challenged cannot plead she received it from her Ancestors because it is manifestly false to both parties Then must needs one onely Church remain with that claime And although we did not know what the Greek Church doth by her History yet the force of consequence would tell us they cannot doe this which the Westerne Church doth because the doing of one is incompatible with the doing of the same by the other As for the two places concerning the Popes and Councels infallibility it is not to my purpose to medle of them because on the one side the way I have begun there is no need of those discourses and on the other I should engage my selfe in quarrels betwixt Catholique and Catholique obscure the matter I have taken in hand and profit nothing in my hearers more then to be judged peradventure to have more learning then wisedome to governe it withall Wherefore I shall omit those Paragraphes if I onely note concerning the tradition imposed upon Papius that the very narration of it sheweth that it is no tradition in the sence we speak of tradition but in the sence some Heretiques have pretended tradition as it were a doctrine secretly delivered and gathered out of private conference with the Apostles and not their publique preaching delivered to the Churches which is the way we exalt tradition in The witnesses also of ancient Fathers are no parts of tradition but signes and markes where it hath passed whereas the body of tradition is in the life and beleife of the whole Church For the Church as I have said is an essence composed as it were of interne and externe parts the interne being faith the externe the outward action which must needs be conformable to the internall faith nor can there be a materiall change in the action but it must argue the internall change of faith nor internall change in faith but it must draw with it an Iliad of altered actions As for the place of Fevardentius which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors I thinke it will not trouble him who is acquainted with the course of the present Church wherein divers who be thought great Divines fall into errors for which their bookes sometimes are hindred from the print sometimes recalled or some leaves commanded to be pasted up The reason is the multiplicity of Catholique doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part but to the prompt subjection to the instruction of the Church wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably not knowing it to be such even now after the learned labours of so many that have strived to open and facilitate by method what is true and what is false much more in the Fathers times when there was great want of so many compilers as these latter ages have produced As for the two points he saith avert him from Catholique doctrine I am mistaken if he be not mistaken in both The first is that Catholique doctrine damnes all who are not in the union of their Church He thinketh the sentence hard yet I thinke he will not deny me this that if any Church does not say so it cannot be the true Church For call the Church what you will the Congregation of the Elect the Congregation of the Faithfull the Congregation of Saints or Just call it I say or define it what you will doth it not clearly follow that whosoever is out of that Church cannot be saved for he shall not be Elect Just Faithfull c. without which there is no Salvation How then can any Church maintaine these two propositions I am the true Church and yet one may be saved without being in me But peradventure he is scandalized that the Catholique Church requireth actuall communion externall with her which he thinketh in some case may be wanting without detriment of Salvation But how would he have the Church speake which speaketh in common but abstracting from such particular cases as may change wholly the nature of the question For example sake hath not the Church reason to say he that denyeth the blessed Trinity is an Heretique It hapneth one who hath conversed among the Tritheites hearing them use the word Trinity for three Gods meaning to speak against them denyeth there is any Trinity shall this man be comprehended in the foresaid condemnation Or was the sentence ill pronounced Neither as I think For bo h was it well done by the Church to condemne denyers of the Trinity because per se loquendo as the Phylosophers speak that is according to the ordinary course and nature of things who denyeth a thing in words denyeth it in heart yet the man fore-spoken did not so and was not condemned in that sentence In like manner when the Church condemneth all such as are not in actuall union and communion with her she doth well because according to the ordinary course this doth not fall out without either presumption and damnable pride or else culpable either ignorance or feare and love of private interest before God and his Church But it followeth not thence that by accident no man may sometime be excused The words of our Saviour concerning Baptisme and Eucharist their necessity are very precise yet the Church doubteth not to excuse those who have it in voto But to proceed unto the point The corrent of Catholique Doctors holdeth that no man shall be damned for infidelity but he who wilfully doth mis-beleeve and that to doe so it is required that faith be sufficiently proposed unto him And what is to be sufficiently proposed is not determined amongst them There wanteth not Divines that teach that even ignorantia affectata doth excuse from Herisie On the other side it is most certaine that no man is damned for not professing what he is not damned for not beleeving Wherefore profession being that which engrafteth a man exteriorly in the Church of God according unto the ordinary opinions of Catholiques it followeth that no man is condemned for not being of the Church who is not for infidelity for which it is a very uncertaine case who be damned and who not So that the Catholique position is not so crude as peradventure the Author understood it to be though the words be rough and ought to be so as being of what is according to the course of nature not what chance and accidents may invent The other point was of puting Heretiques to death which I think he understandeth to be done Vindicatively not Medicinally I meane imposed as a punishment and not in way to prevent mischeife or oppresse it in the head If the Circumcellians were the first that is ancient enough for the justification of the fact although for banishment which also he seemeth to reprehend we know the first that could suffer it did suffer it Arrius I meane by the hand of Constantine whom he praiseth for a speech he uttered before he knew the consequence of the danger and seemeth to reprehend for his after
best of any undergone the burden of proving that to be infallible which is false yet he must have confest that either these are not proofes or they prove against himself And this advantage we have that unlesse you prove your own infallibility which you will never be able to do in what point soever you confute us that falls like a Pinacle without carrying all after it whereas if we disprove any one of your Religion we disprove consequently that infallibility which is the foundation of it all so that like them who vse poison'd weapons wheresoever we wound we kill but we are like those creatures which must be killed all over or else their other parts will remaine alive Neither must you think that you have answer'd the Chiliasts by tying them to the Carpocratians and the Gnosticks which is but like Mezentius his joyning Mortua corpora vivis dead bodies to the living since the opinions of the two latter assoon as they were taught made the teachers accounted Hereticks and were oppos'd by allmost all whereas that of the first found in above two ages no resistance by any one known and esteemed Person and the teachers of it were not onely parts but principall ones of the Catholique Church and such as ever have been and are reputed Saints though by I know not what subtlety you dispence with your selves for departing from what doctrine was received from them as come down from the Apostles and yet threaten us with damnation if we will not believe more improbable Tenets to be Tradition upon lesse Certificate For as Aristotle saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ethicks Wine measures to buy with are great and to sell by are small so when you are to put a doctrine to us how small a measure of Tradition would you have us take one place of one Father speaking but as a Doctor seemes enough but when you are to receive any from us how large and mighty a measure will yet give you no satisfaction Neither can I find out what it is by which you conclude that their Tradition was gathered the Hereticall way from private discourse with the Apostles Irenaeus indeed tells us that Presbyteri meminerunt one of which Pappias was but not a word that it was deliver'd in secret or the auditors but few nor that others had not heard other disciples teaching the same doctrine and me thinkes that if you had evinced what you desire as you seem to me not to do unlesse to affirm be to prove it would make more against you sure if from so small a ground as the word of one onely disciple that he in private discourse was taught this by the Apostles a false doctrine could so generally be received by all the first Doctors of the Christian Church and that so long after Dionysius Alexandrinus had used his great Authority to destroy it Saint Hierome was yet halfe afraid to write against it as seeing how many Catholiques he should enrage against himselfe by it as he testifies in his Proem to the eighteenth Book of his Comment upon Isaiah what suspitions must this raise in the mindes of those of your own party least what they esteemed Tradition had at first no greater a beginning and no firmer foundation but onely better fortune for why might not the same disciple have cozn'd them from whom their beliefe is descended in twenty other things as well as in this and why not twenty others as well as he especially since you confesse some of your doctrine not to have had Vniversall Tradition but onely Tradition enough which if those Fathers did not think they had had for this they would never have receiv'd it but have excepted against the Hereticall way of their delivery if they had known that to be a private one and a private one to be such and if they were so deceived in this way might not they and more have been so too in other points and in time all If you say as it hath been said to me by one whose judgment I value as much as any one of your Party that if this opinion had indeed had Tradition it could never have been so totally extinguish'd I answer that I affirm not that it had but onely that if the rules of your part be good and valid then it had I am sure it hath better colour to plead upon then any of those other doctrines which you impose upon us Besides although it had yet when Doctors of great authority with the people had won upon many first not to think it Tradition and then not true and lastly their courage encreasing with their multitude for Saint Hierome durst not call it had made it accounted an Heresie it is not strange that none should rise to oppose it for by that time burning was come in fashion which was a ready way to answer all objections and end all controversies especiall Piety being grown more cold and so men lesse apt to suffer for opinions and the times more ignorant and so men lesse able to examine what had been beleeved before them But you who affirm that your Church receives nothing but what hath come to her by Verball Tradition down from the Apostles must not onely destroy the Arguments which prove this to have had Tradition which you or any else will be never able to do but must affirm that the contrary hath such which yet their most ancient opposers never pretended too but scoft at the opinion as rediculous and savouring of Judaisme which as wise men and as good Christians as they before them beleeved to be Orthodox Let us next consider that controversie which more afflicted the Church and for a longer time then any other that between the Arrians and their Adversaries and let us see whether even against those there were any such Tradition as you speak of First then I pray mark what Cardinal Perron confesseth Lib. Con. R. Jac. Pag. 633. that an Arrian will be desirous to have his cause tried by those Authors we now have which lived before the Question arose for there saith he will be found the Son is the instrument of his Father The Father commanded the Son when things were to be made the Father and the Son are aliud aliud which who should at this day say now the language of the Church is better examin'd would be accompted an Arrian Now though there be no reason for you to disbelieve so learned a Prelate in a matter of Fact especially since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet if you please to reconsider those Authors seriously if you have not mark't it before as Praejudication blinds extreamly you will then confesse it Sure then if Fathers in the first ages taught their Children that so they had receiv'd from theirs as the doctrine of the Apostles how could the chiefe Pillars of Christianity have been ignorant of it or if they knew it how would they ever have written so directly against their knowledge For that answer
I may onelie get a fall and this fastening appeares not to me till I be shewed some more certaine connexion between the Opinions of this Age and those of the Apostolicke times then yet you have done or till you have answered those Arguments by which as I perswade my selfe I have made it appeare that it cannot be done Resp As for the two places concerning the Popes and Councels Infallibillity it is not to my purpose to meddle of them because of one side the way I have begun beareth no need of those discourses and on the other I should engage my selfe in Quarrels betweene Catholique and Catholique obscure the matter I have taken in hand and profit nothing in my hearers more then to be judged peradventure to have more learning then wisedome to governe it withall Repl. With your favour Sir these places concerne not onely questions between your selves but between you and us for I thought you had all agreed though I knew you had not alwaies done so and though it seemes by your declining to speak about it that you doe not yet that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope are infallible and the Doctrines defined by them are to be beleeved de fide which if you be not then the Glew which it is so bragged you have to keepe you still at Unitie is dissolved and if you be then you should both have answered upon what grounds you are so and have destroyed my Objections against the possibilitie of certaintie knowing when it is that these which used to be called the Church have defined finding therefore Altum Silentium where there was so much cause of speaking makes me beleeve that the cause why you have not answered is onely because you could not and then you have a readie Apologie that Nemo tenetur adimpossibilia which I beleeve the rather because I know that to so cleare a judgement as yours that place of Scripture When two or three are gathered together c. which is so often press'd for the Infallibilitie of Councels must appeare to make as much for the Synod of Dort as for the Councell of Trent and to so great a learning as yours it cannot be unknown how few if any of the Ancients have asserted their Infallibilitie and how many both of the Ancients and your Modernes have denied it I am confirmed in this beleife too because you I know would never have accepted that as a sufficient excuse from me if I had avoided to answer an Argument so because Protestants are not agreed upon the point if you had thought it such as that they ought to have been agreed upon it and truelie this is as great and considerable a question as any among us Resp As for the two places of Fevardentius which alloweth many Fathers to have fallen into errors I thinke it will not trouble him who is accquainted with the course of this present Church wherein divers who be thought great Divines fall into errors for which their Bookes are sometimes hindered from the print sometimes recalled or some leaves commanded to be pasted up the reason is the multiplicity of Catholike Doctrine which doth not oblige a man to the knowledge of every part but to the prompt subjection of the instruction of the Church wherefore many men may hold false doctrine inculpably not knowing it to be such even now after the learned labours of so many that have strived to open and facilitate by Method what is true and what is false much more in the Fathers times when there was great want of so many Compilers as these latter ages have produced Repl. First What Fevardentius confesseth proves plainlie that for which I intended it which was the ridiculousnesse of proving their Doctrine to be true by being conformable to that of the Fathers and yet making themselves Judges of those Judges they appeale too and confessing that many of them erred in many points which if they did they might as well doe the same in those about which we differ although they agreed with you and dissented from us Secondlie What both he confesseth and you confesse with him disproves that way of knowing divine Truths which you propose for neither the Doctors of the ancient Church who were sure more likelie to know what was then taken for Tradition then any late Compilers nor of the Modern who had a mind to deliver truth and trac'd and followed your way of finding it could erre in points of faith if Qui docet ut didicit he that teacheth as he hath been taught must still be in the right for publique Tradition no learned man at least can be ignorant not any man say you of what he was taught when a Childe as the substance of his hopes for all eternitie and so cannot in reason have his books either forbidden or pasted up for delivering any thing contrary to it Secondly Who are these Censors who forbid and paste up books certainly not the Universall Church nor yet the Representative the latter is not alwaies in being nor when it is at leasure to consider and judge all authors and of the first these Authors are a part if then they be fallible as they must be if they be not the Church why may not they erre and the martyr-Martyr-books speake truth which yet will easily by this meanes be kept from Posteritie if those in the Dictatory Office dissent from it as they will be sure to do if the opinion contradict never so little the power or greatnesse of the Pope upon whose favour these Oecumenicall Correctors must depend or they not long remaine in their places and yet you expect that your adversary should produce succession of their opinions in all ages though nothing be let passe but what a few please and though when in time all of you are agreed as you will soon be or appear to be if one side appear to be gag'd then this consent though thus brought about becomes the consent of the Church and a very notable Motive And since you say that what all are bound to is onely a prompt subjection to the Church why leave you it so in doubt what is the Church as if men were tyed to be subject but must not know to what you say indeed that the adherers to the Church of Rome are now the Church but what they may be you will not plainely declare So that if a Schisme among them should happen we are all as farrto seek as if you had been wholly silent for since the infallibility lies not in the particular Church of Rome and consequently the adhering to her is not ever a sufficient note of the Church as you will not say nor is it among your selves de fide since the Universall Church whatsoever she be can never define any thing and of the authority of the definitions of the Representative and of what constitutes both her and her decrees you refuse to speak what remaines there to which this prompt subjection is to be the
much affiance in in these termes whether there was no visible succession to be proved in the Protestant Church since the Apostles time down to Luther and what was to be answered to that Objection besides the Confession of invisibility for so many ages to this I could get no other answer but that the point had been largely and learnedly handled by Doctor White and many other of our Church upon this I resolved to informe my selfe in some other points which seemed to me unwarrantable and suspitious in the Ceremonies of the Romane Church since I had such an inducement as so little satisfaction in a point that seemed to me so essentiall and in all these scruples I found mine own mistake in the beleife of the Tenents of the Romane Church gave me the onely occasion of scandall not the practise of their doctrines and to confirme me in the satisfaction of all them I found the practise and authority of most of the ancient Fathers and in the Protestant refutations of these doctrines the recusations of their authorities as men that might erre so that the question seemed then to me whether I would rather hazard the erring with them then with the latter Reformers which consequently might erre also in dissenting from them I will not undertake to dispute the severall Tenents controverted nor doubt that your Lordship will suspect that I omitted any satisfaction in any of them since my resolution of reconciling my selfe to the Romane Church is not liable to any suspition of too forward or precipitate resignation of my selfe my judgement perchance may be censured of seducement my affection cannot be of corruption Upon these reasons I did soone after my returne last into England reconcile my selfe to the Romane Catholique Church in the beleife and convincement of it to be the true ancient and Apostolic all by her externall markes and her internall objects of faith and doctrine and in her I resolve to live and dye as the best way to Salvation When I was in England I did not study dissimulation so dexterously as if my fortune had read it to me nor doe I now professe it so desperately as if it were my fortunes Legacie for I doe not beleeve it so dangerous but it may recover for I know the Kings wisedome is rightly informed that the Catholique Faith doth not tend to the alienation of the Subject it rather super-infuseth a Reverence and Obedience to Monarchie and strengthens the bands of our obedience to our Natural Prince and his Grace and Goodnesse shall never finde other occasion of divertion of them from the naturall usuall exercise of themselves upon those that have the honour to have beene bred with approbation of fidelity in his service nor can I feare that your Lordship should apprehend any change in my duty even your displeasure which I may apprehend upon the mis-interpreted occasion shall never give me any of the least recession from my duty in which profession I humbly aske your blessing as Your Lordships obedient Sonne Paris 21. Novemb. 1635. The Lord of Faulklands Answer to a Letter of Mr. Mountague justifying his change of Religion being dispersed in many Copies I Was desired to give my opinions of the Reasons and my Reason if I misliked them having read and considered it I was brought to be perswaded First because having been sometimes in some degrees moved with the same Inducements I thought that what satisfied me might possibly have the same effect upon him Secondly because I being a Lay man a young man and an Ignorant man I thought a little Reason might in liklyhood work more from my Pen then more from theirs whose Profession Age and Studies might make him suspect that it is they are too hard for him and not their Cause for his Thirdly Because I was very desirous to do him service not onelie as a man and a Christian but as one whom all that know him inwardly esteeme of great parts and I am desirous somewhat to make up my great want of them by my respect to those that have them and as an impartiall seeker of Truth which I trust he iâ— and I professe my self to be and so much for the cause of this Paper I come now to that which it opposeth FIrst then whereas he defends his search I suppose he is rather for that to receive praise then to make Apologies all men having cause to suspect that gold which were given with this condition that the Receiver should not trie it by any Touchstone Secondly He saith that there being two sorts of Questions the one of Right or Doctrine the other of Fact or Story As whether the Protestants Faith had a visible appearance before Luther he resolved to begin his enquiry with the matter of Fact as being sooner to be found because but one and easier to be comprehended To this I answer by saying that if they would not appeale from the Right Tribunall or rather Rule which is the Scripture those many might easier be ended then this one we building our Faith onely upon plaine places and all reasonable men being sufficient of what is plain but if they appeal to a consent of Fathers and Councells whereof many are lost many not lost not to be gotten many uncertaine whether Fathers or no Fathers and these which we have and know being too many for almost any industrie to read over and absolutely for any memory to remember which yet is necessarie because any one clause of any one Father destroies a consent and being besides liable to all the exceptions which can be brought against the Scriptures being the Rule as difficulty want of an infallible Interpreter and such like and being denied to have any infallibility especially when they speak not as witnesses which a consent of them never doth against us by one partie which the Scripture is allowed to have by both then I wonder not if he think such a way so uncertaine and so long that he was willing to chuse any shorter cut rather then travell it Neither do I beleeve this other to be so short or so concluding as he imagines for if he consider the large extent of Christian Religion so that we know little from any indifferent Relator of the opinions of the Abissins so great a part of Christendome if he consider the great industry of his Church in extinguishing those whom they have called Hereticks and also their Books so that we know scarce any thing of them but from themselves who are too partiall to make good Historians if the consider how carefully they stop mens mouthes even those of their own with their Indices expurgatorii it will then appear to him both a long work to seek and a hard one to find whether any thought like Luther in all Ages and that he concludes very rashly who resolves that there was none because he cannot find any since they might have been visible in their times and yet not so to us for men are not
damnation for any man to deny the Infallibility of the Church of Rome but for him onely that denies it obstinately And then I am safe for I am sure I do not Neither can they say I shall be damned for Schisme though not for Heresie for he is as well no Shcismatick though in Schisme that is willing to joyne in Communion with the true Church when it appears to be so to him as he is no Heretick though he holds Hereticall opinions who holds them not obstinately that is as I suppose with a desire to be informed if he be in the wrong Next Why if it be not necessary alwaies to beleeve the Truth so one beleeve in generall what the Church would have beleeved for so they excuse great men that have held contrary opinions to theirs now before they were defined or knew them to be so why I say shall not the same implicite assent serve to whatsoever God would have assented unto though I mistake what that is when indeed to beleeve implicitely what God would have beleeved is to beleeve implicitely likewise what the Church teacheth if this Doctrine be within the number of those which God commands to be beleeved I have the lesse doubt of this opinion that I shall have no harme for not beleeving the Infallibility of the Church of Rome because of my being so farr from leaning to the contrary and so suffering my will to have power over my understanding that if God would leave it to me which Tenet should be true I would rather chuse that that should then the contrary For they may well beleeve me that I take no pleasure in tumbling hard and unpleasant Books and making my self giddy with disputing obscure Questions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If I should beleeve there should alwaies be whom I might alwaies know a society of men whose opinions must be certainely true and who would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 labour to discusse and define all arising doubts so that I might be excusably at ease and have no part left for me but that of obedience which must needs be a lesse difficult and so a more agreeable way then to endure endlesse Volumes of Commenters the harsh Greek of Epiphanius and the harder Latin of Trenaeus and be pained by distinguishing between different sences and various Lections and he would deserve not the lowest place in Bedlem that would preferr these studies before so many so more pleasant that would rather imploy his understanding then submit it and if he could think God imposed upon him onely the resisting temptations would by way of addition require from himself the resolving of doubts yet I say not that all these Books are to be read by those that understand not the languages for them I conceive their seeking into the Scripture may suffice but he who hath by Gods grace skill to look into them cannot better use it then in the searching of his will where they say it is to be found that he may assent to them if there he find reason for it or if not they may have no excuse for not excusing him For whereas they say it is pride makes us doubt of their Infallibilitie I answer That their too much lazinesse and impatience of examining is the cause that many of them do not doubt Next what pride is it never to assent before I find reason since they when they follow their Church as infallible pretend reason for it and will not say they would if they thought they found none and if they say we do find reason but will not confesse it then pride hinders not our assent but our declaration of it which if it do in any one he is without question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condemned by himself and it must be a very partiall Advocate that would strive to acquit him One much prevailing argument which they make is this That whosoever leaves them fall into dissention between themselves whereas they in the mean while are allwaies at Unity I answer First In this whereof the Question is now they all assent Secondly When there is fire for them that disagree they need not bragg of their Uniformity who consent Thirdly they have many differences among them as whether the Pope be Infallible whether God predeterminate every action whether Election and Reprobation depend upon fore-sight Which seemes to me as great as any between their Adversaries and in the latter the Jesuites have ancienter and generaller Tradition on their side then the Church of Rome hath in any other Question and as much ground from Reason for the defence of Gods goodnesse as they can think they have for the necessity of an infallible guide Yet these arguments must not make the Dominicans Hercticks and must us If they say the Church hath not resolved it which signifies onely that they are not agreed about it which is that we object I answer It ought to have done so if uniformity to the Ancient Church be required in which all that ever I could heare of before Saint Austine who is ever various I confesse in it delivered the contrary to the Dominicans as not doubtfull and to say it is lawfull for them to disagree wheresoever they do not agree is ridiculous for they cannot do both at once about the same point and if they say they mean by the Churches not having concluded it that a Councell hath not I Answer First That they condemne some without any Councell and why not these Next I say the opinion of the diffused Church is of more force then the conclusion of the representative which hath its authority from the other and therefore if all extant for the first four hundered yeares taught any thing it is more Heresie to deny that then any Cannon of a Councell But may not howsoever any other Company of People that would maintaine themselves to be infallible say as much that all other Sects differ from one another and therefore should all agree with them would not those think they ascribe all other mens dissentions and learned mens falling into diverse heresies to their not allowing their Infallibility to their not assenting to their Decrees and not suffering them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to sit as teachers of those things that come in Question and to have all others in the place of Disciples obedient to them which is that which Nilus a Greek Bishop professed that because the Greeks would not allow the Romans was the chief cause of separation between them Next They use much to object how could errors come into the Church without opposition and mention both of them and the opposition to them in History I answer They might come not at once but by degrees as in the growth of a Child or motion of a Clock we see neither in the present but know there was a present when we find it past Next I say there are two sorts of errors To hold a thing necessary that is unlawfull and false or that
his Apostles But abstracting from that who doth not see that the Church hath the nature and proportion of ones Country unto every one As in a mans Country he hath Father and Mother Brothers Sisters Kinsfolkes Allyes Neighbours and Country-men which anciently were called Cives or Concives and of these are made his Country so in the Church findeth he in way of spirituall instruction and education all these degrees neerer and farther off until he come unto that further most of being of all united under the universall Government of Christ his Vicar And as he in his Countrey findeth bearing breeding settling in estates and fortunes and lastly protection and security so likewise in the way of Christianity doth he find this more fully in the Church so that if it be true that a man oweth more unto his Master then unto his Father because bene esse is better then esse certainly a man also as far as Church and Country can be separated must owe more to the Church then to his very Country wherefore likewise the power which the Church hath to command and instruct is greater then the power of the temporall Country and community whereof he is part Againe this Church can satisfie learned and unlearned For in matters above the reach of reason whose source and spring is from what Christ and his Apostles taught what learned man that understands the nature of science and method can refuse in his inmost soule to bow to that which is testified by so great a multitude to have come from Christ And what unlearned man can require more for his faith then to be taught by a Mistresse of so many prerogatives and advantages above all others Or how can he think to be quieted in conscience if he be not content to fare as she doth who hath this prerogative evident that none is so likely by thousands of degrees CHAP. VI. THe stemme and body of our position thus raised will of it selfe shoot out the branches of divers Questions or rather the solution thereof And first How it hapned that diverse Heretiques have pretended tradition the Millenarians Carpocratians Gnostiaks and divers others yet they with their traditions have been rejected and the holy Church left onely in claime of tradition For if we look into what Catholique tradition is and what the said Heretiques pretended under the name of Tradition the question will remain voided For the Catholique Church calleth Tradition that doctrine which was publikely preached in the Churches ordred and planted in the manners and customes of the Church The Heretiques called Tradition a kind of secret doctrine either gathered out of private conversation with the Apostles or rather they pretended that the Apostles besides what they publikely taught the world had another private or mysticall way proper to Schollers more endeared then the rest which came not to publike view but was in huggermugger delivered from those secret Disciples unto others and so unto them where it is easily seen what difference there is betwixt this Catholique Tradition and this pretended For the force and energie of tradition residing in the multitudes of hearers and being planted in the perpetuall action and life of Christians so that it must have such a publicity that it cannot be unknown amongst them Those the Heretiques pretend both manifestly want the life and being of traditions and by the very great report of them lose all authority and name For suppose some privare doctrine of an Apostle to some Disciple should be published and recorded by that Disciple and some others this might well be a truth but would never obtain the force of a Catholique position that is such as it should be damnation to reject because the descent from the Apostle is not notorious and fitting to sway the body of the whole Church The Second Question may be How it commeth to passe that something which at first bindeth not the Churches beleef afterward commeth to bind it For if it were ever a Tradition it must ever be publique and bind the Church And if once it were not it appeareth not how ever it could come to be for if this age for example hath it not how can it deliver it over to the next age that followeth But if we consider that the hope of Christian doctrine being great and the Apostles preaching in so great varietie of Countries it might happen some point in one Countrie to have been lesse understood or peradventure not preached at all which in another was often preached and well both understood and retained we may easily free our selves from these brambles For the Spirit of Tradition residing in this that the testimony of that the Apostles delivered this Doctrine be exceptione majus and beyond all danger of deceit It is not necessary to the efficaciousness of Tradition that the whole universall Church be witnesse to such a truth but so great a part as could be a Warrant against mistaking and deceit so that if all the Churches of Asia or Greece or Aphrique or Egypt should constantly affirm such a Doctrine to have been delivered unto them by the Apostles it were enough to make a Doctrine exceptione majorem Whence it insueth that if in a meeting of the Universall Church it were found that such a part had such a Tradition concerning some matter whereof the rest either had no knowledge or no certainty such a Doctrine would passe into a necessary bond in the whole Church which before was either unknown or doubted of in some part thereof A likely example thereof might be in the Canonicall bookes the which being written some to one Church and some to another by little and little were spread from those Churches unto others and so some sooner some later received into the constant beleife of the Catholique world The Third question may be How Christian religion consisting in so many points it is possible to be kept incorrupted by tradition the which depending on memory and our memory being so fraile and subject to variation it seemeth cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great diversity of points unchanged for so many ages But if we consider that Faith is a Science and Science a thing whose parts are so connexed that if one be false all must needs be false we shall easily see that contrarily the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the other For if one be certaine it of it selfe is able to bring us to the right in another whereof we doubt And as in a mans body if he wanteth one member or the operation of it he must needs find the want of it in another And as a Common-wealth that is well ordained cannot misse any office or part without the redounding of the dessect upon the whole or some other part so a Christian being an essence instituted by God as specially as any naturall creature hath not the parts of his faith and action by accident and chance knitted together but all parts by a
and that it never slept and you are the first whom I have met with who build upon this Indeed they know the Greeks have as much claim to such a one in truth to any as they and if they should say with you that it is incompatible for two to have it the Greeks may as well argue upon those grounds that the Romans claim it not because they doe as the Romans can that the Greeks lay no claim to it because their Church does And indeed direct experience shewes that this is not nor hath alwayes been the ground of Christians that it is not even amongst you we see by those multitudes who cry out to have a Doctrine defined which is so far from having any Tradition much lesse your kind of one for it that they labour with little successe to shew that there is none against them and make it plainly appear that upon your grounds they build not but prove out of Metaphoricall places of Scripture some at most but probable reasons and the Revelations of S. Bridget which are contradicted by those of Saint Katharine Wadding p. 334. so ill do your Saints agree in heaven that me thinks we may bee forgiven if we have some differences upon earth That this hath not been alwaies the way we see by the exam-of Origen who having been esteemed by all Christians as almost a Prophet no man in his time discovering that he taught contrary to what their Fathers had taught them Vincent Lir. was yet condemned many yeers after his decease and his followers counted Hereticks by the name of Originistae which had been impossible if the following Ages had thought Tradition the onely fit Rule to judge by and accompted nothing Tradition but what they received from their Fathers in expresse termes But if the opinions of Doctors counted the Gnomons and Canons of Truth for to that purpose speakes Nazianzene of Athanasius Wadd Pag. 282 and Saint Austine of Nazianzene and Pope Pius the fifth of Saint Thomas calling his doctrine the certainest rule of Christian religion a title deny'd to Scripture the definitions of Councels counted the highest Tribunals upon earth assisted by the power of Emperours which might doe much when almost all were under one as may be seen by the multitude which followed Constantine to Christianity and Julian from it and by Constantius as is complain'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the twinckling of an eye transforming an Orthodox world into an Arrian if these waies I say might make a Tenet generall though no Tradition had come down at all concerning it and after it please to claim by a Tenure by which it came not in at first encouraged by some Rule of some Fathers to that purpose as some Frenchmen say of Cardinall Richelieu that since he had that title he claimes to have come from better Ancestours then he aimed at being an ordinary Person and Harry the seventh though he came to the Crown by his Wives right yet would hold it by his own and none after oppose that claime some not doing it because they thinke the opinion true and then care not though it be beleev'd upon false inducements some as being ignorant that ever it was lesse generall which before the late and happy resurrection of learning the best read Persons of their time might often be how deceiving a way is yours to discover what all ages have thought by what now a part of the present teacheth upon what pretence soever which when you have considered and not onelie that what I have said may be but by severall examples whereof I will touch some that so it is and hath been then I hope you will be so farre from expecting that I should be moved by your Arguments that your selfe will wonder that ever you were First then that the Chiliasts are Hereticks or your Church not infallible which counts them so is most certaine and most plaine and if you be in the right and that she teacheth nothing but what she hath received uninterruptedly downe from the Apostles then they must alwaies have been esteemed so by Christians whereas their doctrine is so farre from having any Tradition against it that if anie opinion whether controverted or uncontroverted except that Scripture which never was doubted may without blushing pretend to have that for it it must be this of theirs My Reasons are these The Fathers of the purest Ages who were the Apostles Disciples but once remov'd did teach this as receiv'd from them who professed to have receiv'd it from the Apostles and who seem'd to them witnesses beyond exception that they had done so they being better Judges what credit they deserv'd then after commers could possibly be All other opinions witnessed by any other Ancients to have Tradition may have been by them mistaken to have been so out of Saint Austin's and Tertullian's rules whereas for this and for this alone are delivered the very words which Christ us'd when he taught it Of the most glorious and least infirme building which ever in my opinion was erected to the honour of the Church of Rome Cardinall Perron was the Architect I mean his book against King James and that relies upon these two pillars that whatsoever all the Fathers he meanes sure that are extant witnesse to be Tradition and the doctrine of the Church that must be receiv'd for the doctrine of those ages and so rested upon If these rules be not concluding then the whole book being built upon them necessarily becomes as unconsiderable for what he intended it as Bevis or Tom Thumb If they be then this doctrine which is now hereticall in your Churches beleife was the opinion of the Ancient Church For if being taught by the Fathers of anie Age none contradicting it be sufficient this all for above two Ages and those the first teach not anie Father opposing it before Dionysius Alexandrinus 250 yeares after Christ at least that we know or Saint Hierome or Saint Austine knew and quoted wherein I note besides that both these Fathers either thought that no signe of the opinion of the Church or cared not though it were And if Fathers speaking as witnesses will serve let Pappias and Irenaeus be heard and believ'd who tels us it came to them from Christ by Verball Tradition and Justine Martir who witnesseth that in his time all Orthodoxe Christians held it and joynes the opposers with them who denied the Resurrection and esteemes them among the Christians like the Sadduces among the Jewes which proves that you have the same reason expallescere audito Ecclesiae nomine to grow pale at the mention of the Ancient Church Camp the nearest to the Apostles as we have to start at that of two hundred years agoe and to be asham'd of your Dionysius Alexandrinus as wee of Luther Thus that great Atlas of your Church hath helpt us to pull it down the same waies by which he intended to support it and though he have
other points that before the Councell it lay in Archivis Ecclesiae in the Deskes of the Church then claime such a Tradition for it as appeares it can never be defended that it had Let us consider but two opinions more That Infants are not to receive the Eucharist is now both the doctrine and practise of the Roman Church but six hundred yeeres the Church us'd it Saint Austine accounted it necessary at least in some sence of the word if not absolutely which last is most likely because from the necessity of that which could not be receiv'd but by them who had received Baptisme he and Innocentius a Pope prove the necessity of Baptisme and an Apostolicall Tradition If therefore both these Ages had gone by your Rule how comes this difference between their opinions the Sacrament being the same it was and the Children the same they were This I may consider and see if the same way that this Doctrine hath been altered whether any other might not have received change Next that Saints are invocable you must say is Tradition taught from Father to Sonne as deriv'd from the Apostles if you will be constant to your own principle now though I might disprove this first by the many Fathers that beleeved the Just not to be admitted to the Beatificall vision before the day of judgement for upon this your side now grounds that but to be kept in secret receptacles and by the long time which pass'd before this doctrine was condemn'd Secondly by the beginning of it which was particular Doctors Hipotheticall prayers with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and such conditionall clauses And thirdly by Nicephorus Calistus his Relation who in this is a believable witnesse because he allowes of your opinion that prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by one Petrus Gnapheus a Heretick about five hundred yeares after Christ Lib. 15. C. 28 yet I will rather chuse to confute this by the confession of Sancta Clara out of Horantius who to this objection that sub Evangelio which must mean when the Gospel was preacht no such precept is extant Pag. 271. not onely denies it not but gives this reason for it least the Pagans should think themselves brought againe to the worshipping of Men instead of Gods If upon this or any other reason this were not then taught then have not all your Doctrines such a Pedigree as you suppose but allow it were yet howsoever it followes that some at least of the learned of your Church have not been taught that they have or consequently that it is necessary they should have Though it seemes to me little less then Montanisme to believe that any since as it were a Paraclet should perfect the doctrine which then was delivered by the Apostles Neither can you answer that they speake onely of such a Precept and of being extant whereas they might teach it lawfull without giving any Precept and they might have given such a Precept although not extant for I should readily reply that the reason they give why there is none such extant shewes that they mean there was none at all neither Precept nor allowance since the Pagans would have been scandaliz'd at its being accounted lawfull to worship men instead of Gods although it were not commanded and not a whit the lesse whether that in after times were extant or not which they could not foresee The onelie answer which I am able to invent in your behalfe is this that though some of your particular doctrines have not such a Tradition yet there being a Tradition that the Churches definitions are infallible whatsoever she at any time define is then to be believed upon the strength of such a Tradition and before did latere in causis as Flowers do in Winter Yet to this I may reply by desiring you to enter with me into some few considerations First If this were so and that so much of Christian Religion depends upon the definitions of the Church and our Reception of them upon knowing alwaies which is she and that such is her authority can you perswade your selfe that Christ sending his Apostles and Disciples to Preach the Gospel and after four of them writing his Gospel which shewes if the Books be true to the title that they writ all they preacht at least that was necessarie for else they were not Gospels but Parts of it that they should not rather leave out any thing else how important soever then not have imploied themselves about teaching us that the Churches Definitions are a Rule of our Faith and instructing us in Markes so proper to her that we might never need to doubt whether it be she that defines or no and whether their not having done this evince not in Reason that this your Doctrine is false Secondly I pray consider whether if there were any such continu'd Tradition about the Definitions of the Church whether that must not also have taught or else have been to small purpose when it is that the Church hath defin'd but yet that is a case not fully judged among you For some hold that the Church hath defin'd when a Councel hath although unapproved by the Pope which is denied by others Thirdly Consider whether supposing as was before suppos'd it must not also have taught certaine Notes to know the Church by but yet about those you are not agreed Tom. 13. Pag. 193. Salmeron putting Miracles among the false Signes of the Church and Bellarmine and many more among the True ones Fourthly Consider whether the Church have an eternall spring of Doctrines within her or but a finite number and onely those which the Apostles preacht and I believe you will pitch upon the latter Not then to ask how they come to know them nor if you answer by Tradition to ask you againe how come men then not to know before a Definition what it is they Preacht for if the Bishops of which a Councell is compounded know it not now how will they know it when they meet I will desire to know why the Church will not at once teach us all the knowes and not keep us in doubts which she may resolve and did the Apostles teach their Doctrines to be lockt up or taught to us And then having considered this you will find I believe that the Church do with Doctrines as Fathers with Estates never give their Children all that they may still have something to keep them in awe with because if she should she could never have after pretended a Power to end any new emergent controversie keeping in secret what she knowes any that ariseth she may still pretend is endable by her Fiftly Consider that it will appear but a shift if you say that there is a Tradition that all the Churches Definitions be true and so excuse the particular Doctrines for otherwise having none and yet avoid giving us any Rules to know the Church by at all times and answering those
since if not a generall one but one which seemed such were required how easie was it for false opinions to get in under that colour testified but by a few reputed honest men and so received by and transmitted from others of great and generall authoritie Secondlie how could you have found a better way to answer your owne Objection against the Chiliasts Tradition for want of being sufficientlie publique since if that had not seemed to them to have had this condition I mean if they had thought they should for this cause have excepted against it it had been impossible these Saints should have received it and concerning the publicitie of it and the number and authoritie of the deliverers they must of necessitie have been the best Judges who then lived and who were the more considerable Doctors of the most considerable Ages so that you must either confesse that a Tradition bindes not unlesse indeed generall or confesse that this doth supposing this not to have been generall which you cannot prove Object A likely example of this may he drawn from the Canonicall Bookes Resp I deny it to be now necessarie to Salvation to admit of any Bookes for Canonicall which it was lawfull for Christians in past ages to doubt of and which had no generall Tradition and againe this answer helpes against your selfe for it is plaine by Saint Hieromes Testimonie that the Roman Church received not the Epistle to the Hebrewes which the Easterne Churches received whose Testimonie according to your grounds she then should have beleeved to be beyond exception and it is plaine by Perrons Testimonie that the Easterne Churches received not the Macchabees when he saies the Church of Rome did Now it is plaine that the Receivers pretended to Tradition because nothing else could make a booke thought Canonicall whereas other opinions might be brought in by a false Interpretation of Scriptures and after being spread might be thought to come from Tradition So that according to your grounds and these testimonies not onely the Westerne Church ought to have beleeved the Easterne about the Epistle to the Hebrewes and the Easterne the Westerne about the Macchabees but also they ought to have required this assent from each other which they not doing as they would have done if they had thought their testimonie so valid as you doe it followes that you doe differ from the Churches of the fifth and sixth age about what is exceptione majus you thinking that to be so which they thought not and againe from all the extant Doctors of the two first ages you thinking that not so which they thought was as also those two times agreed about it as little with each other as you with them both Object The third question may be how Christian Religion consisting of so many points is possible to be kept uncorrupted by Tradition which depending upon Memory and our memory being so fraile it seemeth cannot without manifest miracle conserve so great a diversity of points unchanged for so many ages But if we consider that Faith is a Science a thing whose parts are so connexed that if one be false all must needs be false we shall easily see that contrarily the multitude of divers points is a conservation the one to the right the other wherein we doubt Resp As in Judges when a battell was to be fought between the children of Israel and the Midianites the Midianites destroyed each other and left nothing to doe for Israel but onely to pursue them so truly your Objections worke so strongly upon your own Party that I have nothing left me to presse and much to applaud For for this very reason I beleeve that all necessarie points were given in writing and onely the witnessing that these were the Apostles writings was left to Tradition which was both much lesse subject to error as being but one point and that a matter of fact and could no other way be done because no writing could have witnessed for it selfe so sufficientlie that we should have had reason to have belleved it upon no other certificates and to this your answer seemes to me no way satisfactorie since first I deny Faith to be a Science it being nothing but an assent to Gods Revelations neither are those so connexed as you liberallie affirme and sparinglie prove Nay suppose they were yet though errors would be the lesse likely to enter yet when any one by any meanes were got in ' then this connexion would be a ready way to helpe it to let in all its fellowes Besides those opinions which may be superinduct as Traditions which such a connexion could not hinder if they were not contrarie to the true ones and of this sort is chiefly our question That therefore you are no better able to wind your selfe out of this inextricable Labyrinth is no wonder to me and no disgrace to you since a man may as well be good Logician though he cannot solve an unsolvable question as he may be exceedinglie skilled in Physick and yet not able to cure an incurable disease Besides that these Objections arose so at the first sight out of what was to be considered that it was as impossible for to avoid them as to answer them Object Let us consider in constant Nations their language their habits c. how long they continue among them Truly there is no Nation that I know whose language hath not PLACE = marg Resp and doth not daily palpablie suffer change Consider that of these English hourely denizoning words of all kinde of languages these of the Spaniards Italians and French almost made up out of Latine and that of the ancient Greekes unknown to those of this Age unlesse they learn it at Schoole Habits indeed some Nations alter lesse but some daily and none change not sometimes But this is little to the purpose since those Nations which have remained very constant in things which no considerable cause appeared to them why they should alter may yet have received new opinions especially if not contradicting the old taught them by such in whom they wholly relied as most go more hood-winkt in these matters then in those which are indifferent out of a Vitious humility or proved by Arguments which perswaded For when the reasons are probable as they may be for a falshood the Persons pressing them in themselves of authority as they may be and yet erre and the people to whom they are prest full of esteeme of their Teachers then meet the three waies of working perswasion which Aristotle mentions whereof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Especially when besides all these the rewards of beliefe proposed are more then extraordinary as also the danger of disbeliefe Wherefore I count it by no meanes reasonable 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like sheep without more examination to walk in the steps of those who have gone before us Object See that forlorn Nation of the Jews how constantly it maintaineth the Scripture and how obstinately their Errors
the true sence of these Councels why should not the same disposition in us towards the Scripture be thought every whit as sufficient not onely to keepe us in unitie but to secure us from danger To conclude though unitie be a thing much spoken of by you yet I finde it chieflie onely in your discourse your differences are many and great onelie you say you agree in what is necessarie and make the measure of things necessarie what you agree in so the summe is you agree in what you doe agree which it is impossible you should not though you had carried away the bayes from Bibrias his Tombe eager against us and yet divided among your selves like the state of an Armie in Tacitus Manente Legionum auxiliorumque ubi adversus Paganos certandum foret consensu and if your Church brag of such an Unity I perceive a small matter will make her brag Resp Againe I do confesse most English men confesse a Trinity the Incarnation and Passion of our Saviour but if to morrow any one or more of them light upon some Book of an Arrian Trinitarian or other Sect so wittily written that he putteth probable solutions for the places of Scriptures shewes slight waies how our well meaning fore-fathers may have slipped into such an Error what is there to retaine those men from disagreeing with the rest of their Bretheren and betake themselves to the Arrians And when the heat is past light upon some Rabbi who shall cunningly exaggerate the absurdities as he shall tearm them of the Trinitie Incarnation Say our Saviour did strange things in vertue of some Constellation and delivering these things so Oratorically that for a new heat some of these things shall seem more conformable then his Arrianisme what then shall hinder this man to become a Jew and at last to prove himself so great a Clerk as to write de tribus Impostoribus Take away the power of the Church which every man doth who taketh away the Infallibility what can retaine any man why he should not yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest seeing nothing is certaine Repl. And if you should meet with a book which should give probable solutions to the places of Scripture and reasons which you now think prove the authority of the Church and bring other though suppose but slight yet such as may seem strong Arguments to prove it not infallible and shew waies of the same kind how your ancestors may have slipt in that and by that into other errors what is there to retaine you with the rest of your Bretheren and betaking your selfe to us If you say this is impossible to be done so think the Protestants that the Arrians can give them no probable answer to their places of Scripture and such as will seem so to some is no imputation to their grounds since so may and do our Answers and Objections to some of you who thereupon leave you and yet you count not your grounds disparaged For my part I professe my self not onely to be an Anti-Trinitarian but a Turk whensoever more reason appeares to me for that then for the Contrary and so sure would you be too for the pretended infallibility of your Church could no longer hold you if you thought you saw reason to beleeve it fallible as you must do if all weighed more reason appeared of her adversaries side either your proofes of her authority not to be probable or else your Doctrinestaught by her more contrary to reason then her authority though probably founded yet not upon demonstrations is sufficient to caution and answer for It is true so long as you stick to this hold upon the Roman Church you are sure to receive no error but which she offers you and indeed you need not for those are enough but that destroied which is apter to be destroied then most of the Protestants as weaklier supported by reason then no error that a Protestant may fall into but so may you too and the other is but such a Priviledge as I may have by sticking to the English Church as well as you to the Roman And though this following your guide may be able as long as she keep her self to keep you from some Ditches into which you might otherwise fall yet it may lead you unto others and indeed there is no error but by this way you are liable too yea even of those which she now condemnes since though she changed her opinion which is neither impossible nor unlawfull yet you are by your blind obedience to believe that she had not and to submit your understanding in this Question to some distinction though without a difference These things then I dislike in what you say First Your saying as though there is nothing to retain a Protestant from being of any error when it shall appeare more probable to him then Truth therefore there were nothing to keep him from those errors whereas you should have considered that the greater probabilities may serve reasonably to hold him without a demonstration and the evidence of the thing without a guide and that if those be not ground enough for a man to fix upon in how ill estate are those of your Church in the Question concerning the Church in which they follow no guide nor have any demonstration but professe they yeeld to her authority but upon prudentiall motives which kind of arguments sure may as well and as fixedly preserve a Protestant in an Orthodox opinion against a Heretick as the authoritie of the Church no surelier founded can you against us That every man should yeeld to that discourse which seemeth fairest to him I confesse it is alwaies not onelie safe and fit but also necessarie even for them who receive the Infallibilitie of the Church since those who beleeve that beleeve it because that appeares fairest to them and as you object to us the possibilitie of being perswaded from the truth by some wittie Author why thinke you not the same Author may possiblie too appeare to you to destroy your prudentiall Motives and so consequentlie your whole Faith which is built upon the Church which is built upon them Secondlie I dislike your seeming to beleeve that any grounds which are not demonstrative are too slipperie to rest upon as not onelie being contrarie to reason but to your selfe who told me before that no more was required then a maine advantage on one side and that we had reason to be satisfied with Probabilities to guide our Actions in Religion or since by them we were content to regulate all the other Actions of our life Thirdlie I dislike in your own parties behalfe your saying that a Protestant is in good likelihood to turne Arrian for if you meane onelie that it is possible it concernes you as much as them since this seemes to inferre that the Scriptures doe make more probablie for them which if they did it is not Heresie and to contradict all those whom both parts call
answers that ever I could meet to this Objection I repeat no more these places being so positive to our point This confession of Invisibilitie in our Church for so many ages did much perplex me it seemed to me even to offend Naturall reason such a derogation from Gods power or providence as the sufferance of so great an Ecclipse of the light of this true Church and such a Church as this is described to be seeming to me repugnant to the maine reason why God hath a Church on Earth which is to be conserver of the Doctrine Christs precepts and to conveigh it from age to age untill the end of the world Therefore I applyed my study to peruse such arguments as the Catholicks brought for the proofe of a continuall visibility of the true Church down from the Apostles time in all Ages and apparance of Doctors teaching and administring the Sacrament in proofe of this I found they brought many provisoes of the Scripture but this text most literall of the fourth of the Ephesians Christ hath placed in his Church Pastors and Doctors to the consummation of the Saints till we meet in the Unity of the Faith and next the discourse upon which they inferre this necessary visible succession of the Church seemed to me to be a most rationall and convincing one which is to this effect Naturall Reason not being able to proportion to a man a cause that might certainly bring him to a state of supernaturall happinesse and that such a cause being necessary to mankinde which o herwise would totally faile of the end it was created for there remained no other way but that it must be proposed unto us by one whose authority we could not doubt of and that in so plaine a manner as the simplest may be capable of it as well as the learned This work was performed by our Saviour from whose mouth all our Faith is originally derived but this succeeding age not being able to receive it immediate from thence it was necessary it should be conveyed unto them that lived in it by those that did receive it from Christs own Mouth and so from Age to Age untill the end of the world and in what Age soever this thred of doctrine should be broken it must needs be acknowledged for the reason above mentioned that the light which should convey makind through the darknesse of this world was extinguished and mankind is left without a Guide to infallible ruine which cannot stand with Gods providence and goodnesse which Saint Austine affirmes for his opinion directly in his book de Util. Cred. Cap. 16. saying If divine providence doe preside over humane affaires it is not to be doubted but that there is some authoritie constituted by the same God upon which going as upon certaine steps we are carried to God nor can it be said he meant the Scriptures onely by these steps since experience shewes us the continuall alteration about the right sence of severall of the most important places of it that what is contained there cannot be a competent rule to mankind which consisteth more of simple then learned men and besides the Scriptures must have been supposed to have been kept in some hands whose authority must beget our acceptance of it which being no other thing then the Church in all Ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved the Scriptures free from all corruption then that it hath maintained it selfe in a continuall visibility which Saint Augustine concludeth to be a marke of the true Church in these words in his book Cont. Cecill 104. The true Church hath this certaine signe that it cannot be hid therefore it must be known to all Nations but that part of the Protestants is unknown to many therefore canno be the true no inference can be stronger then from hence that the concealement of a Church disproves the truth of it Lastly not to insist upon the allegation of the sence of all the Fathers of the Church in every severall Age which seemed to me most cleare that which in this cause weighed much with me was the confession and testimony of the approved Doctors themselves of the Protestant Church as Hooker in his Book of Eccles Pol. pag. 126. God alwaies had and must have some visible Church upon Earth and Doctor Field the first of Eccles cap. 10. It cannot be but those that are the true Church must be known by the profession of truth and further the same Doctor sayes How should the Church be in the world and nobody professe openly the saving truth of God and Doctor White in his defence of the Way chap. 4. pag. 790. The providence of God hath left Monuments and Stories for the confirmation of our faith and I confesse truly that our Religion is false if a continuall descent of it cannot be demonstrated by these monuments down from Christs time this appeareth unto me a direct submission of themselves to produce these apparent testimonies of the publique profession of their faith as the Catholiques demand but this I could never read nor know of any that performed for Doctor White himselfe for want of proofe of this is faine to say in another place in his Way to the Church pag. 510. The Doctors of our faith hath had a continuall succession though not visible to the world so that he flies from his undertaking of a conspicuous demonstration of the monuments of his faith to an invisible subterfuge or a beleife without apparance for he saith in the same book in another place pag. 84. All the eternall government of the Church may faile so as a locall and personall succession of Pastors may be interrupted and pag. 403. We doe not contest for an externall succession it sufficeth that they succeed in the doctrine of the Apostles and Faithfull which in all ages did imbrace the same Faith so as here he removeth absolutely all externall proofe of succession which before he consented to be guided by I cannot say I have verbally cited these Authors because I have translated these places though the Originall be in English yet I am sure their sence is no way injured and I have chosen to alledge Doctor Whites authority because he is an Orthodox Professor of the Protestant Church the reflection of the state of this question where I found the Protestants defend themselves onely by flying out of sight by confessing a long invisibility in their Church in apparance of Pastors and Doctors the same interpretation left me much loosened from the fastnesse of my professed Religion but had not yet transported me to the Catholique Church for I had an opinion that our Divines might yet fill up this vacancy with some more substantiall then I could meet with so I came back into England with a purpose of seeking nothing so intentively as this satisfaction and to this purpose I did covertly under another mans name send this my scruple to one whose learning and sufficiency I had
acceptance of it which being no other then the church of all ages we have no more reason to beleeve that it hath preserved that free from Corruption then it self in a continuall visibilitie I answer That neither to giving authority to Scriptures nor to the keeping of them is required a continuall visibility of a no-waies erring body of Christians the Writers of them give them their authority among Christians nor can the Church move any other and that they were the Writers we receive from the generall Tradition and Testimony of the first Christians not from any following Church who could know nothing of it but from them for for those parts which were then doubted of by such as were not condemned for it by the rest why may not we remain in the same suspence of them that they did and for their being kept and conveighed this was not done onely by their Church but by others as by the Greeks and their is no reason to say that to the keeping and transmitting of records safely it is required to understand them perfectly since the old Testament was kept and transmitted by the Jewes who yet were so capable of erring that out of it they looked for a Temporall King when it spoke of a Spirituall and me thinks the Testimony is greater of a Church which contradicts the Scripture then of one which doth not since no mans witnessing is so soon to be taken as when against himself and so their Testimonie is more receiveable which is given to the Scriptures by which themselves are condemned Besides the generall reverence which ever hath been given to these Books and the continuall use of them together with severall parties having alwaies their eyes upon each other each desirous to have somewhat to accuse in their adversaries give us a greater certaintie that these are the same writings then we have that any other ancient book is any other ancient Author and we need not to have any erring Company preserved to make us surer of it Yet the Church of Rome as infallible a Depositarie as she is hath suffered some variety to creep into the Coppies in some lesse materiall things nay and some whole Books as they themselves say to be lost and if they say how then can that be rule whereof part is lost I reply That wee are excused if we walk by all the Rule that we have and that this maketh as much against Traditions being the Rule since the Church hath not looked better to Gods unwritten Word then to his written and if she pretend she hath let her tell us the cause why Antichrists comming was deferred which was a Tradition of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians and which without impudence she cannot pretend to have lost And if againe they say God hath preserved all necessary Tradition I reply so hath he all necessarie Scripture for by not being preserved it became to us not necessarie since we cannot be bound to beleeve and follow that we cannot find But besides I beleeve that which was ever necessary is contained in what remaines for Pappias saith of Saint Mark that he writ all that Saint Peter preacht as Irenaeus-doth that Luke writ all that Saint Paul preacht nay Vincentius Lirinensis though he would have the Scripture expounded by ancient Tradition yet confesseth that all is there which is necessary and yet then there was no more Scripture then we now have as indeed by such a Tradition as he speakes of no more can be proved then is plainly there and almost all Christians consent in and truely I wonder that they should brag so much of that Author since both in this and other things he makes much against them as especially in not sending men to the present Roman Church for a Guide a much readier way if he had known it then such a long and doubtfull Rule as he prescribes which indeed it is impossible that almost any Question should be ended by Eleventhly He brings Saint Austines authority to prove that the true Church must be alwaies visible but if he understood Church in Mr Mountagues sence I think he was deceived neither is this impudent for me to say since I have cause to think it but his particular opinion by his saying which Cardinall Perron quoted that before the Donatists the Question of the Church had never been exactly disputed of and by this being one of his maine grounds against them and yet claiming no Tradition but onely places of Scripture most of them allegoricall and if it were no more I may better dissent from it then he from all the first Fathers for Dionysius Arcopagita was not then hatcht in the point of-the Chiliasts though some of them Pappias and Irenaeus claimed a direct Tradition and Christs owne words Secondly As useth this kind of libertie so he professeth it in his nineteenth Epistle where he saith that to Canonicall Scriptures he had learnt to give the reverence as not to doubt of what they said because they said it from all others he expected proofe from Scripture or Reason Thirdly The Church of Rome condemnes severall opinions of his and therefore she ought not to find fault with them who imitate her example Twelfthly He addes two reasons more The consent of the Fathers of all ages And the confession of Protestants To the First I answer That I know not of any such and am the more unapt to beleeve it because Mr. Mountague vouchsafes not to insist upon nor to quote any which I guesse he would have done but that he misdoubted their strength Secondly Suppose that all the Fathers which speake of this did say so yet if they say it but as private Doctors and claime no Tradition I know not why they should weigh more then so many of the now learned who having more helpes from Arts and no fewer from Nature are not worse searchers into what is Truth though lesse capable of being Witnesses to what was Tradition Thirdly They themselves often professe they expect not to be read as Judges but as to be judged by their and our Rule the Cononicall Scriptures Fourthly Let him please to read about the Immaculate Conception Rosa Salmeron and Wadding and he will find me as submissive to Antiquity even whilst I reject it as those of their own Party for they to prefer new opinions before old are faine to prefer new Doctors before old and to confesse the latter more perspicatious and to differ from those of former times with as little scruple as he would from Calvin whom Maldonat 6 Cap. St. Johan on purpose to oppose confesseth he chuseth a new Interpretation before that of all the Ancients which no witnesse but my eyes could have made me beleeve nay and produce other points wherein their Church hath decreed against the Fathers to perswade her to do so againe althoug Campian with an eloquent brag would perswade us that they are all as much for him as Gregory the thirteenth who was then Pope