Christs doctrine we mean that which was generally preach'd by the Apostles and contains all such points as are necessary to the salvation of the World not only in particular to single persons but for government of the Church and bringing multitudes with convenience to perfection in this life and felicity in the next Which being establisht they immediately proceed to this general Position that All Christ taught or the Holy Ghost suggested to the Apostles of this nature is by a direct uninterrupted liue entirely and fully descended to the present Church which communicates with and acknowledges subjection to the Roman Adding also the convers of that proposition viz. Nothing is so descended but such Truths nor any thing held by this tenure but what is so descended which being cast up amounts to this great Conclusion No errour was ever or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of faith The proof consists in this Since 't is confessed the Catholik Church goes upon this Maxim that Her Doctrine is received from Christ and still handed along to the present generation they who cavil at this assertion should assign some Age when they conceive an errour crept in and the maintainer should prove it enter'd not in that Age Because that Age held nothing was to be admitted as of Faith except what was deliver'd to it by the former but the Objectors themselves say this supposed errour was not deliver'd by the former since they put it to be now first believ'd therfore the Age in which they imagin this errour crept in could not be the first that believ'd it And lest some might reply though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed maxim yet anciently it did not the same argument may be thus reiterated If this principle which now governs the Church had not always done so it must have been introduced in some Age since the Apostles name therfore the Age and immediatly 't is urged either the Church had assurance in that Age all she held was descended lineally as we spake from the Apostles or not If so then questionless she held her doctrin upon that maxim For it is the only undoubted and self-evident principle If not then she wilfully belyed her self and conspired to damn all her posterity voluntarily taking up this new Rule of faith and commanding it to be accepted by all the world as the necessary doctrin of Christ and his Apostles descended upon the present age by universal Tradition from their Ancestors and for such to be deliver'd to their children and all this against the express evidence of her own conscience Thus far reaches the argument He that shall compare this perpetuation of the Church with the constancy of propagating mankind and proportion the love of happiness and natural inclination to truth which is in the superiour part of mankind and commands powerfully in it to the material appetite of procuring corporal succession and weigh what accidents are able and necessary to interrupt the progress of one and the other will find the propagation of Religion far stronger and less defectible then that of mankind supposing them once rooted alike in universality and setledness Since therfore the means of conducting nature to its true and chief end Felicity are more principally intended then those by which it is simply preserv'd in being this Contemplator will clearly discern that if humane nature continue to the last and dreadful day this succession also of a true Church must be carried on through the same extent of time there appearing indeed no purpose why the world should endure a minute longer if this once come to fail that part of mankind which arrives to bliss being the end why the rest was made as mankind is the end for which all the other material Creatures are set on work Again if a rational discourser should plot in his head how with condescendence to the weakness of our nature he might bring mankind to bliss and to this end plant in it a perpetual and constant knowledg of the true and straight way thither did observe that Man in his immature age is naturally subject to believe and after his ful growth tenacious of what he had suck'd in with his milk could he chuse but see that to make the Mothers flatter into their Children the first elements of the acquisition of Beatitude and continually go on nursing them up in the maxims of piety till their stronger years gave a steddy setledness to their minds must needs be the most sweet and connatural way that can be imagin'd to beget a firm and undoubted assent to those happy principles If he think on and chance to light on this truth that the greatest part of mankind some through dulness of understanding some by the distractions of seeking necessaries for their subsistence or at least conveniences for their accommodation and others for the diffluence of nature to Pleasures and Vanities are to their very departing hour wholly incapable of searching out their Religion either by their own contemplation or the learned books of others I cannot doubt but such a considerer would without the least difficulty or hesitation conclude that were it his design to set up a Religion which he would have constantly and universally propagated he must of necessity pitch upon this way And so with a resolute and pious confidence pronounce if God has not already taken this course certainly he should have done it To these considerations give my pen leave to add the confession of our Adversaries who boldly acknowledge the Roman Church has had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since St. Gregories days which is now a thousand years and very near two parts of the three that Christian Religion has endured They confess those Doctrins which are common to us and them remain in our Church uncorrupted and have still descended from Father to Son by vertue of Tradition since the very times of the Apostles They will not deny the Ages betwixt Constantine and St. Gregory flourisht with an infinity of Persons famous both for piety and learning and the Church never more vigilant never more jealous being continually alarm'd by such Troops of powerful and subtle Hereticks so that there is no likelihood gross errours such as Idolatry and Superstition import could creep in undiscern'd in those days And perhaps much less betwixt Constantine and the Apostles the time being so short that it scarce exceeds the retrospection of those who liv'd with Constantine At least that age could evidently know what was the faith of Christendom in the age of the Apostles great Grand-children and they again be certainly assured of the Doctrin of the Apostles disciples their Grandfathers Which is an evidence beyond all testimony of writers that since Constantines time it was known by a kind of self-sight what the Grandchildren of the Apostles held and it could not be doubted of them but they knew and held the doctrin of the
a different question to ask Whether an opinion be Heresy and Whether the Maintainer be an Heretick the opinion becomes heretical by being against Tradition without circumstances but the Person is not an Heretick unless he knows there is such a Tradition Now St. Cyprians case was about a doctrin included in a practice which he saw well was the custome of the African but knew not to be so of the universal Church till some congregation of the whole Christian World had made it evident And herein consists the excuse St. Austin alledges for St. Cyprian 't is true I have no assurance this Apology can be alledged for John 22. but another perhaps may that the multitude of Fathers which he conceiv'd to be on his side might perswade him the opposite opinion could not be a constant Tradition There remains only Bellarmins excuse to be justify'd which is not of so great moment Divines helping themselvs by the way that occurrs best to them and missing in such reasons without any scandal to their neighbours One of these two solutions will generally satisfie all such objections as are drawn from some fathers mistakes against the common Faith For nothing can be more certain then if any Father had known the doctrin contrary to his errour to have been universally taught in the Catholik Church by a derivation from their ancestors beyond the memory of any beginning he would readily without dispute have submitted to such an Authority and so much the sooner as he being neerer the Fountain could less doubt that the stream of which he saw no other rise reach'd home to the Spring-head This therfore is evident that whoever erred knew nothing of such a Tradition whencesoe're that ignorance took its root the severall causes of which depend upon the several cases of their mistakes here not pressed and therfore not examin'd THE SIXTH ENCOUNTER Disabling three other Arguments brought against Tradition THe seventh objection pretends not only different but opposite Traditions might be deriv'd from the Apostles And this they support with these two crutches one consists in a demurrer that the contrary is not proved the other in an Instance that it plainly hapned so in the case of the Quartadecimani who inherited from St. John a certain custom which was condemned by a practice deriv'd from some other Apostles But the weaknesse of this objection appears by its very proposal For since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately and exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostles we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently neither is Tradition And that this word universally may not seem by slight of hand cog'd into the definition on purpose to take away this objection the necessity of it is evident because all that weare the name of Christian unanimously agreeing that in point of truth one Apostle could not contradict another wherever two such Traditions are possible to be found it absolutely follows no point of truth is engaged An inference expresly verified in the example of the Quartadecimans their contention being meerly about a Ceremony not an Article of Faith Wherfore only indifferent and unnecessary practises are subjects of such a double Tradition and by consequence such Traditions are not of Christian beliefe or concerning matters here in controversy this very definition rather directly excluding them The eighth Argument seems to take its rise from our own confessions telling us We acknowledge some points of Faith to have come in later then others and give the cause of it that the Tradition whereon such points rely was at the beginning a particular one but so that yet at the time when it became universal it had a testimony even beyond exception by which it gain'd such a general acknowledgment The example of this is in certain Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps whereof in St. Jerom's time the Greek Churches refus'd the one and the Latin the other yet now both have prevaild into an universal reception To which I return this clear answer 't is the nature of things acted that depend on Physical and mutable causes to have divers degrees in divers parts according to the unequall working of the Causes and so Christ having deliver'd by the hands of his Apostles two things to his Church his Doctrin as the necessary and substantial aliment thereof and his Scriptures ad abundantiam it was convenient the strength of Tradition for one should far exceed its strength for the other yet so that even the weaker should not fail to be assured and certain Upon this reason the Doctrin was deliver'd to all the Apostles and by them to the whol community of Christians the Scriptures to some particular person or Church yet such whose credit was untainted and from them by degrees to be spread through the whol Church and communicated to the Pastors in the Books themselvs to the people by their Pastors reading and explications For who does not know before Printing was invented the Bible was not every mans money Whence it appears Scriptures are derived to us by a lower degree of Tradition then that of Catholik doctrin and consequently our Faith and acceptance due to them is not of so high a nature as what we are bound to in respect of doctrin For the sense of Scripture is to be judged by the doctrin as the Church and custom of Antiquity teaches us alwaies commanding and practising that no man exercise his wits in interpreting the holy Scripture against the receiv'd Faith of the Church as in all matters of science they who are Masters in the Art judge the text of Books written upon such subjects by their unwritten skil and practical experience And here I would willingly ask what such Protestants as object this to us can answer for themselvs since they directly professe not to know Scripture by the Spirit and therfore must necessarily rely on Tradition especially those who take for their rule to accept only such Books for Canonical as were never doubted of for they cannot deny but the Scriptures were receiv'd in one Church before another as the Epistles of St. Paul St. John or St. Marks Gospel c. and how do they admit the Apocalyps so long refused by the Greek Churches whom they use to prefer before the Latin But they presse us farther that if a particular Tradition became universal this depended on the Logick of those Ages to discern what testimony was beyond exception I demand what signifies Logick do they mean common sense sufficient to know three and four make seven or wit enough to comprehend and manage with a just degree of discretion the ordinary occurrences in humane actions If they do I must confess it depends on Logick For I cannot think God Almighty deliver'd the Scriptures to Apes or Elephants who have a meer imitation of reason in their outward carriage but to Men that have truly understanding and a capacity of evidence within
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
would soon come to an end of his addition unlesse he put mens strength and nimblenesse to be infinite But to sit Judge of Religion of eternal bliss and damnation some curious and unhappy wits dare think requires neither so much indifferency nor reflection as the composition of quantity Yet I cannot but admire it could scape a piercing ey to discern that as the consequent of Mr. Thinns discourse is ridiculous and impossible so that of the proposed demonstration is evident and undeniable For what ingenuous forehead will deny but such verities as all the world allows to remain still untainted in the Church of Rome have descended by this traditionary way to us from Christ Wherfore both the possibility and actuality of this way is not only acknowledg'd by the unanimous confession of all parties but its force and efficacy made evident by the downright violence of reason all the controversie being meerly about the multitude and sufficiency of the things receiv'd not the impotency of the means to convey them to us But to make an end of this petty Question I appeal to all Masters nay even Scholars in Geometry whether this form of arguing be not the same that Euclid Archimedes and Apollonius use in their severest demonstrations As when Euclid undertakes to demonstrate this plain and elementary Theoreme that No Circle can touch another in more then one point himself acts the part of the Denier and according to the law of Mathematicks supposes at random the other point to see whether the Proposition be maintainable and if the Contactus in the point assign'd be proved impossible by an argument applyable to any other that can be offered the Theoreme remains infallibly demonstrated and the Rules of that precise and strict Science perfectly comply'd with The third opposition is drawn out of a conceited impossibility of the case and so they demand how can it come to passe that all the Doctors of one age should meet together to instruct the world of Scholars that are to succeed them in the next an action if not impossible at least so incredible as by no means to be aver'd without legitimate Authority which they say is wanting And further should we undertake that not only all Doctors but all men of one age met with the men of the next to teach them it were an enterprize so highly impossible as not to be thought on even among the wildest capriches of a Romance yet to so hard straits are we driven that we must defend the possibility of this later assertion Which to compasse we distinguish this word Together as capable of signifying an unity either in place or time and if the Opponent mean one Age cannot meet another in a Town or great Hall as Councils use I am easily perswaded such interviews are impossible but if this Assembly needs only the unity of time I think it will require but a moderate stock of faith to believe either that men of the same Age live together in that Age or that Fathers meet with their Children If then we put all Fathers and Mothers all Pastors and Teachers to make one Age and all Children and young persons who come to be instructed and afterward outlive their Tutors to compose the other age I see no great impossibility in this position but a clear one in the contrary For I cannot believe the Opponents think men since Christs time start out of mole-hils with clods on their heads as it seems Empedocles and Horace imagined and the Toscans of their wise Tages high Master of their skill in Augury And this answer cuts off another difficulty urg'd by certain Speculatists that because in some rude times they imagine the learned were few and therfore subject to corruption by hopes or fears they might more easily be prevail'd with to proclaim a fals Tenet in that Age whence this claim of infallibility would remain broken But the former answer saves it for since neither the great multitude of Instructors nor instructed persons can meet in any other assembly then that of the whole and open World all possibility of corruption is evidently avoided THE THIRD ENCOUNTER Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition THe fourth opposition denys the necessity of assigning any Age wherein an errour may be said to have crept in because say they an errour might begin first in one Country and insensibly steal over into another without any notice taken of its novelty so that there is no time wherin its beginning is discoverable For proof they instance in some errour held by divers Hereticks in divers ages and tell you the best Historian knows who was first mentioned to have broacht that errour wheras perhaps a less diligent or careless Writer may cite some middle or late Author attributing to him the original invention of that opinion To this we reply 't is too desperate an Answer to call a hundred years an insensible time to suppose all the Pastors stupify'd and the Doctors asleep for a whole century together At least let us ask this fair question Was there no Doctor or Bishop made it his business to promote that new opinion within a hundred years If you say no how could an innovation of any considerable importance get footing which had no eminent patron If you say yes see whether that was not the occasion of impugning all heresies when extraordinary persons divulged them I but you 'l say it was so transcendent a Doctor that he overtopt all Here I confess my weakness for if some sky-faln Angel indeed should come with tongue and pen more then humane I doubt not but he might perhaps endanger a great part of the Church but if we make our comparison only betwixt men who ever had the like reputation in the Greek Church as Origen yet he was condemned by the same Church Who was more eloquent then Eusebius Caesariensis more cunning then Eusebius Nicomediensis more subtle then Arius Let us add a faction so powerful as to make ten Councils to number three hundred Bishops yet notwithstanding all this the Arians were condemned The Dragon drew but a third part of the Stars and the Apostle has armd us even against the treachery of Angels charging that in spight of them we cleave fast to what we have receiv'd to what was Preach'd to us that is to Tradition For rely but on what in memory of our own age the Church has universally held and deliver'd as from Christ and no subtlety of men or Angels can make you mistake Yet Let it be supposed some unparallel'd Brain had the power to make a doctrin universal could this stand with the still way of creeping in insensibly Is not this position that a Doctor was so great took so much pains to divulge his opinion wrote so many Books in defence of it that he overcame all opposers and at last made it universal and yet all this while the new doctrin stole in unawares the Pastors of the Church
so to Religion as to be accounted Articles of Faith if they contradict some other fore-taught Article then the Argument before explicated concerning the infallibility of Tradition and the creeping in of Errours against it returns to its force If neither of these why are they false or upon what grounds condemned But peradventure he excepts not against the Truths but the obligation to believe and profess them Admitting then the additional points to be in themselvs true why will not the Opposer assent to them has he a demonstration against them No for then they could not be true Has he such Arguments that nothing opposite is equivalent to their eminent credibility No for setting aside demonstration no argument can be comparable to the Churches Authority The reason therfore if the inward thoughts be faithfully sifted will at length appeare no other then the preferring his own Opinion before the judgement of the Church which being the effect of an obstinate and malepert pride makes no legitimate excuse for not believing THE FOURTH ENCOUNTER That unlearned Catholiks rely upon the infallibility of Tradition THe next exception is of main importance for it undermines the demonstration at the very root denying that the Church of Rome relys on Tradition and having divided the believers into learned and unlearned first undertakes to prove the unlearn'd not to be grounded on Tradition at least not for their whole Faith For if a question arise never thought on before and once a Council determine the Controversie that decree is accepted as if it had come from Christ by Tradition and all professe a readiness to obey and therfore are like to perform their word if occasion be offerd Besides in Catechisms and instructions the Common-people are not taught that the doctrine comes handed down to them from the Apostles In Sermons we see when any proposition of difficulty or concernment is treated proofs are alleag'd out of Scripture and ancient Fathers a practise even the fathers themselvs continually observe who having propos'd a point are ready to adde it is not they alone that teach this doctrin but the Apostles or Christ or some renouned Father never mentioning Tradition unlesse to oppose or disable it when some Hereticks have laid claim to it as the Quartadecimans Chyliasts Communicants of Infants and the like The charge I confess is fierce let us see what powder it bears what shot We agree the Church comprehends both learned and unlearned and so are bound to maintain that both sorts rely on Tradition As for the first objection then concerning the readiness to embrace a Councils definition with the same assent as if the truth were descended by Tradition I can either and indifferently grant or deny it Since if I please to grant it I have this secure retreat that a conditional proposition has no force unless the condition be possible and for the possibility of the condition I distinguish the subject which may be matter of Practice and Obedience or a speculative proposition Of the first I can allow the assent to be the same that is an equal willingness to observe it Of the second I deny it ever was or can be that a Council should define a question otherwise then by Tradition Therefore to rely on the Councils definition taks not away but confirms the relying on Tradition This if need were I could easily justifie by the expresse proceedings of all the principal Councils Thus the condition having never been put nor supposed ever will be all this Argument rests solely on the Objectors credit and is with as much ease rejected as it was proposed Now should I chuse according to my above reserv'd liberty to deny such equality of assent the Opponent has offerd no proof and so the quarrel is ended for though I could produce instances to the contrary I think it not fit to multiply questions when the argument can be solved with a simple denial But how the Opponent can justify the second branch of his exception that in Catechisms this doctrin is not taught I am wholly ignorant As far as my memory will serve me I never heard the Creed explicated but when the Catechist came to the Article of the Catholick Church he told them how Catholick signify'd an universality of place and time and that for this title of Catholick we were to rely on her testimony Likewise in the word Apostolick he noted that the Apostles were the founders of the Church and her doctrin theirs as being first receiv'd from them and conserv'd by the Church ever since and that for this reason we were to believe her Authority Thus you see that famous phrase of the Colliers faith is built on this very principle we maintain True it is Catechists do not ordinarily descend to so minute particularities as to tel ignorant people whether any position may be exempt from this general Law But then we also know the rule Qui nihil excipit omnia includit Sermons upon which the third instance is grounded are of another nature their intention being not so much literally to teach the Articles of Christian doctrin as to perswade and make what is already believ'd sink into the Auditory with a kind of willingness easiness that their faith be quickned into a principle of action to govern their lives the principal end perhaps for which the Scripture was deliver'd and recommended to us Therfore neither the common practice nor proper design or use of Sermons reaches home to make us understand on what grounds the hearts of Catholicks rely who after all disputations retire themselvs to this safe guard To believe what the Catholik Church teaches as none can be ignorant that has had the least convers with such Catholiks as profess not themselvs Divines For the last period of this objection where the Fathers are brought in to cry out against Tradition and Hereticks made the sole pretenders to that title 't is a bare assertion without so much as a thin rag of proof to cover it of which I believe hereafter we shall have particular occasion to discourse more largely Thus cannot all the diligence I am able to use find any ground of difficulty in the belief of the unlearned but that assuredly their faith is establisht on Tradition if they rely on the Church as it is Catholick and Apostolick which all profess from the gray hair to him that but now begins to lisp his Creed THE FIFTH ENCOUNTER That Catholick Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition T is time now to come to the second part and see what is objected against the learneder sort and the long Robe's Resolution of their faith into Tradition And first is brought on the stage a couple of great Cardinals Perron and Bellarmin the former saying out of St. Austin that the Trinity Freewill Penance and the Church were never exactly disputed before the Arians Novatians Pelagians and Donatists Whence is infer'd that as more was disputed so more was concluded therfore
more known and consequently not all deriv'd by Tradition But if we should answer that disputing betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks is on the Catholick part no other then proving and defending those points which were deriv'd by Tradition and found in Christian action and behaviour this argument were cut up by the roots and all pretence and colour of it taken away Which is the very truth of the business this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots the Catholick Religion securely possesses the World and upon such opposition is at first surpriz'd and the Divines perhaps put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads who easily conceit themselvs wiser then their forefathers and scorn authority unless reason proportion'd to their capacity or humour marshal it in Nevertheless because disputing cannot chuse but bring to light some deductions consequent to the first principally-defended Position I shall not deny the Church may come to know somwhat which haply before she never reflected on But then those new truths belong to the science we call Theology not to Faith and even for those the Church rely's on Tradition as far as they themselvs emerge from doctrins deliver'd by Tradition so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin is that by much canvasing more cleer proofs and answers are discovered or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries acquir'd Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope Iohn 22. from being an Heretick though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God before the day of Judgment because the Church had not as yet defin'd any thing concerning it I confess many more might be produc'd deprehended in the like actions and before all St. Austin excusing St. Cyprian on the same score Now to draw a conclusion from hence this is to be added that surely if there had been a Tradition neither the Pope nor St. Cyprian could be ignorant of it and therfore not excusable upon that account But in truth I wonder this point is no harder press'd for if any would take pains and look into our Schoolmen they might find very many of them maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some points not clearly express'd in Scripture whence it seems to follow they build not the whole body of their Faith upon Tradition For satisfaction of this difficulty I must note there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we do so The Platonists and Peripateticks are divided about the manner of vision Aristotle teaching that the object works upon the eye Plato that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm the Platonists saw in one fashion the Peripateticks in another Some as I fear may be experienc'd in too many of our modern Scepticks are of this desperate and unreasonable opinion that we have no maxims evident by Nature but contradictories may be true at once the rest of Philosophers think otherwise yet we see in all natural and civil actions both sides proceed as if those maxims were evident and irresistable So likwise there is a wide distance betwixt these two questions what a man relys on for his assent of Faith what he says or thinks he relys on Look but among the Protestants or other Sectaries they are al taught to answer they rest wholly on the Bible the Bible for their Faith but nine parts of ten seek no farther then the Commands of their own Church that is all those who either cannot read or make it not their study to be cunning in the Scriptures or have so much modesty as to know themselvs unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text who perhaps are not the less numerous but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants Whence farther it is clear that to ask on what a private person grounds his belief and on what the Church is yet a more different question especially if you enquire into what he thinks the Church resolvs her faith For supposing the Church as to some verity should rely on Scripture or Councils a Divine may know the Church holds such a position and yet though of a just size of learning not know or at least not remember on what ground she maintains it and in that case no doubt but his faith stands on the same foundation with that of the Church yet he cannot perhaps suddenly tel whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils To conclude therfore this demand whether Bellarmin himself rely'd on Tradition for all points has not the least resemblance with this other whether he thought the Church did so And to come yet closer to the question 't is evident every believer under that notion as a believer is unlearned and ignorant For as such he rests upon his teacher who in our present case is undoubtedly the Church as Catholick and Apostolick so far therfore the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority As for the other part of the interrogatory on what he thinks the Church rely's for her doctrin it may be enquir'd either in common or particular In common relating generally to the body and substance of Catholick doctrin there is no doubt among Catholicks but their reliance is upon Tradition this being the main profession of great and smal learned and unlearned that Christian Religion is and has been continued in our Church since the days of our Saviour the very same faith the Apostles taught all Nations and upon that score they receive it Speaking thus therfore no Catholick makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition There remains now only what learned men think concerning the ground wheron the Church rely's in some particular cases which we have already shewn concerns not their private belief as 't is the foundation of their spiritual life for so they rely on the Church and what the Church rely's on and by consequence it will prove but a matter of opinion in an unnecessary question belonging purely to Theology not Faith whatever is said in it Whence Divines in this may vary without any prejudice to the Church or salvation either in private or in order to Government seeing the main foundation is surely establisht that every believer as such rely's on the Church immediatly This difficulty therfore is so far resolv'd that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point since it follows not that the Church or any particular member therof rely's on such a ground no not Bellarmin himself though he conceive in some points the Church rely's on Scripture or Councils But since St. Austin marches in the head of this Troop for defence of St. Cyprian let us proceed with more diligence and respect in reconciling the difficulty We are to remember 't is
we may add Salmeron who has the boldness to say Doctores quo juniores eo perspicaciores Poza is no les audacious in citing opinions defin'd against the Fathers Erasmus says myriades Articulorum proruperunt Fisher Bishop and Martyr and as learned as any in his age consents that Purgatory was brought in by little and little and Indulgences after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory Alphonsus de Castro puts in the rank of newly receiv'd Doctrines Indulgences Transubstantiation and the procession of the holy Ghost But beyond all is the fact of Clement the eighth a grave and wise Pope who desirous to end the controversy between the Dominicans and the Jesuits accused by them of Pelagianism neither sent for learned men by way of a Council to know what their Forefathers had taught them nor examin'd with which of them the purest Ages sided but refer'd the whole matter to what St. Austin said and so it had been defin'd had not Cardinal Perrons advice prevail'd And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion that he knew not himself what he held wheras before him all the ancients sided with the Jesuits Thus far that Book I know this term Defining is frequently used by our Divines in matters of the Churches determinations nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word if the thing be understood to wit that Defining is nothing els but the acknowledging and clearing a Tradition from the dirt and rubbidg opposers had cast upon it For the rest that some Fathers have had their eys ty'd in particular points so far as not to see the force of Tradition by which the Church had notice of the truth of some position is a thing not to be doubted And if it were fit or necessary I could bring instances of bold Divines in our days so blinded by arguments that they see not the light of Tradition in some particular questions and so the expressions only changed hold condemned heresies So short is the sphear of our discours if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our Logick or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the ability of our Reason But what consequence any can draw out of these sayings against Tradition I understand not unless this be taken for a Maxim that every one must necessarily know of a special point that it is deriv'd by Tradition because really 't is so an inconsequence I hope already sufficiently demonstrated Now if these two can stand together that truly the Church has a Tradition for a point and nevertheless some learned man may be ignorant of it this argument has no force at all As to the positions he cites for newly adopted into the family of faith he fairly shews the priviledg he and his Master had to speak any thing that sounded to his purpose and let his adversaries take care whether true or no For nothing is more clear then that the validity of Baptism by Hereticks was a Tradition and decided by it so the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgment the spirituality of Angels are not yet held matters of Faith but only Theological conclusions as likewise the souls being concreated to the perfecting of the body Then for the blessed Virgin 's being free from actual sin as also her Assumption and her delivery without pain which others add these either are known by Tradition or not matters of Catholick Faith and so no ways advance our Adversaries pretences For Alphonsus de Castro 't is plain by his very expressions either he means the manner only or at most some circumstances unessential to the things and therefore certainly not cited without some violence offerd to his words Poza is a condemned Authour and Salmeron's saying not to be followed or to be understood as it is whence he took it in such things as later disputes have beaten out more plainly Erasmus was learned in Criticism and one whom if not others his very English Patrons Warham of Canterbury Fisher of Rochester and More in the Chancery exempt from all calumny of being a desertor of the ancient Faith besides his own Books especially his Epistle Ad Fratres inferioris Germaniae by effects demonstrate his loyalty whatever bad impressions a certain liberty of practising his wit too freely may have made in some even great and eminent persons But what he speaks concerning Articles of Faith he either took from the scoldings of some ignorant Divines who are ready to call every word they found not in their books when they were Schollers Heresie or else because truly he understood not what belong'd to Decisions in that kind There remain two Authorities really considerable one of the holy Bishop Fisher the other of the prudent Pope As for the first I conceive there is a great equivocation through want of care and warinesse in distinguishing For let us take either the Council of Florence or Trent in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points those Councils defin'd are either denied by the Greeks or brought in by private revelations or new interpretations of Scripture For how could he be ignorant that the Greeks had agreed to the Latin Church about the definition of Purgatory in the Council of Florence or forget himself so far as not to remember a publick practice Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of the Penal injunctions laid upon sinners Besides he says the Latins did not receive Purgatory at once but by little and little Whence 't is evident by the name Purgatory he means not only so much as is established in the Council but the manner also and circumstances were introduced by revelations of private persons and argumentations of Divines The like he expresses of Indulgences saying They began after men had trembled a while at the pains of purgatory Whence it is plain he contented not himself with the precise subject of the Councils Definitions or the sense of the Church but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them So that by speaking in general terms and not distinguishing the substance of Purgatory from the Accidents and dressing of it as likewise in Iudulgences not separating what the Church has alwaies practiz'd from the interpretative extention which Divines attribute to them he is mistaken to suppose new Articles of Faith may be brought into the Church Neither imports it that he uses those words No Orthodox man now doubts for that 's true of such Conclusions as are term'd Theological and generally receiv'd in the Schools yet are not arriv'd to the pitch of making a point of Catholick belief besides he expresses himself that this generality extends no farther then That there is a Purgatory In Clement the eighth's action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the Definition he went about to make And upon the immediate step we both joyntly
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
clear in his comment upon St. Matthew and upon Ezekiel where he cals it a Jewish Fable l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of argues nothing of Tradition but the numerosity of that sort of believers occasion'd by the writings of the Heretick Apollinaris as the same Saint testifies Comment 10. in Esaiam Neither doth St. Austin stick to condemn it since those words c. 7. 24. de Civit. Dei esset utcunque tolerabilis signifie that it is not tolerable Yet truly I cannot but admire that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been deriv'd duely and really from the Apostles by verbal Tradition should conceive that either St. Hierom or St. Austin could think such a Tradition to be no sign of the Churches doctrin or not care whether it were or no which seems to me the same as to impute to these Saints a neglect of what they thought to be the Churches opinion or els to the Church a neglect of what was Christs doctrin if She would not accept what She knew was descended verbally from Him or at least that St. Austin and St. Hierom lay this great slander of neglecting the known doctrin of Christ upon the Church THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice THe Chiliad errour seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian which speaks far louder for it self And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence whose testimony is that The Arians would gladly have been try'd by the writings yet remaining of those Authors who lived before the Council of Nice for in them will be found certain propositions which now since the Church-Language is more examin'd would make the Speaker thought an Arian From whence the Opposers infer that before the Council of Nice there was no Tradition for the mystery of the blessed Trinity But to maintain this consequence I see no proof for the Cardinal's words clearly import that the Fathers before that Council though being Catholiks they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity yet in somephrases spake like Arians How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent that these Fathers believ'd not the Trinity or had not receiv'd by Tradition the knowledg of that Mystery I confess my self unable to see the least probability in such an inference If it be permitted to guess what they aim at that make this objection I believe it is that some propositions concerning the Trinity by disputation and discussion have been either deduced or clear'd which before were not remark'd do draw so much consequence upon the mystery as since is found they do out of which they think it follows that such propositions were not delivered by Tradition and so not our whole Faith To this the answer is ready that as he who says a mystery was taught by the Apostles does not intend to say the Apostles taught what the words were in every Language which were to signify this Mystery so neither is his meaning that they taught how many ways the phrase in one language might be varied keeping the same sense But as they left the former to the natural Idiom of the speaker or writer so the latter to the Rules of Grammar as likewise they left it to the speakers skil in Logick to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they deliver'd the Mysteries It is not therfore to be expected that men who had receiv'd the Mystery simply and plainly should without both art and attention know how in different cases to explicate it according to the exact rules of Science And thus the defect of the argument or arguer is that he supposes not only the main verity should be formally convey'd by Tradition but all manner of explication and in all terms which the subtlety or importunity of Hereticks could afterward drive the Catholicks to express this Mystery by a task both impossible to be perform'd and most unreasonable to require and perhaps unprofitable if it were done Nor therfore does it follow that somthing is to be believ'd which came not down by Tradition For as he that says Peter is a man says he is a living creature a body a substance though he uses not those words because all is comprehended in the term Man so he that delivers One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost delivers that those persons are not Alia but Alij and that truly the Son is not an Instrument a commanded servant c. Yet as it may happen that one man sees another to be but knows not what the definition of him is nor needs he ordinarily know it because he knows the thing defined so may it also chance that some Fathers who knew well enough the mystery might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of Logick and 't is no good consequence The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity therfore they held it not or had not learn'd it by Tradition Yet I must also intimate these differences of speech proceeded many times from the various usage of the words as the Greeks generally say the Father is cause of the Son the Latines abhor it calling him Principium which difference is not in the meaning but in the equivocation of the expression So we read in St. Athanasius that he found an opposition in some people one sort saying there were in the Trinity three Hypostases and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Hypostasis and St. Hierom though perfect in the Greek Tongue was so exceedingly troubled with this question that he sent to St. Damasus for the resolution of it yet he wel knew there was no difference in the sense but only in the terms however he fear'd lest by the wrong use of the words he might unawares be drawn into a wrong meaning So likewise did St. Athanasius find that the two former parties of which we spake agreed in the Catholick sense though their words were opposite The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis which primarily and radically signify the same thing Aristotle telling us that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it appears this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura to which the word substantia by use is now appropriated when we speak of this mystery but only in a secondary sense Again the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando or Subsistendo and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia Now applying this to the mystery of the Trinity Because in God there is one common Nature abstrahible from three proprieties therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis et tres Ousiae For
captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
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
the former ages more pure then the later since we admit no errours in either but make no question that the universality of Fathers in any two ages held the same doctrin and so the Faith of the second Tricentury being known we account that of the former undoubted especially we all believing the latter Fathers receiv'd their doctrin from the former not by reading their Books which belong'd to few but by being instructed from their mouths who had receiv'd it from them But he thinks his Reformers very probably maintain that Christian Religion has long been in a dangerous consumption declining still by little and little and losing in every Age some certain degree of its Primitive vigour and native complexion to which purpose he cites the words of Hegesippus out of Eusebius That this infirmity began as soon as the Apostles were dead This position sounds to me as if the opinions they cry out against for abominations enter'd so early into the Church and have continued in it so long that they can now reckon fifteen Centuries nor can I desire either a more ingenuous confession or stronger proof of the truth of those doctrines which the nature of Christianity has preserv'd with such exact care and constant tenderness that in so many ages not one of them has been forgotten not one of them ever oppos'd by those who in all generations have stil been accounted the sound party of Christians Besides I should expect that so foul a blemish as these bold accusers lay upon the Church viz. that she has been an Idolatrous and abominable Harlot ever since the death of the Apostles ought not to be grounded on bare probable conjectures but evidently convinced under penalty that otherwise the Calumniators should suffer at least as heavy a Censure as they attempt to pass against the Church But because for the maintenance of this odious slander he chiefly rely's on Hâ—gesippus's testimony let the witness be fairly examin'd and that according to the Authors own citation which runs to this effect After the Apostles death the Masters of Seduction began publickly and professedly to vent their falssy named Science against the preaching of the truth which in plain English signifies no more then that Hereticks rose up against the Church and is so far from arguing the Churches corruption that it strongly concludes her purity since the doctrin which falshood contradicts must necessarily be it self true Thus clearly it follows from these words that the wrong imputed corruption was out of the Church and soundnesse of Faith in her Communion But if we look into the Text exactly the meaning of that passage is this After the Apostles death the consistence of Heresie took its beginning that is Hereticks grew into a body daring to shew their heads where before they lurk'd for fear of the Apostles which expression manifestly proves They began to make congregations distinct from the true Church And this being evident we cannot be troubled with those words going before in Higesippus which say till then the Church was a virgin and uncorrupted for it is a phrase natural enough to call the body corrupted whose putrify'd parts are cut off or rotted away as those degenerate members were from the Church of God And so this very Daillè could cite upon another occasion these self-same Innovators under the direct notion of Hereticks when he thought it might better serve his turn THE THIRD SURVEY Of his 3d. and 4 th Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works AS to the third point of Forgery our Monsieur dilates himself exceedingly but how much to the purpose some few notes wil discover First he objects many counterfeit Books that are not now extant nor have been these many Ages and think you not there must necessarily arise a strange obscurity in our Controversies from such forgeries Then he complains that Transcribers have put wrong names to books either for the better selling them or out of ignorance and in some of them the question is about Authors almost of the same age all which is likewise little to the point for where the Ages opinion and not the particular credit of the Author's learning is requir'd the authority of one understanding writer ought generally to weigh as much as anothers and this is the case in controversies where the sense of the Church not that of private Doctors is the subject of our inquiry Neither must I forget his defamation of the ancient Christians as counterfeiters of the Sybils Prophesies out of the calumny of the wicked Celsey which neverthelesse we see Lactantius stands upon to the Heathens faces He omits not for a notorious piece of forgery that the Canons of the Council of Sardica are cited as of the Council of Nice wherin nothing is more certain then that the Canons were true though not admitted by the Greeks who being cal'd would not come to the Council So the question stands meerly upon this whether they ought to be cal'd the Canons of Nice being made by a Council gather'd afterwards to confirm the former which the Latines defend and the Greeks dislike Doubtless a main forgery to be urg'd by this temperate man whose charity no question would have winkt at small faults Yet because no ordinary satisfaction will content him though those Popes were all both commended by the Ages in which they liv'd and reputed Saints by the ensuing Church and One of them that great Saint Leo whose Oracles were so highly esteem'd in the Council of Chalcedon I will briefly set down the case The Arian Emperour Constantius though yet for fear not declar'd such summon'd a Generall Council of the Eastern and Western Churches to a Town cal'd Sardica There assembled betwixt 3 and 4 hundred Bishops The Arians seeing themselvs like to come to the worst by the number of the Orthodox party upon sought pretences went to another place cald Philippopolis where making an assembly of their own they term'd it from the Emperours Summons the Council of Sardica And partly by their diligence and sending circular Letters thorow Christendom partly by joyning with a great faction of Donatists but chiefly as it may be justly believ'd by the power of the Emperours Officers made the name of the Council of Sardica passe for the denomination of their Conventicle both in the East and thorow such remote parts as had not special intelligence of what pass'd in Sardica Hence any Canons pretended to be order'd at Sardica were blasted before known wherupon it fel out that the small party which knew the truth was forc'd in their collections of Canons to place these next to the Council of Nice as their order requir'd without a name and as an Appendix of the Council In this posture these Popes found them about an hundred yeers after and whether it was that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the Accident or whether they thought the action legitimate and the ground of it sufficient they urg'd them as
the known doctrin of the present Church which she practises as deriv'd from Christ and wherof she knows no other beginning He that is not conscious to himself of this is no Heretick before God and he that carries that guilt in his breast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever seeming reasons he has for himself and whoever teaches any point contrary to this tradition not knowing such contrariety teaches indeed Heresie but is no Heretick Let them agree in this chief Principle or Rule of Faith and the rest wil be only material errours in them But the cause they perversly defend is inconsistent with any such submission their own Consciences and the evidence of the fact stigmatising their unlawful breach from the universal doctrin of the Church from which they rebelliously separated themselvs As to the Fathers opinion concerning the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants he must give us leave to think the Council of Trent was better informed then he as is in the precedent Apologie briefly discussed That St. Ignatius cals him a murderer of Christ who fasts Saturdaies signifies no more then that he does an action which of its nature testifies our Saviour died twice that is upon Saturday as wel as Friday though this man of truth in his first chapter vouchsafes not to admit any writings of St. Ignatius for true The aspersion laid upon St. Hierom St. Ambrose annd Tertullian as using Tragical expressions without occasion is but a gap to Libertinage and vilifying of vertue their sayings being true though this Reformer dislike them His urging that the modern points of Controversie are not resolv'd in former Creeds or Councils is of little importance for every one knows subsequent Councils have alwaies been so far from thinking it unlawful to add to the former that such additions are the very business and end of their assembling and yet as the seventh Council testify'd they confirm'd all that was either in Scripture or Tradition by binding us to these two pillars of truth He is farther troubled that divers Provinces should out of St. Hierom's authority esteem the commands they finde have been in use among their forefathers to be institutions deriv'd from the Apostles as if either the Apostles might not have left divers customs in divers places for some practices of less concernment or that in St. Hieroms time it was so hard to know when a custom of importance started if it began since the Apostles which could be scarce three hundred yeers In the last Chapter of his first Book he thinks it impossible to know the belief of the ancient Church either universal or particular touching any point of controversies now debated among us And truly as he understands the question he seems to have some reason for he professes that all the positive evidence out of Antiquity comes short of satisfying him unless we can make good that no one did in those daies secretly hold the contrary a proof that certainly none but a mad man would either expect of another or himself attempt Nevertheless this he exacts of us and therfore cites St. Hierom for the equality of Priests and Bishops though he writes expresly against it and the place he cites clearly speaks of the confusion of the names of Presbyter and Episcopus Likewise when St. Hierom testify's some Bishops held with Vigilantius he thinks that sufficient to make St. Hieroms side not universal as if Bishops could not be Hereticks He adds St. Hierom by his passionate speeches against Vigilantius derogats from the authority of his testimony I believe him if he speaks of his own party who are easily perswaded to diminish the credit of Fathers but not if he mean among Catholicks who think the modern Heretiks no better then Vigilantius and his followers Thus have we briefly pass'd over his first Book THE SIXTH SURVEY How the Authority of Fathers is infallible Yet these last five Chapters and the whole next Book will put us to the pains of explicating what Authority Catholiks give the Fathers towards decision of controversies and how they are to argue out of them if they intend to conclude any opposite opinion an Heresy To be as short and clear in this point as I can I shall begin with some propositions wherin I believe all sides agree First that the Fathers as particular Authors might erre and no one 's single testimony how eminent soever is sufficient to make a necessary Verity upon the sole account of being his judgment Secondly that seldom or never in any controversy the Fathers cited for one part are so many as to make the doctrin deliver'd a matter of Faith out of this precise reason that it is their opinion For though their multitude should arrive to the full sum of three hundred yet it exceeds not the number of Heretiks nay even Heretik Bishops who unanimously conspir'd to oppose the Catholick Faith If then all certainty of things contingent and fallible in their individuals depend upon universality and the number we discours of though great yet consider'd in its own immediate force make but a particular it cleerly follows No question can be evidently convinc'd by the pure numerosity of produced Fathers Thus far I conceive both parties are bound to consent My third proposition therfore is If a certain number of Fathers be sufficient to convince the universality of an opinion in the Church how little soever that number be 't is strong enough to support an Article of Faith not because it is their opinion but the Churches attested by them to be the Faith of the Church and by the Church to be Christs And thus remains declared what Authority Catholiks attribute to the Fathers in reference to deciding Controversy's The next point is about the exercise of this Authority how a Catholick writer may by the testimony of Fathers conclude the general Faith of the Church and consequently the infallibility of the point controverted For which we must lay these grounds First that it has always been the nature of the Catholik Church to decline communion with those Churches she esteem'd erroneons in any material point as Idolatry Superstition and the like upon which pretences our modern presumers for Reformation have separated themselvs from the present Catholik Church wherfore if there be convincing testimonies that any one particular Church so known and considerable that the neighbouring Provinces must needs take notice of its publick customs embraces any doctrin or practice yet remains still peaceably in communion with the Vniversal 't is therby convinc'd the whole Catholick Church held the same not to be Idolatrous Superstitious c. If then the point be of such a nature that one part of the contradiction must necessarily be receiv'd and the other rejected it unavoydably follows the whole Church in that Age was of the same judgment with the particular one Nor is the evidence of this proposition built upon some scrap of an ancient Writer mis-interpreted as our Adversaries would infer the