as it is proposed Now because they reject wholly the Authority of Fathers from a definitlve sentence in matter of Faith it is impossible for them if they are not quite Bedlams to rely on their Authority for acceptance of Scripture for what can be imagin'd more palpably absurd then to receive upon their credit the whole Rule of Faith and yet not take their words for any one Article of Faith and consequently what can be imagin'd more vain and fruitless then for me to lose my labour in striving to shew that Protestants have no colour from Antiquity to expect this al-deciding power in Scripture whilst themselvs aver the whole multitude of Fathers is not capable of giving a sufficient testimony for their relyance on Scripture since therfore there is nothing like a ground in Scripture and they scorn all ground except Scripture I must leave them to the freedom of doing it without ground FINIS DAILLÈS ARTS DISCOVER'D OR His RIGHT USE Prov'd A Down-right ABUSE Of the FATHERS By THO. WHITE Gent. EZECH 13. 12. Ecce cecidit Paries nunquid non dicetur vobis Vbi est litura quam linistis Printed in the Yeare 1654. DAILLè's Arts DISCOVER'D THE FIRST SURVEY Of the nature and subject of Daille's Book HAving clos'd the precedent Treatise which this consideration that since Protestants disavow to be determin'd by the authority of Fathers I had just title to decline any farther search into those reverend Witnesses of our ancient Faith being a task that would require some labour of me to do and yield no profit to them when done Yet I easily observ'd that as my excuse to indifferent Persons will defend me from the imputation of being troubled with the Writing-Itch so it seems to engage my clearing my self of a far more important charge which otherwise might occasion some passionate or captious spirits to fix this scandal upon me that I acknowledge not the judgment of Antiquity an injurious aspersion which the French Daillè has actually endeavour'd to cast upon the whole Catholik Church in his abusive Treatise of the right use of the Fathers And because that Monsieur 's Book is Denizon'd among us by the adoption of those two great Secretaries whose names forc'd me into this imployment and rais'd to the esteem of being the source whence their streams took their current I cannot but give my Reader a hint concerning it for no other reason but only to make him understand what Great men are subject to when the luxuriousness of their wits carries them beyond the bounds of those professions they are skild in With this Note therfore we wil begin our discourse that Many great and nimble wits both ancient and modern have meerly for their recretation undertaken to plead the cause of natural defects and striven to set them above the opposite perfections like Aesop's Woolf who having lost his tail would perswade other Wolvs to cut off theirs too as unnecessary burdens But nature contradicting this Art and by a perpetuall current of impressions forcing us to the contrary belief such quaint discourses gain no more credit then Prismatical glasses in which we are pleasd to know our selvs delightfully cosen'd Now what in these men is only a Caprich of wit and gayness of humor were it applied to a business of high concern and which could not be judg'd by our senses but requir'd a deep penetration to distinguish right from wrong would certainly be a most pernicious and insufferable wickedness a trap to ensnare and ruin all the weak and unlearn'd whom either the cunning of Logick can deceive or sweetnesse of Rhetorick inveagle But being arriv'd already within sight of my designed Port I beg my Reader to believe me of that discretion as not easily to lanch forth again into the main Ocean of a new bottomless controversy and therfore I shall only essay to decipher the quality of the Treatise in common leaving its strict perusal to them that are more at leisure and have their Noses better arm'd for raking in a dunghil To make then a neerer approach to the work I shal begin with the Author's intention which aims at no lesse then this bold and desperate attempt To disable the Fathers from being Judges in the Controversies of this present Age. Let us enquire the true and genuine sense of this proposition And first who are signifi'd by the word Fathers For this he assigns us three Ages from Christ to Constantine from Constantine to Gregory the great and from Him to Vs. Now this last part though it contains a thousand yeeres he cuts off from the score of Fathers and much more puls them out of the Bâ—nch of Judges the middle division he grumbles at as not being worthy of or at most hardly admittable to that appellation the first Age alone he freely acknowledges By what Criticism he does this I am not able to
understand For when I learn'd Latin Pater signified the immediate progenitour of the Son and St. Paul was of that opinion telling his Converts They had no Father but himself because he had in person begotten them by the Gospel and though by ampliation this word has included also the Parents of our Fathers and upwards even to Adam yet how it comes so to signifie the most remote as to exclude the neerest is beyond my skil in Grammar Pray let this good Definitor reflect upon himself if the first remembred of his race had died without Issue how could he have been one of his Forefathers no more had there been no Preachers after the first three hundred yeers till our time should we have accounted those Primitive Ones our Fathers That they are Fathers then is because they begot Preachers who continued the propagation of the same doctrine to our daies which we profess they did among us and that therfore we are their Spiritual Off-spring they our Fathers But Daillè and his Consorts fault is not that they contract the compass of the Fathers but that they acknowledge any For they are all Mushroms sprung up as new as the morning not so much as one from another if they be true to their tenets every one of them is bound to say to Calvin as wel as to the Saints I believe not for thy word but I have heard it from the Apostles own mouths in the Scripture Though indeed I have no reason to quarrel much with Him upon this point for if he acknowledges the word Fathers he denies the Thing or Vertue of it in them since to be a Father is to propagate Christs doctrine to posterity which quality he must of necessity deny them whilst he thinks their doctrine not to be that of Christ and that it ought by every private man be brought to the test of the Bible and so far accepted or refus'd as to the grave judgement of some judicious Blue-apron seems agreeable to the sense of Scripture This then is the pious design of this Authour To infinuate a belief that since the Apostles daies there has not been a sufficient living Witnesse of what they taught the world or what Christ taught them In which there are two notorious propositions infolded worthy to be look'd into First that these good Christians at one leap free themselves from all the bands of Community and Society of mankind and from all subjection to the Kingdom of Christ which they flatly deny For Nature teaches us there can be no Government without Judges I mean living Definitors and Deciders of occasional debates therefore if Christ has left no Judges upon Earth he has no kingdom here such Judges I speak of as should administer His Law for he came not to plant temporal Kings but a spiritual Regiment wherin if he has had no Judges since the Apostles decease his Kingdom expir'd with them Now then the whol drift of this Writer is to establish an absolute Anarchy where every one indifferently shall be Master without control in that great and principal Mystery of training up souls to eternal happiness which by how much more dark and difficult the spiritual conduct to future bliss is then temporal government to present wealth and security so much more unreasonable and unnatural must the position be that dissolvs all obedience to Ecclesiastical Superiours and abolishes all Order in the Church An assertion justly to be abhor'd by any who has the least spark of love to that only great Good the salvation of his Soul The other Proposition is that since the Apostles time there has been no publik either true doctrine or good life in that part of the World which we call Christian. I do not mean there may not have appeared some vertuous actions in private persons though perhaps the consequence might be driven so far but that all visible Companies have had both their Doctrine spotted with foul tenets and their consequent practises polluted with Superstition and Idolatry For as this is one of the main grounds for their rejecting the Fathers so the reason à priori which they alledge being once admitted evinces the truth of the Conclusion I charge upon them it being evident that if because man is fallible the Fathers are insufficient to propagate truth to their posterity and out of the position of insufficiency must of necessity follow the consequence of defect certainly then the following generations had not sufficient instruction either for belief or actions And indeed the Reformers themselvs acknowledg as much since they esteem the Fathers errours so gross that it was fit to leave the communion of that Church wherin they are defended rather then accept of such abominations Now if this be not to deny all good life and the main and universal fruit of Christs passion even in those preferr'd Ages I have lost my little wits This therfore I say is the aym and project of his Book to prove That since Christs time there has been no sufficient living testimony of the Truth of Religion no command or government of Christians as Christians and lastly no holiness or good life nor any fitting direction among mankind brought in and stated by our kind Saviour and wisest Law-giver Jesus Christ. Now how great an encouragement and advance this may prove either towards vertue or study of Religion I understand not This I know if any would purposely seek to draw off our hearts from all hope of heaven and practice of vertue I cannot imagin a more efficacious argument then First to tell how much pains our Saviour had taken to plant a right Faith and Christian life in so many years of example and Preaching closing all with such strange unparalleld suffrings Nay that he had sent the Holy Ghost in so manifest and glorious a manner from heaven upon his Disciples to fire their hearts with zeal and impower their hands to Miracles giving them Commission to publish his new Law over all the World and solemnly engaging to assist them for ever And yet afterwards bring in proofs how notwithstanding all this soon as these Apostles were dead Idolatry and corruption both of doctrin and manners began presently to appear in the greatest and best Members of the Church even the immediate Disciples of the Apostles and in short time so over-run the whole World that the means of Salvation was generally lost and the way to heaven obstructed with an universal deluge of vice and superstition These proofs are the work of our excellent Author whence I think it no boldness to conclude this Treatise of the right use of the Fathers is the perfectest piece that ever was written for the utter extermination of Christian doctrin and absolute ruin of all vertue For when I turn o're the Book I cannot but acknowledg it full of as good Topicks cast into as neat a stile and qualify'd with as seeming a fit temper conveniently to betray unwary souls as any modern I ever read but
mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him he mistook at first St. Austins meaning from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never delt any better with others and after the sentence so impudently pronounc'd rely's upon this bare suspition as a sufficient evidence Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at call'd calumny and charges the same Father first about Gods knowing smal things but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledg but particular providence of which St. Paul said nunquid Deo cura est de bobus His second instance contradicts his former For it is that Saints are everywhere which is spoken of their knowledg not corporal presence Christ by whose company they are pretended to be everywhere being so by his sight and knowledg not by his presence corporally Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former yet would not make use of it to reconcile but aggravate the errours Thirdly he accuses him to say that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin but cites not a syllable except for Angels which so express'd is an undenyable truth being no more then that Angels by envy became Divels But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Ladies respects to their families that they did not marry the second time he interprets as intended against marriage it self I confess as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it he says more what is true then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases wherin the temperance not use is honourable He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrin indeed an intolerable heresy wherin all true Reform'd stomacks are fundamentally concern'd for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh a most wholsome custome was abolish'd by Jesus Christ but citing neither words nor place and afterward drawing it in by a fals consequence makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder then St. Hieroms The next errour is that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest but his words are so common they easily receive explication Again he is offended with him for denying faintly that the blessed eat in Heaven Lastly he accuses him of abusing St. Paul and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar because he says there was more in the inscription then the Apostle mention'd Secondly that he said he understood more then he could explicate Thirdly that to the Galathians he spake ordinary discourses because they were not capable of higher Of these three the first had no harm in it since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our Saviours Cross the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Popes authority And this great Patron of theirs cals him an arrant wooden Statue A pitiful thing One that had scarce any reaon in what he said and yet much less dexterity in defending himself Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language be a perfect foundation for a point of faith By these you may guess how he has dealt with others which were too long to examin Approaching to the end of his Chapter he specify's some errours unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers First that of the Chiliasts an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse The second is the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of Judgment which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled De medio animarum statu The third concerns rebaptization of Heteticks which also is cleared above only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it after the decision of the Council of Nice but his mincing the matter by saying in a manner shews it is only a largess of his good will and not any evidence he brings Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology and then the Angels having bodies and after that the Angels falling in love with women three points not very material Then again he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants but brings in rather testimonies of the practice which is not in question then of the necessity which is And lastly that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held Gods foresight of mens good and bad works to be the cause of predestination but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known it might as wisely have been omitted In this next Chapter he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintain'd against others some opinions in matters of very great importance which is but one half of what follows from or rather is directly contain'd in the conclusion of the former Chapter and therfore not denyed by us nor useful to him which was the cause why he would not there add though the place were very proper that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others and of the Church But to make a seeming new argument he left out this and exprest himself generally like a true deceiver that some defended against others and to give his discours the better relish he begins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion making him say that the Fathers opinions never clash one against another touching the points of our Religion for a Person so learned could not be ignorant that some errour might be found in a Father against the cōmon consent of the rest But his meaning was that not so many could dissent as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgment of the rest neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary In his first instance if he had put in that Justin Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy against the communalty of Christians of their Age he had ruin'd his own proof which nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus as is declared and indeed was obliged to do if he intended to proceed pertinently But what should I pain my self in a question not controverted Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son Theodoret distinguishes his words saying if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son or of the same nature so he allows the saying but if he means that he