persons you may learn not to be affected to your Preachers above what I have written to you about a dozen lines before to wit that they are all ordain'd for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Mysteries to the end one of you do not swell with pride or choller against another in any mans behalf and so breed Schisms and contentions among your selves This is the meaning of the Apostle as will appear to any judicious understanding that can be content to read and diligently weigh the whole composition of the discours And here we are unwillingly constrain'd to observe the desperate shifts of many of our adversaries into which either the rashness of their passions or necessity of their caus engages them for so in the Text we now treat they presently snapt at a piece of a sentence where they found this charming word written and that was enough for them without ever troubling their heads to consider or sense or connexion in order to the framing a legitimate argument For had they but taken the immediatly precedent line These I have disguized into Apollo and my self for you and then brought in the words cited That you may learn in us not to be wise above what is written the nonsense would have declar'd it self and stumbled the Reader who could not but presently have check'd at the inconsequence And the verse following would be likewise incongruous to these that you be not sweld one against another for any man For what connexion can either the words precedent or subsequent have with this that You are to learn your Faith out of the Scripture and yet I have translated the Latin Sapere or Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against the true sense for the objectours advantage wheras the true meaning is not to esteem them higher or bear themselvs as if their Masters were higher and thus the very English Translation yeilds it The latter place is out of the first to the Galathians where he warns them that whoever comes to preach any doctrin besides that which He had taught them they should refuse him communion or account him execrable This passage I have always esteem'd very strong and pregnant for Tradition and our Adversaries call it a most illustrious proof against it I confess at first I was at a loss to imagine how they could frame an argument out of so unfavourable a Text but at last I perceiv'd it might perhaps be thus St. Paul said they preach'd nothing but what was written as he testify's to Agrippa so then all he preach'd was Scripture But he commands them to receive no other doctrin but what he deliver'd them Therfore he enjoynd them to make Scripture the Rule of their Faith This is as far as I can find the full epitome of their discourse upon this Text. But considering that what is in Scripture may be deliver'd by preaching without any mention of Scripture me thinks though all St. Paul taught the Galathians had been written yet it follows not He commanded the Galathians to hold the doctrin from Scripture For those two words what we Evangeliz'd to you and what you have receiv'd signify so plainly preaching that I can collect nothing from this place but that they were to hold their Faith because He had preach'd it then which 't is impossible to imagine a more efficacious argument to demonstrate Tradition And to this effect he exaggerates his own quality that he was one who had not receiv'd his doctrin from man nor by the entermise of man but immediatly by revelation from Christ and afterwards upbraiding the Galathians for their inconstancy asks them whether they had receiv'd their Christianity by the works of the Law or ex auditu fidei by hearing of the Gospel So that in effect his command is to the Galathians to stand to his preaching that is to Tradition for their Faith and this not only against all men but even Angels should they come down from Heaven to preach any thing contrary For that the word praeter may signify contrary is too well known to be insisted on But that it signify's so here the particular occasion of this discourse makes evident St. Paul expressing that some intruded themselves seeking to overturn the Gospel of Christ and charging upon them that wheras they had begun in spirit they ended in flesh and the like Wherfore it is plain he spake of doctrin contrary to what he had preach'd But if praeter be taken for besides it will signify besides Tradition not besides Scripture there being not the least mention of Scripture Now how soundly it is proved that St. Paul taught nothing but what was written is before examin'd which yet if admitted true were nothing to the purpose For 't is not the Catholik position that all its doctrins are not contain'd in Scripture but not held from thence nor to be convinced out of the naked letter especially in a pertinacious dispute A question certainly not so much as dream'd of in this place of St. Paul And now to close this whole discourse I shall only add one short period as a prudential reflection upon the different fitness and proportion these two methods have in order to determine controversies That in case where any two parties disgree Tradition is very seldom of much as pretended by both and if at all still in points of less importance wheras Scripture is continually alledg'd by all sides how numerous soever their factions be and how fundamental soever their differences An evident sign the way of resolving by Tradition is incomparably preferrable to that of judging by the bare letter of Scripture especially if still upon examination one of the pretended opposite Traditions prove indeed either not sufficiently universal or not positively contrary to the other but perhaps a particular custom of some Province as Rebaptization or only a meer negative Tradition as that of the Greeks concerning the Holy Ghost THE EIGHTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies I Have omitted the petty quiblets of Criticism which our Adversaries use to press in divers of the places I explicated not only because they are often fals most commonly strain'd and always such pigmy bulrushes that they merit no admission into a grave discours but chiefly because considering largely the Antecedents and consequents to the Texts alledged I found the substance of them wholly mistaken and nothing to our purpose and that such arguments are the abortive issue of immature brains not able to distinguish the force of Canon shot from a Faery's squib or a boys pot-gun And I dare had I good conditions maintain that in all the differences betwixt Protestants and us Catholicks they cannot produce one place of Scripture in which the words can bear a sense that comes home to the state of the question I know many urge those of the Decalogue against Images To which I answer with words analogical to those of
't is the Grecians objection about adding this word Filioque to the Creed of Nicaea which having insisted on more largly in another place I shall pacify with this short answer Since 't is confest by both parties that the main Creed was made in that Council and received this addition from another freely and openly avow'd for such by the Roman Church the question could not be of corruption which seems to imply a secret design of imposing on the world but of the lawfulness of the Addition Now let us pass to his accusation of later times where he complains there is far more fals play His first instance is against certain varieties in the ancient Fathers that some Manuscrips or Impressions agree not with others as if every one that sets out a Book must have seen all Manuscripts or else he corrupts the Ancient Copy But that which angers him is the words omitted or added are against his tenets whence he gathers it was no casual escape but a deliberate plot of voluntary corruption but he that wil lose so much time as to take notice how weak and inconsiderable the passages are even in his own citations wil easily see this chief proof consists meerly in a bold assertion I shall therfore rely on my Readers ingenuity and only cite two or three examples for a pattern of the rest As that the word Petra is changed into Petrus in that famous sentence of St. Cyprian Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata That in St. Amhrose some books are separated which in other Copies are joyn'd together that in St. Peters life is omitted a certain Exhortation advising his Successors to abstain from secular cares Pretences so slight in themselves so impertinent to the main cause that none but a petty Polititian would have stoopt to such trivial corruptions nor any but a wrangling Sophister pretended such childish exceptions But not content with what has been done he presses us with what would have been done if I know not whose counsail had been follow'd which is nothing but the wild Chimera's of a sick brain Next he is offended that Heretical books have been forbidden and abolish'd as if any could think it reasonable sedicious Pamphlets against Kings and States should passe unreprehended in their dominions exhortations to Idolatry be permitted among the Jews or such blasphemies as pretend to prove Christ an Impostor should be tolerated among Christians I wonder calumnies so shallow so impudent and of so desperate a consequence can finde patience enough in any person of understanding to read them yet I see great wits strangly applaud them The actions therfore cal'd by him corruptions consisting only in such to the very end of his fourth Chapter you wil easily perceive that this so wel bodied Chapter also if the impertinencies with which he lards it were substracted would prove as lean and starv'd as Pharao's Oxen. Besides if we seek to direct his arrow towards the intended scope this last concerns not the ancient Fathers since now Expurgations are only for Moderns as anciently they were only against Hereticks The other objections reach no way to disable this safe and principal answer That notwithstanding all his cavils there may stil remain a sufficient number of the Fathers writings pure and incorrupted to convince the doctrin of the Catholik Church THE FOURTH SURVEY Of the fifth Chapter wherin he objects the Fathers Eloquence and that on set purpose they spake obscurely I Shall pass now to the next Flourish rather then Argument where this bold unwary man offering to prove the Fathers are hard to be understood assigns those very reasons that make all other Authors more easily understandable For first what Languages more copious more regular and wherein Schollers are more vers'd then Latin and Greek which are the Fathers Idiomes Yes says he but few arrive to that perfection in them as is truly requisite for the exact managing of Controversies Be it so But then let no others meddle with this part of Controversies like Masters but they let such on both sides try the quarrel whilst others for this part rely on them But again he renews his first complaint how smal a number are they that are fitly qualify'd to enter the lists in so difficult a combate I do not fear if this Author were ask'd of France Holland and Germany he would readily undertake to find twenty of his own side compleatly furnisht for such a skirmish and since our Party is both more extended enjoys better commodity for studying and cleerly by its numerous works shews it self far more laborious He may well allow us at least as many as he promises to produce of his own If then betwixt both may be found at the same time forty sufficiently train'd for the encounter what need we ask any more there will not want enough besides capable to prosit themselvs out of their Labours He proceeds to help himself upon St. Hieroms speech against nimium diserti and some faults of weak interpreters And presumes the places he brings clear though my sight is not quick enough to perceive it of any but one of St. Austin cont Adimant which he clears himself by adding to the Fathers Text cùm signum daret corporis sui the word only in his interpretation Then he urges Men bring obscure places to interpret Scripture but the unhappiness is his instances are of his own party He presses that the Fathers before the rising of Heresies spake ambiguously and doubtfully and that which seem'd to be against their own certain sense and meaning as he exemplify's out of St. Athanasius and St. Basil concerning some Fathers before the Arian Heresy But this Wel-meaner forgets that at least in his examples he brings the salve with the stroak for confessing 't was shew'd to be against the writers meaning he implicitly tels us either there were other precedent or subsequent expressions in the same place which made the doubtful words plain or at least so evident passages of the same Author in other places that there could be no doubt of his meaning in the ambiguous ones And truly if we observe this gentle Sophisters discours we shal easily see he imagines that proofs from the Fathers ought to be brought by the popping out of half a Sentence and never regard either what goes before or follows after as by the instances we have already examin'd you may perceive is the reform'd fashion of citing Scriptures Wheras the Books of Fathers being large and ample allow greater Carreers to those who run matches in them He adds farther that the Fathers deliver'd some things on set purpose obscurely If his meaning be they exprest their thoughts in certain occasions shortly or not fully what danger is there in that We know wel all arguments drawn from them must be made out of what they have not what they might have written and so the erudition he spends in proving this had been better employ'd to shew the
Grandfather as though such a graceless entail could prejudice the law of Nature Though not so absurd yet as weak is another Objection taken from the Jewish Cabala however it seems worthy of thanks to the Suggestor What it was is not hard to guess our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it when he reproach'd the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fathers or Elders to the ruin of Gods commands But to decipher it better I ought to divide it into matter and form The form I call the Rules the matter what was deliver'd or found out by these Rules As for the matter it seems in some way proportion'd to the proceedings of certain of our Divines who pretend to be mysticall and their imployment is in the sublime mysteries of our Faith to invent or imagin what they think congruous circumstances to move the affections to petty devotion which imaginations as they are fram'd out of good intentions so have they many weaknesses and little or no doctrin in them Conformable to this we may conceive that after there were no more Prophets among the Jews who fail'd them not long after the second building of their Temple the Rabbins began to frame explications on their Books of holy Scripture and the mysteries learn'd from the Prophets These interpretations according to the degree of their skil and prudence some perform'd better some worse But as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation not having principles of true knowledg naked before their Eys but wrapt up in Metaphors and Allegories all together went among them for sound Law Til after our Saviours time and the dispersion of that generation some foolish knave to give authority to this mess of good and bad jumbled together invented the story how Moses had deliver'd this doctrin to the Sanhedrin and they had conserv'd it by traditional conveyances from Father to Son A story as impossible and incredible to one who penetrates into the carriage of that Nation as the Fables of Jeoffrey of Monmouth and King Arthur's conquering Hierusalem Now if we look into the form we shal find it more ridiculous then any Gypses canting or the jugling of Hocus Pocus and as pernicious to true Doctrin as any Pseudomancy To make good this censure I shal in short describe their form it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture by three abuses of the Letter which as far as my memory servs me for I have not the books necessary are these One by taking every letter of a word for a whole word beginning with that letter Another by changing letters according to certain rules fram'd by themselvs The third to find numbers of years or other things by the numbers which the letters of the word compound in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers So much being deliver'd in short I cannot conceive any indifferent judgment so blunt that he sees not how far these ridling ways of explication are from the natural intention of a Writer and how destructive to all truth if used otherwise then for pleasure and as a disport of chance and encounter Our Country man Doctor Alablaster invented a far more convenient trick by purely dividing words and joyning the ends of the former to the beginnings of the following as we also do somtimes in English to disguise common words and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks But he found this age too subtle to cozen any considerable number with such trivial bables Wheras the Cahala gain'd upon the Valentinians and Gnosticks to build prodigious errours in very good earnest upon their more ridiculous invention I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased somtime to give way to such toyes through luxury of wit and gayety of humour But it is one thing to play for recreation and a far different to establish a Basis of Faith and doctrin which is abominable on such Chimerical dreams And yet this it is our Opposer would Father upon no less then Moses and the Sanhedrin and all the sacred Magistracy of the old Law Let us give a step farther and see if it were true how like it were to our case The Tradition we speak of is the publick preaching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church setled by the Apostles thorow the World This Cabala a doctrin pretended as deliver'd to few with strict charge to keep it from publicity and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few wherein you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and cozenage as in our case there is impossibility The Moderns therfore who profess Cabala may say they receiv'd it from their predecessors but they can yeild no account why any Age may not have chang'd that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber and so ther 's no possibility of farther assurance then the vote of a Council of State for its being deriv'd any higher But the Arguer demands whether they cannot ask me In what age or year their doctrin was corrupted And I answer they may very boldly But if I assign an age or year can they acquit themselvs in point of proof clearly they cannot for since there was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrin it being forbidden to be divulg'd 't is evident that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age He urges farther the notoriousness of the ly so impudent as few would venture on not reflecting that he speaks of a secret altogether incapable of notoriousness May not they add says he the dispersion of their Churches through so many Countries and Languages I yeild they may but to no purpose unless they continue Sanhedrins in every Country For otherwise this dispersion will prove but the derivation from their Council of Tiberias or such like time which is nothing to the succession from Moses Add to this that the Nation since Christs time is infamous for falsifying doctrins and corrupting Scriptures and even in our Saviours time and long before their Rabbins were justly branded with the foul imputation of frequent forgery their Sects and heresies being grown up to that desperate height as to deny there were any spirits or shall be any Resurrection which is the very top of impiety But what is no less to be consider'd then any thing yet offer'd the very subject of the question is different The Church we speak of is a vast and numerous body spread o're the world and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remain'd perpetually visible from Christs time to ours however some Heretick may pretend the invisible part viz. that the Faith has been interrupted But for the Sanhedrin what assurance nay what probability is there of deriving its pedegree from Moses to the daies of our Saviour In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges in the division of the Tribes in the raign of their Kings in the
try how solidly they proceed First then they cite certain Texts in which they say the Scripture gives us salvation But there is a wide difference betwixt giving salvation and being the whol means or adequat cause of it which is the point to be maintain'd if they wil prove the Scripture sufficient else all Faith Sacraments good works preaching c. must be absolutely excluded as unnecessary since of every one of them may be said it gives salvation Whence in common already appears these arguments are so weak and defective they carry not half way home to our question Yet let 's see at least how far they reach In the fifth of St. John Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures because you think saith he you have eternal life in them Our Saviour was discoursing there of such as bore witness to him and having nam'd his Father and St. John at last he descends to the Scripture and tells them to this purpose You think to have life in the Scriptures though you deceive your selvs in that opinion for you have only the killing letter and not the verifying spirit Nevertheless search them for they bear witness that I am the true life to whom you will not through want of charity and love of God have recours to seek it Therfore you refuse me who come in the name of my Father a sign of Truth because I seek not mine own interest But you will receive Antichrist or some other who shall come in his own name which is a mark of deceit and falshood so pervers are you This is our Saviours discours of all which to this argument belong only these words You think you have life in the Scriptures that is if I understand the Text you deceive your selvs if you think you have life in them which surely must needs be a very strong reason to prove Scriptures give salvation though if the question were not of the Text I should make no difficulty of the conclusion And it may be noted that our Saviour descends to the proof of Scripture in the last place putting Miracles the first as motives able to convert Sodom and Gomorrha in the second Preaching specially they shewing some good affection to their Preacher St. John Lastly the mute words of Scripture And as for St. John our Saviour expresly says he cites him in condescendence to them that they might be the rather moved to embrace the truth by that esteem they had already entertain'd of their Preacher Wheras for Scripture there was only their own conceit which our Saviour seems to reprove as an humoursom and froward obstinacy that they would not be convinc'd by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles the easiest and surest way nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor whom themselvs confess to be a Prophet nor lastly make a diligent search without prejudice into Scripture which if interpreted with charity and humility might have led them to him and salvation The next place is John 20. These things are written that you may belive that Jesus is the Son of God and believing may have life in his name T is true both Scripture and Faith give life but not the least mention made here of any such quality in either of them This only is declar'd that the end of St. Johns writing the Gospel was not to make a compleat History either of our Saviours Acts or doctrin but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise that they might continue true believers in the Church of God live according to its Rules and be saved by so living that is by being true Christians or Jesuits which is certainly the sense of these words in his name or in the name of Jesus as to be baptiz'd in the name of Jesus signify's to be enroll'd among the company known to be his Now from this Text we may clearly collect that St. Johns Gospel was not written by the Authors intention for any such end as the argument urges Nor that it gives life more then this one Article does that Jesus is the true son of God Nor yet that this Article gives life but that life is to be had in the name of Christ whatever these words signify Only it may be infer'd that life cannot be had without this Article but not that this alone is able to give life or that it cannot be believ'd without St. Johns Gospel or that St. Johns Gospel of it self is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tradition So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be attain'd by Scripture alone or cannot be had without it The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place as I understand it is O Timothy be constant in the doctrin I have taught thee and this for two reasons One common to all converted by me because thou knowest who I am that deliver'd it to thee This is the first and principal reason the authority of the Teacher Another peculiar to thee because from thy infancy thou art vers'd in the holy Scriptures which are proper to make thee wise and understanding in the law of Jesus Christ or to promote and improve thy salvation which is obtained by the faith of Jesus So that he speaks not of Timothy's becomming a Christian but his becomming a through furnisht or extraordinary Christian a Doctor and Preacher And the ground on which I build this explication is derived from the words following where the Apostle expresses this vertue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove as also from this consideration that the sequel Be constant to my words or Doctrin because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christs doctrin is not very exact but rather opposite to the former and plainly inducing the contrary as if one should argue Follow not my doctrin because mine but because the Scripture teaches thee it which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle as appears in the vers immediatly precedent Be stedfast in those things thou hast learnt knowing by whom thou wert instructed wheras this other discourse is perfectly consequential Stand to my doctrin because the Scripture confirms and seconds it making thee able to defend and prove by arguments what I have simply taught thee to be true by the sole evidence of Miracles which beget Faith not Science But to grant our Adversary the less proper sense and consequence that the Scripture was to contribute to the salvation of Timothy himself still ther 's an equivocation in those words through or by the faith of Iesus Christ which may be refer'd to those to make thee understanding Either so that the sense be The Scriptures in which thou hast been vers'd since thy infancy will contribute
they do not somtimes explicate Scripture in a way equally obnoxious to the same exceptions I deny not but St. Hierom once surpriz'd by St. Austin in a weak explication upon a passage to the Galathians excuses himself by a confession that his memory being confused he had in that place mingled his own opinion with other mens without distinction But is it not an excellent piece of honesty out of one only particular defect of one Father to draw an imputation not upon him alone but on the whole Senate of Antiquity And yet this thread runs quite thorow this captious Objectors Book whose labour is out of a mole in her face to prove Venus was not fair Then he procesds to tax St. Ambrose and St. Hillary for borrowing doctrin of Origen without citing the original as if Virgil should have still named Homer in all the places wherin he imitated him or Torquato Tasso told his reader which Stanza's were his own invention which translated out of others His second discontent is that when a passage of Holy Scripture is acknowledg'd by the Fathers to be capable of divers interpretations yet they will presume to use that sense only which is convenient to their Auditory omitting the others which in those circumstances make nothing to their purpose The like distaste he takes against them when speaking of a Mystery that has two parts they do not still make mention of both as since Christ is God and Man he will by this rule be offended that a Father should stile him God without expressing in the same breath though altogether unnecessary to his Theam that he was Man as if we could not somtimes upon occasion omit what we never intend to deny but were still bound to clog our discours with all the jealous cautions of a Lawyers Indentures though indeed he seems only troubled when this happens concerning the blessed Sacrament for then it utterly disappoints the force of those Arguments he so highly esteems Nor does his peevishness stay at these smaller Peccadillo's but to fill up the measure of his anger and farther enforce the accusation he sees himself engag'd in his bold hand trembles not plainly to insinuate that the Fathers are in plain terms downright cheaters contriving these omissions and ambiguity's not by wisdom and pastoral prudence but by cunning and hypocritical policy with a malicious intention to delude their auditory But these are little familiar stroaks and kind expressions of his devotion and respect to the Fathers and the Church in whose communion they liv'd and Him in whose precious death both They and It are founded His last crimination confists meerly in a repetition of what we discuss'd in the former Chapter about the Fathers speeches ad hominem yet because he has a little changed his temper we must observe what he says First being in a kind humour he now imputes it only to excess of passion in the good old men as if the former had been out of malice which made them speak they knew not what wheras the Ages after them explicating such passages of their Predecessors attribute it to deep wisdom and solid learning Secondly he shews us out of St. Hierom how all Authors use two ways of disputing one direct and demonstrative or demonstration like another Topical and tentative but to what purpose more then to form an aery apprehension in the readers head of some strange fallacy's and abuses ordinarily practised by those ancient Maintainers of Christianity I understand not Yet there remains about two lines of Latin which his jugling art has obscur'd into a necessity of a short explication and they are that interdum coguntur loqui non quod sentiunt sed quod necesse est dicant contra ea quae dicunt gentiles which is as much as to say they are forc'd somtimes not to contradict the Gentils propositions that they may impugn them with better advantage As when they seem to admit the truth of some Oracles and apply their discourse only to shew how such extraordinary actions might be perform'd by the Devil wheras perhaps in their inward thoughts they believ'd there were really none true or if any that they were by Gods interposing his own power to the Gentils confusion as he did in the apparition of Samuel to Saul the Witch not being able to raise up souls by the single force of her charms One new demand he urges which seems and indeed is strangly impertinent Whether it be a part of our Faith to visit the Holy Land as if those words of St. Hierom adorâsse ubi steterunt pedes Domini pars fidei est signify'd truly that to exercise adoration were an Article of Faith then which what can be spoken more sencelesly wheras the true meaning is plain and obvious that t is a duty of Faith or an action proceeding from Faith or conformable to Faith in which sense 't is impossible to make any rational opposition against it I must not end without taking notice of a goodly piece of wit in mis-translating a passage of St. Hierom wh entreats his reader to judg his meaning out of his whole discours and non in uno atque eodem libro criminari me diversas sententias protulisse not to accuse me that I am of divers minds in the self-same Book which this good natur'd Interpreter explicates and not presently to accuse any Author of blockishness for having deliver'd in one and the same Book two contrary opinions Nevertheless himself has been I will not say so blockish for of that ther 's too little cause to suspect him but so slight and precipitate as to put the very Latin words in the Margin which is as neer as can be to contradict himself in the same breath In four ensuing Chapters he delivers us certain notes which are in substance true but bring not much obscurity or other disablement to the way of proving Religion by the writings of Fathers and if they did he and his new party remembring they wholly refuse the judgment of their Ancestors need not trouble themselvs but stand upon their exceptions and leave the Catholiks to make their arguments sound and free from all legitimate repuls For this is the law of Logick and reasoning that the Actor should have liberty to frame his opposition so it be according to the rules of discourse as himself thinks best With this caveat I might justly omit these four Chapters were it not that in his eighth he has a note of remark out of Tertullian as requiring only that the Rule of Faith continue in its proper form and order Caeterùm manente formâ ejus in suo ordine quantum libet quaeras tractes omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas to which he adds Ruffinus his Apology for Origen as of the same opinion and seems to take it for the practice of the present Church And truly I think with great reason For as far as I understand Religion Nothing makes an Heretick but to recede from
they think fittest to cleave to For Rushworth has declared his opinion sufficiently and it is clear enough what all they must say Catholiks or Protestants who think the Scripture needs Explicators to make a point certain Neither can we doubt of this if we look into the actions of the Catholik Church where we see an Heretick is term'd so for chusing an Opinion against the Faith certainly received and in possession of the Church from which he separates himself But this separation is at the beginning of the errour and before the interposure of the Church He is therefore an Heretick before any decision makes him so THE TENTH ENCOUNTER That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chiliasts BEsides the objections we have already endeavoured to answer some other instances are urged As of Origen whose doctrin being explicated in such large volumes how an Adversary can draw it into the compass of Tradition or how it can be argued that the condemning of him was a breach of Tradition I know not But chiefly they insist upon the Chiliasts errour as an unquestionable Apostolicall Tradition To try the busines let us remember we cal'd Tradition the handling of a doctrin preach'd and setled in the Church of God by the Apostles down to later ages Now then to prove the Chiliad opinion was of that nature the first point is to evince that it was publish'd and setled by the Apostles the contrary whereof is manifest out of Eusebius History who relates that the root of it was a by-report collected by Papias a good but credulous and simple man His goodness surpris'd St. Irenaeus who as may be infer'd out of his Presbyteri meminerunt learned it of Papias for the plural number does not infer that there was more then one as all know that look into the nature of words or if there were more they may be such as had it from Papias St. Justin the Martyr esteem'd it not as a point necessary to salvation but rather a piece of Learning higher then the common since he both acknowledges other Catholicks held the contrary and entitles those of his perswasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 right in all opinions that is wholy of his own mind for no man can think another right in any position wherein he dissentes from him Nay he shews that the Jew against whom he disputes suspected his truth as not believing any Christian held this opinion so rare was it among Christians nor does he ever mention Tradition for it but proves it meerly out of the Prophets Whence it appears there is no ground or probability this was ever a Tradition or any other then the opinion of some Fathers occasioned by Papias and confirm'd by certain places of Scripture not wel understood most errours being indeed bolster'd up by the like misapplications a scandal that ever since the practice of the Tempter upon Christ himself may wel be expected to importune Christians But first is objected in behalf of the Chiliasts that they had no Tradition against them To which I reply A contrary Tradition might be two waies in force against them one formally as if it had been taught by the Apostles directly Christ shall not raign upon earth a thousand yeers as a temporall King The other that something incompossible with such a corporal raign was taught by Them and of this I finde two one general another particular the generall one is that the pleasures and rewards promised to Christians are spiritual and the whol design of the Christian Law aims at the taking away all affections towards corporal Objects whereas this Errour appoints corporal contentments for the reward of Martyrs and by consequence either encreases or at least fosters the affection to bodily pleasures and temporal goods The particular one is that Christ being ascended to Heaven is to remain there till the universal judgment Wherfore it is evident by the later that it is against Tradition and by the former that it is not only so but a Mahumetan or at least a Jewish errour drawing men essentially to damnation as teaching them to fix all their hopes and expectance hereafter on a life agreeable to the appetites of flesh and blood 'T is opposed also that the Fathers of the purest Ages receiv'd it as deliver'd from the Apostles A fair Parade but if we understand by the Fathers One St. Irenaeus and him deluded by the good Zeal of Papias as Eusebius testifies but good even to folly for lesse cannot be said of it where is the force of this so plausible argument Adde to this that the very expression of Ireneus proves it to be no Tradition for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour which plainly shews it is a Story not a Tradition a Tradition as we have explicated it being a sense delivered not in set words but setled in the Auditors hearts by hundreds of different expressions explicating the same meaning There follows Justin Martyr's testimony That All Orthodox Christians in his age held it for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say they are not so different but one may be taken for the other Neverthelesse there is no such saying in Justin for however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may pass one for the other yet the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has by Ecclesiastical use an appropriation to the Catholik or Christian right believers which descends not from the Primitive and so cannot be transfer'd to the Derivatives from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is neither fairly nor truly translated Orthodox No more does it help the Adversaries cause that Justin compares the maintainers of the conrary opinion to the Sadduces among the Jews For he mentions two sorts of persons denying his position wherof one he resembles to the Sadduces the other he acknowledges to be good Christians and says they are many or in the eloquent usage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commonalty of Christians Nor wil the next Objection give us much trouble That none oppos'd the Millenary errour before Dionysius Alexandrinus To which we apply this answer First for any thing we know it was hidden and inconsiderable till his time and then began to make a noise and cause people to look into it Secondly there are probable Motives to perswade it was impugn'd long before For it being clear that both Heretiks and Catholiks sustain'd the contrary we cannot wel suppose it was never contradicted till then though the report of it came not to their ears since who considers the few monuments we have of these first Ages must easily discern the hundred part is not deriv'd to us of what was then done But lastly admit there was no writing against it till Dionysius Alexandrinus does it follow there was no preaching neither As little can be gathered out of St. Hierom's being half afraid to write against it both because he did write against it as is
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
Ousia being deriv'd from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ens and Ens or Substantia and in Greek Ousia signifying primarily what the Schools term Suppositum that we see with our eys a demonstrable singular named substance as Bucephalus Athos c. which among men if restrain'd to particulars is call'd Socrates or Plato if used at larg in the common name a person these men very Catholikly said three Ousia's and one Hypostasis meaning three Persons and one God But the Fathers of the Council of Nice by much pondering these words by their debates with the Arians and to determine a rule in speaking that Catholicks might not be subject through equivocation to be drawn into errour agreed upon the contrary because Hypostasis was more commonly in use for that we call a Person and Ousia was rather a School term fetch'd from Philosophers books and therfore might with less violence to common language be taken in a secondary sense Thus it became the rule of speaking in the Church to say three Hypastases and one Ousia Besides those speeches which Perron cites are not so harsh but as in a rigorous interpretation they are fals so in a moderate sense they contain undeniable truths Philosophers divide instruments into Conjuncta and Separata and among the Conjuncta number up our Arms and Legs c. which are our very substance It does not therfore follow if the Son be called an Instrument that his substance is distinguish'd from the Substance of his Father because the Instrumentality consists in nothing but the difference of their notional conceits of Being and Knowledg wherof Knowledg seems to be but the Vehiculum of Being towards the operation or effect So likewise whoever works by a power that is not in himself otherwise then from another in whom 't is principialiter and as the Greek speaks both anciently and at this day Authoritativè may not improperly be said to be commanded though the other be not his Master or Better Neither is there such rigour in the genders of aliud and alius but that aliud is many times apply'd to the person and only Ecclesiastical use grounded on the height of propriety and distinction of Genders binds us to this manner of speaking which for unity and charity sake we observe Out of what has been discours'd about the name Ousia we may easily solve the seeming contradiction of the Council of Antioch to that of Nice for if Ousia may signify a person as we have shew'd it does in its best and chiefest signification then Homoousion signifies the same person So that the Conncil of Antioch denying Christ to be Homoousios to his Father deny'd no more then that he was the same person with his Father which no subtlety can ever prove to be against the Fathers of the Nicen Council Nor is this said to reconcile contradictories but discover equivocations For that this was the true reason of the opposition is easily deduc'd out of both St. Athanasius and St. Hillary and the question which St. Hierom made to St. Damasus But it may be urged if there were a verbal Tradition how could the Christians through want of caution contradict one another or had it been as known a part of Religion as the Resurrection how could Constantine have so slighted it when it first rose or Alexander the holy Bishop for a while have remain'd in suspence To this I answer If by verbal Tradition be understood that the Tradition was deliver'd in set words certainly those set words could not be doubted of though their sense must needs be capable of eternal controversy but the meaning of verbal here intended is only as contradistinguisht to written Tradition which being in set words whose interpretation is continually subject to dispute is therfore opposed to Oral or mental where the sense is known and all the question is about the words and expressions Nevertheless suppose it had been deliver'd in a set and determinate phrase and that Hereticks began to use other words a controversy might be about those terms which the Hereticks introduc'd and many might demur uncertain of the question in such new expressions as we see those who rely on Scripture are in perpetual quarrels about the sense wheras to Catholicks the sense of their Faith is certain though the words be sometimes in question The reason therfore why at Arius his first broaching that desperate heresy Alexander remain'd a while in suspence was not that he understood not his own Faith but because he apprehended not what Arius meant nor whether his propositions were contrary to the receiv'd truth But when once Arius broke into those speeches that Christ was a creature and that there was a time when Christ was not then that holy Bishop likewise broke into those words Quis unquam talia audivit and this is the crime which Socrates reprehends in Arius that he began to move points 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 formerly not question'd but receiv'd with an uniform consent and credulity As for Alexanders praising somtimes one somtimes the other party it proves no more then that he was a prudent man though Ruffinus seems to tax him of oversoftness But because few falsities can be void of all truth and few truths at least before much discussion totally free from all mixture of circumstantial errour therfore it could not be otherwise then wel to praise both sides ingenuously according as they spake truth and reason and discommend them when they fell into falsities As for Constantine's slighting the Question at first it shews no more but that then he did not penetrate the consequence of it or rather was not well enform'd concerning it For ordinarily the craftiest and most active party are they who make the first report and if themselves be in the wrong as many times such are more eager and diligent then those that hold the right their remonstrance is accordingly And so it was for Constantine receiv'd his first information at Nicomedia very probably too from Eusebius Bishop of that City a most perverse adherent to Arius nor did Constantine himself know wherin the question consisted as appears by this that in his whol Letter there is not one word of explication of the point but only in common that it was of slight questions not belonging to the substance of Faith the Arians stil craftily endeavouring to diminish the importance of the controversie Besides we have good ground to believe that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arius and sollicited into a secrâ—â— favour of this errour from whom 't is likely proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council for determining the point out of Scripture Nor imports it that the Bishops contradicted not this proposition of the Emperour in words because they had reason to follow it though not to that end to which the Emperour propos'd it viz. the solution of the question but to the conviction of the Arians and satisfaction of the world For to speak to the
reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
question St. Dennis tels us no Priestly function was compleat without the administration of the blessed Sacrament Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptiz'd This custom reached even to Infants but neither universally that is in all Churches nor indispensably For it was only then used when Bishops were present at Baptism as is apparent both because Communion was never administred anciently but after Confirmation and because it was always held for the complement of all Priestly Benedictions as is before declared Besides in some Churches there is not the least sign that ever it was given to Infants Another thing to be understood is that St. Austin uses to explicate the Communion to be an incorporation into Christs mystical Body of which no doubt but the Sacramental body is both a figure and cause This St. Austin himself upon the sixth of St. John plainly delivers and in his phrase takes the eating and drinking of Christs Body to be Faith or Baptism So do Orosius Prosper Fulgentius and Facundus either explicating or following him This equivocal manner of speaking makes those who are either not attentive enough or not willing to have him speak orthodoxly construe his words Grammatically that are spoken Allegorically which last his best Interpreters and most expert in his works accompt to be his opinion But to conclude this History After their loud and full cry as if the prey were in their sight which I believe wii never come within their reach for a deep mouth is a sign of slow heels let us see how necessary the African Church an objection more strongly urged thought Baptism it self was to Infants that is in how perpetual use And presently Tertullian the mainly cited and glorify'd for St. Cyprians Master tells us lib. de Bap. c. 18. Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione etiam aetate cunctatio Baptismâ— utilior est St. Austin Disciple to the other two reports what hapned to himself having ask'd Baptism in his Childhood by reason of a sudden danger of death which being passed his Baptism was defer'd by his Mother Quia viz. post lavacrum illud major et periculâ—sior in sordibus delictorum eatus foret and adds ita jam credebam et illa et omnis domus nisi solus pater And that this was not the Faith of that house only but of the whole Country is evident from these words unde ergo etiam nunc de alijs atque alijs sonat undique in auribus nostris Sine illum faciat quod vult nondum enim Baptizatus est If then Baptism it self was not perpetually administred to Infants can we think the Eucharist was or is here any probability it was so us'd to children as not to be also often omitted and that lawfully Maldonatus a grave man otherwise exceeded and I wonder he is tolerated speaking so directly against the Council of Trent after the publishing of it But his assertion is manifestly fals Since 't is known Communion was not used to be given but after Confirmation and Baptism without Confirmation was held sufficient for salvation as is beyond cavil expressed by St. Hierom in Dialog cont Lucifer about the middle The last instance is of Prayer to Saints which is proved not to have proceeded by Tradition from the Apostles time by four arguments First because divers Fathers held that the souls of Saints were not receiv'd into Heaven till the day of Judgment therfore certainly they would teach no prayer to Saints The Antecedent I will not dispute not that I believe it but that I know not what it is to our question For suppose they are not may they not nevertheless pray for us we Catholicks think that Jeremy the Prophet was not in the Macchabees days admitted into Heaven yet we make no difficulty to believe that he did multum orare pro populo sancta civitate Those Fathers that are cited for the Receptacles are acknowledg'd to place the Saints in Sinu Abrahae and our Saviour teaches us that Dives prayed to Abraham The Protestants as well as we allow prayer to living Saints wherever then the dead Saints are are they worse then when they were living that they may not be prayed to But the principal answer to destroy utterly this objection is that those who say we learn by Tradition that Saints are to be prayed to say likewise we have learn'd by Tradition that Saints go to heaven that is are admitted to the fight of God before the day of Judgment The next proof is that prayer to Saints began with a doubting preface of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which I find my self no ways engaged to frame a particular answer having no farther ground from my Adversary who cites not any Author to explicate the meaning of this objection I remember Cardinal Richelieu at his death is reported to have taken his kinsman Marshal de Meilleray by the hand and told him that if the next world were such as was figured to us here I deliver what I conceiv to be the sense not the words he would not fail to pray for him Now some who had a hard opinion of that great Person would press out of this speech that he beleev'd not the Immortality of the Soul Whether this also be pretended to be the meaning of that Optative term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I cannot judg for then I should easily admit it has some force against the Tradition of praying to Saints But if it be but an Oratorial expression and obtestation such as is in St. Paul when he presses men to good works by the like phrase I know not how it reaches any way to his intent and much less against the receiving of this use by Tradition except the objector suppose that truly the first Prayer he finds in writing was the first that ever was made which is neither proved nor probable The third opposition is out of Nicephorus Calixtus who reports that Prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the publick Liturgie by Petrus Gnaphaeus a Heretick The consequence I should make out of this antecedent is that seeing the Author 's being a Heretik a condemnd and hated Person could not hinder this institution to take root and be approved 't is a sign it had a deeper foundation then of his beginning not that it was before in the Liturgie but that it was an ordinary practice among Christians which use because we know no origin it has in Scripture must have been out of Tradition and not of a short time how our Adversary wil prove the contrary I am not able to make any likely conjecture The last argument is drawn out of the confession of our own Doctours who affirm there is no Precept for praying to Saints in the Church of God for so much is meant by those words sub Evangelio and yeild the reason that Pagans might not think themselves brought again to the worship of men Which Antecedent having two parts
to thy salvation so that thou understand them according to the Faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally deliver'd to thee and this is in direct terms the Catholick Rule that the interpretation of Scripture is to be govern'd by Tradition or by the faith and doctrin so receiv'd and formally depends from the first words Remain constant to my doctrin Or by another explication which is more material and flat and most incredible That the old Scripture for of that only the Apostle speaks no other being written while Timothy was a child should be able without relation to the knowledg of Christ by other means to make a man understanding enough to be saved by the Faith of Him as may be seen by Sr. Peters being sent to Cornelius So that of these three senses the first is nothing to our adversaries purpose and nevertheless is the best The second positively and highly against him the third incoherent to the words precedent and following and in it self an incredible proposition But give it the greatest force the words can by any art be heightned to they come nothing neer the state of the question proposed which concerns the decision of all quarrels carried on by litigious parties Whereas this Text is content with any sufficiency at large to bring men to salvation a point not precisely now controverted betwixt us Besides Timothy being already a Christian 't is a pure folly to think the Apostle sent him to the Scriptures to chuse his Religion The words immediatly following the place explicated are urged for a new Argument They are these All Scripture is inspired from God and profitable to teach to reprove to correct to instruct in justice that is good life that the man of God become perfect being furnisht to every good work The paraphrase according to my skil is thus The holy Writ I spake of is any Book inspir'd from God and profitable to teach things unknown reprehend what is amiss to set straight what is crooked to instruct in good life that the Church of God or any member therof may become perfect being by instructions and reprehensions applyed out of Scripture by such preachers as Timothy fitted to any good work or all kinds of good works This I conceive the natural meaning and most conformable to the Text were we to seek the interpretation of it indifferently without any eye to our present controversy And in this sense 't is a cleer case the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture when explicated and apply'd by a Preacher in order to the perfecting of those that hear him But if by importunity the adversary will needs have it that the Scripture should give the quality of being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the person himself that reads it to content him I shall not hinder him of his mind but only prove it nothing to his purpose For still this must be the sense that it produces in the reader the excellencies requir'd in a Preacher namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him as teaching reprehending c. so that one way or other still the Scripture is apply'd to furnish him with Precepts Arguments Examples and such like instruments of perswasion but of giving the first Catechism or binding ones self Apprentice to the Bible to learn the first rudiments of Christian profession ther 's not the least word or syllable that colours for such a conceit nor can it indeed consist with the direct meaning of the place since the being already a Christian is plainly suppos'd in Timothy by St. Pauls institutions viva voce before any exhortation to this use of Scripture So that here is no question concerning the first choyce of Faith but of perfection after Faith much less any mention of convincing in foro contentioso about which is all our controversy Another place is Acts 26. where St. Paul defending himself before Agrippa and Festus against the Jews accusation who calumniated him that he spake in derogation of the Law and brought in a new doctrin to the disturbance of the people made only this answer that he preach'd nothing but what the Prophets had foretold His words are these The Iews for this teaching Christs doctrin finding me in the Temple would have kill'd me But I having obtain'd succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying or protesting to great and little that I spoke nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass as that Christ was to suffer that he was to be the first should rise from death to life and preach light both to Iews and Gentils This is the true interpretation of the Greek Text as far as ly's in my power to explicate it according to the intention of St. Paul I deny not but the words singly taken may be interpreted I have persisted testifying to great and little and in my Sermons saying nothing but what c. But this explication is neither so proper to his defence nor at all advances the Adversaries cause For since St. Paul tells us directly what the points are of which he spake whatever can be gathered out of them only this is said that these three points were foretold by Moses and the Prophets and on the other side the discours is imperfect running thus I preach'd indeed many other things yet nothing but what was in Moses and the Prophets to wit that Christ was to suffer c. His meaning therfore is that since he was in hold his perpetual endeavours had been to shew that these things he was accused to have preach'd against the law were the very marrow of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets and that wheras the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King who by force of Arms should restore the house of Israel to a great and flourishing estate the truth was quite contrary for according to the doctrin of Moses and the Prophets He was to be a passible man to suffer death afterwards to rise again triumphantly as the first fruits of the Resurrection and to send his Disciples both to Jews and Gentiles to spread the light of the Gospel throughout the world What advantage against the necessity of Tradition can be drawn out of this place of Scripture which doth not so much as talk of the extent of Catholick doctrin much less come within kenning of our Controversy is beyond my reach This I know that to say all points of Catholick doctrin can be sufficiently prov'd out of Moses and the Prophets is an assertion I believe our Adversaries themselvs will deny as being both ridiculous in it self and absolutely discrediting the necessity of the new Testament and yet clearly without maintaining so gross absurdities they can make no advantage of this Text. THE SEVENTEENTH ENCOUNTER Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion WE are at last come to those places in which they most glory
St. Paul Who speaking to the Galathians protested that whoever circumcis'd himself as a thing necessary or because of the old Commandment was bound to keep the whole Judaical law So say I whoever condemns Images upon this prohibition of Moses is bound to keep all the law of the Jews For if these words be a law to us because they are written in theirs all that 's written in their law must be so to us since he that made one made all and for whom he made one and deliver'd it to them for them he made and deliver'd all the rest as one entire body of law to be observ'd by them He therfore that counts himself bound by this Law must if he have common sense esteem himself equally obliged to all the rest Upon the same reason hangs the keeping of the Sabhath day for of all the Decalogue these are the only two points unrepeated in the new Testament so that all the rest we are bound to accept in vertue of that but these two we cannot Wherfore whoever holds The Sabbath day is commanded by God either does so because he finds it in the old Law and to him I protest he ought in consequence to this judgment submit to all that law and become a Jew or els because he finds it in observation among Christians that is in Tradition and to him I protest he is bound to embrace all that comes down by Tradition namely the whole Roman Catholick Faith Therfore every rigorous observer of the Sabbath is bound in common sense either to be a Jew or a Catholick To make an end I know our adversaries alledg many sentences of Fathers to prove the sufficiency of Scripture wherof the most part I am sure are as far beside the state of the question as those places of Scripture we come now from examining However I finde my self not concern'd to look into them pretending no farther at this present then to consider the ground upon which those I oppose rely for their assurance that Scripture is sufficient to decide controversies according to the state of the question as it is proposed Now because they reject wholly the Authority of Fathers from a definitlve sentence in matter of Faith it is impossible for them if they are not quite Bedlams to rely on their Authority for acceptance of Scripture for what can be imagin'd more palpably absurd then to receive upon their credit the whole Rule of Faith and yet not take their words for any one Article of Faith and consequently what can be imagin'd more vain and fruitless then for me to lose my labour in striving to shew that Protestants have no colour from Antiquity to expect this al-deciding power in Scripture whilst themselvs aver the whole multitude of Fathers is not capable of giving a sufficient testimony for their relyance on Scripture since therfore there is nothing like a ground in Scripture and they scorn all ground except Scripture I must leave them to the freedom of doing it without ground FINIS DAILLÈS ARTS DISCOVER'D OR His RIGHT USE Prov'd A Down-right ABUSE Of the FATHERS By THO. WHITE Gent. EZECH 13. 12. Ecce cecidit Paries nunquid non dicetur vobis Vbi est litura quam linistis Printed in the Yeare 1654. DAILLè's Arts DISCOVER'D THE FIRST SURVEY Of the nature and subject of Daille's Book HAving clos'd the precedent Treatise which this consideration that since Protestants disavow to be determin'd by the authority of Fathers I had just title to decline any farther search into those reverend Witnesses of our ancient Faith being a task that would require some labour of me to do and yield no profit to them when done Yet I easily observ'd that as my excuse to indifferent Persons will defend me from the imputation of being troubled with the Writing-Itch so it seems to engage my clearing my self of a far more important charge which otherwise might occasion some passionate or captious spirits to fix this scandal upon me that I acknowledge not the judgment of Antiquity an injurious aspersion which the French Daillè has actually endeavour'd to cast upon the whole Catholik Church in his abusive Treatise of the right use of the Fathers And because that Monsieur 's Book is Denizon'd among us by the adoption of those two great Secretaries whose names forc'd me into this imployment and rais'd to the esteem of being the source whence their streams took their current I cannot but give my Reader a hint concerning it for no other reason but only to make him understand what Great men are subject to when the luxuriousness of their wits carries them beyond the bounds of those professions they are skild in With this Note therfore we wil begin our discourse that Many great and nimble wits both ancient and modern have meerly for their recretation undertaken to plead the cause of natural defects and striven to set them above the opposite perfections like Aesop's Woolf who having lost his tail would perswade other Wolvs to cut off theirs too as unnecessary burdens But nature contradicting this Art and by a perpetuall current of impressions forcing us to the contrary belief such quaint discourses gain no more credit then Prismatical glasses in which we are pleasd to know our selvs delightfully cosen'd Now what in these men is only a Caprich of wit and gayness of humor were it applied to a business of high concern and which could not be judg'd by our senses but requir'd a deep penetration to distinguish right from wrong would certainly be a most pernicious and insufferable wickedness a trap to ensnare and ruin all the weak and unlearn'd whom either the cunning of Logick can deceive or sweetnesse of Rhetorick inveagle But being arriv'd already within sight of my designed Port I beg my Reader to believe me of that discretion as not easily to lanch forth again into the main Ocean of a new bottomless controversy and therfore I shall only essay to decipher the quality of the Treatise in common leaving its strict perusal to them that are more at leisure and have their Noses better arm'd for raking in a dunghil To make then a neerer approach to the work I shal begin with the Author's intention which aims at no lesse then this bold and desperate attempt To disable the Fathers from being Judges in the Controversies of this present Age. Let us enquire the true and genuine sense of this proposition And first who are signifi'd by the word Fathers For this he assigns us three Ages from Christ to Constantine from Constantine to Gregory the great and from Him to Vs. Now this last part though it contains a thousand yeeres he cuts off from the score of Fathers and much more puls them out of the Bâ—nch of Judges the middle division he grumbles at as not being worthy of or at most hardly admittable to that appellation the first Age alone he freely acknowledges By what Criticism he does this I am not able to
I fear not these few animadversions I have hastily collected sufficiently demonstrate to the sight of any that will but open their eyes how dangerous and damnable a a poyson lies hidden under that guilded hypocritical cover THE SECOND SURVEY Of the two first Chapters of his first Book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies THe intention of the Work being so pious so conformable to nature and the ways of the Author of nature you cannot chuse but expect the proofs very sound and convincing And if you will believe either my Lord of Bristow's judgment or my opinion we shall easily agree in his Elogium both of them and their Author that little material or weighty can be said on this subject which his rare and piercing observation has not anticipated To understand his perswasions the better I entreat you reflect upon two ways or rather two parts of one way ordinarily chosen by such jugling Orators as we before made mention of who use to employ their wits in contradicting open verities The first is to talk much of the common notion when the question is of a particular As if one would undertake to disswade a man from travelling to Rome because 't is a long journey he will plead the inconveniences which accompany long journeys and immediatly talk of Wildernesses wild Beasts great Robberies dangerous Rivers unpassable Mountains want of Company and disfurnishment of all accommodations by the way a thousand such frightful narrations which occur in the misfortunes of Shipwrack'd men and the desperate voyages of Romance-Lovers But never descend to consider whether all these be found in the way to Rome or what remedies are provided to correct such Symptomes knowing too wel that equivocation is easily couch'd and ambushed in common propositions but soon detected if a descent be made to particulars The other Fallacy is To assign real inconveniences but not tell you how far they annoy the Subject alledging many sad things but concealing how great they are As a man may have the Gout or Stone in so slight a measure that they shall never trouble him yet a third person who hears the melancholy relation may conceit and pitty his case as most deplorable because the Reporter not expressing the violence of these diseases leavs an impression in our minds of such a degree of pain and affliction as we ordinarily commiserate in those that suffer the extreamest fury of such vexatious tormentors These two Fallacies run in a manner through his whole Book which he divides into two parts very methodically In the former he pretends to shew 't is an excessive hard if not impossible task to know the meaning of the Fathers In the later that supposing their sense were known it imported little to the dispatch of controversies they being not infallible nor without all danger of errour grounding himself on this maxim that the understanding neither can nor indeed ought to believe any thing in point of Religion but what it knows to be certainly true Which had it come out of a Roman Catholicks mouth would have sounded gloriously and worthy the dignity of that Faith which God and Iesus Christ being the Author of have compleatly furnisht with clear and solid principles He perhaps would have offered you choice either of Faith or Knowledg produced in order to this as perfect demonstrations as Aristotle is ador'd for and towards that engaged you in the most evident directors of humane life and cleerly evidenc'd by the principles of common sense that if you refuse the Authority of the Roman Church you renounce all the certainties on which you build every serious action of your life in a word constrain'd you to deny or affirm somwhat that your self in another case will confess a meer madness to affirm or deny But in Monsieur Daille's mouth who in his next words will cast you upon the vanity of a broken breath which has been a boulting and searsing these hundred years without any profit in the certainty of its meaning I cannot pierce farther then that this glorious principle is assum'd as the readiest means to betray his Auditor into a despair of Christianity and then leave him in the gulf of Atheism However let 's see the nature of his proofs which for the first point he has screwd up to eleven The three first are that the Fathers works especially in the three first Centuries were very few and of matters far different from the present controversies and besides many fals writings father'd upon those Saints by unworthy persons of which last imputation my third Survey gives you a more exact particular Nor can I deny any of this but I find two exceptions which I believe would shrewdly trouble the Minister to answer One that those of the pretended Reformation who have so much modesty in them as not to renounce utterly the authority of the whole Church of Jesus Christ at one blow strive to shelter their nakedness in these three Centuries wherof these three arguments make me plainly see the reason Because by the paucity of Books the difference of Subject and pretence of Forgery they hope nothing can be made evident for those Ages and so the purity for which they cry up those days as only worth our conformity is in that sense the Poet says purae sunt plateae that is ther 's no body in the streets My other unsatisfaction is He does not shew that even in these ages and those very works which he acknowledges for the Authors home-born Children and to have descended incorrupted to our daies there is not sufficient to convince all Hereticks For though every particular point peradventure cannot in so few works and written so accidentally to our purpose be clearly demonstrated yet the generality of the Rule we are to follow in Christian doctrin is so manifestly set down in those very Fathers he admits that were their writings made our judges no man could possibly be an Heretick since as the material points the Fathers wrote against were different from ours so the formal ones as the deserting the Catholick communion the renouncing the testimony of Apostolical Seas and the hiding themselves under the leaves of Scripture were common to all the ancient as well as modern Hereticks But however if he cannot maintain that there is not enough left to convince the truth his proof is deficient and wholly useless to the end he brings it One observation more I cannot chuse but note He quarrels with some Catholick Doctors who prefer the second Tricentury before the first as to the right understanding the sense of the Fathers Which he says he takes for a confession of the want of testimonies in the former Ages and doubts not but in equal cleerness they would prefer the first Tricentury for point of purity before the latter But either his own opinion or mis-understanding our Tenets deceiv'd him For we do not imagin
contrary from three lines of Hegesippus but upon the essential notion of the Church which is to be the conserver of Christs doctrin upon the whole body of Ecclesiastical History which contains nothing but either the propagation of the faith or the expulsion of those that would corrupt it And lastly upon the universality of Christian writers whose profession and businesse it has always been to instruct the Church in the doctrin of Christ and oppose all abuses that offer'd to insinuate themselvs under the name of reformation or whatever other specious mask Heresy has put on to cover the ilfavordness of her face And now we may safely proceed to the second ground that if the testimony of Fathers convince the quiet possession of any doctrin in one age it concludes the same of all ages that are known to communicate with it which is in effect with all precedent and subsequent Ages whom either that acknowledges or who acknowledg that for their Teacher and Mistress This consequence from the former principle is so evident that I may boldly yet without presumption infer if we can prove one Age we prove all But to make it plainer let me borrow out of our Adversaries ingenuity that the same doctrin has endur'd these thousand years which restrains our controversy only to the first six hundred and that common sense cannot say Popery was rank in the sixth Age but it must have been well grown in the fifth which will still contract our strife to the compass of four hundred years wherof three were undoubtedly acknowledg'd Parents and Mistresses of the fourth and the fourth of two or three following one of which is confest to be universally over-run with Popery So that we need no more pains but only to prove that some one Age of the first six hundred years embrac'd any doctrin of a nature substantial and considerable as is above exprest to convince all the rest of the same belief else the Adversary must shew the latter Age disavowing the faith of their Ancestors and anathematizing it as heretical and in the same or equivalent terms as our late Reformers cry out against the Catholik unity or Catholicks against their division For if the younger Ages reverence and plead conformity with the ancienter 't is impossible they should have changed any doctrin of importance or necessity My third ground is that when we speak of the Faith of the Church we intend not to say No single person may think otherwise or be ignorant of it and yet live bodily and exteriourly in the communion of that Church but we speak of the professed and publick belief of all both Clergy and Laity which meet at Gods service in such a Church As all that meet at Charanton are supposed to agree in the Articles which the Kings Edicts permit to be held by the pretenders to Reformation Yet I believe there are few Englishmen who consent to all though they resort thither So that by this position it may stand with the general or universal faith of one part of the contradiction that some few maintain the opposite Judgment By these three grounds you wil finde most of his doubts and pretended difficulties in the five last chapters taken away and the possibility of demonstrating a point out of the Fathers rendred very apparent and practicable wherfore we have now a little leasure to shake out his other bundle of Rags and see whether we can espy any thing there that may entangle a weak Divine THE SEVENTH SURVEY Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherin he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges THis Chapter he begins very modestly and says the Fathers testimonies of the Churches Faith are not alwaies true His first example is in that question Whether our soul comes by creation or from our Parents in which St. Hierom brings the verdict of the Churches against Ruffinus but 't is evident this objection fails because we doubt not some one or few learned men may hold against the tenet of the Church they live in His second exception he cites out of Johannes Thessalon whom he makes in his translation say the Church held Angels had subtile and aery bodies but in his marginal Greek a language few understand and so not many are like to discover his art there is no such thing only this that the Church knows Angels to be intelligent creatures but not whither they are incorporeal or have subtile bodies His third instance is where Petavius reprehends St. Epiphanius for saying It was an Apostolical Tradition to meet thrice a week to communicate I doubt wrongfully For what probability can there be that some Apostle should not have left such a Custom in some Province if it were on foot in St. Epiphanius his time besides this Petavius is noted for an easie censurer of his betters nor does the matter deserve any farther inspection The next he borrows from the same Authour against Venerable Bede and 't is a meer equivocation upon the ambiguity of this word fides which may signifie an Historical perswasion or a Traditional certitude in which last sense Petavius took it whereas Venerable Bede pronounced it in the former His second Chapter tels us the Fathers confess they are not to be believ'd upon thsir own bare words Where I must intreat my Reader to observe that If the Fathers he brings speak of one or few we acknowledge they are not to be trusted on their word and so have no controversie with him But if he would make them speak of the whole Collection he cites nothing to the purpose but all he brings reach no farther then the first sense and have no opposition with the saying of others who command us to follow the doctrin and even the words of our Ancestors He is offended with Sozomen for saying None of the Ancients ever affirm'd the Son of God had any beginning of his generation considering certain passages of theirs which yet himself has confessed before that St. Athanasius Basil and others have cleared from any such sense He calumniats an excellent place of Vincentius Lyrinensis explicating what the universality of Fathers means and how their sentence is of force His first quarrel is that Lyrinensis requirs they must have lived and died both for doctrin and manners in the communion of the Catholik Church which he says cannot be known unless first we are sure their doctrin was sound Not seeing alas that their living and dying with reputation of Sanctity gives them this honourable prejudice To be esteem'd both for life and doctrin sincere and unsuspected Catholiks til the contrary be proved His second quarrel is against the number Lyrinensis assigns to be al or the greatest part which certainly is meant of Authors then extant who had written in some age before the controversie arose wherof such a number as may make us understand what was the belief of that Age is