a different question to ask Whether an opinion be Heresy and Whether the Maintainer be an Heretick the opinion becomes heretical by being against Tradition without circumstances but the Person is not an Heretick unless he knows there is such a Tradition Now St. Cyprians case was about a doctrin included in a practice which he saw well was the custome of the African but knew not to be so of the universal Church till some congregation of the whole Christian World had made it evident And herein consists the excuse St. Austin alledges for St. Cyprian 't is true I have no assurance this Apology can be alledged for John 22. but another perhaps may that the multitude of Fathers which he conceiv'd to be on his side might perswade him the opposite opinion could not be a constant Tradition There remains only Bellarmins excuse to be justify'd which is not of so great moment Divines helping themselvs by the way that occurrs best to them and missing in such reasons without any scandal to their neighbours One of these two solutions will generally satisfie all such objections as are drawn from some fathers mistakes against the common Faith For nothing can be more certain then if any Father had known the doctrin contrary to his errour to have been universally taught in the Catholik Church by a derivation from their ancestors beyond the memory of any beginning he would readily without dispute have submitted to such an Authority and so much the sooner as he being neerer the Fountain could less doubt that the stream of which he saw no other rise reach'd home to the Spring-head This therfore is evident that whoever erred knew nothing of such a Tradition whencesoe're that ignorance took its root the severall causes of which depend upon the several cases of their mistakes here not pressed and therfore not examin'd THE SIXTH ENCOUNTER Disabling three other Arguments brought against Tradition THe seventh objection pretends not only different but opposite Traditions might be deriv'd from the Apostles And this they support with these two crutches one consists in a demurrer that the contrary is not proved the other in an Instance that it plainly hapned so in the case of the Quartadecimani who inherited from St. John a certain custom which was condemned by a practice deriv'd from some other Apostles But the weaknesse of this objection appears by its very proposal For since all Catholicks when they speak of Tradition deliberately and exactly define it to be a Doctrine universally taught by the Apostles we may safely conclude where two Apostles teach differently neither is Tradition And that this word universally may not seem by slight of hand cog'd into the definition on purpose to take away this objection the necessity of it is evident because all that weare the name of Christian unanimously agreeing that in point of truth one Apostle could not contradict another wherever two such Traditions are possible to be found it absolutely follows no point of truth is engaged An inference expresly verified in the example of the Quartadecimans their contention being meerly about a Ceremony not an Article of Faith Wherfore only indifferent and unnecessary practises are subjects of such a double Tradition and by consequence such Traditions are not of Christian beliefe or concerning matters here in controversy this very definition rather directly excluding them The eighth Argument seems to take its rise from our own confessions telling us We acknowledge some points of Faith to have come in later then others and give the cause of it that the Tradition whereon such points rely was at the beginning a particular one but so that yet at the time when it became universal it had a testimony even beyond exception by which it gain'd such a general acknowledgment The example of this is in certain Books of Scripture as the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalyps whereof in St. Jerom's time the Greek Churches refus'd the one and the Latin the other yet now both have prevaild into an universal reception To which I return this clear answer 't is the nature of things acted that depend on Physical and mutable causes to have divers degrees in divers parts according to the unequall working of the Causes and so Christ having deliver'd by the hands of his Apostles two things to his Church his Doctrin as the necessary and substantial aliment thereof and his Scriptures ad abundantiam it was convenient the strength of Tradition for one should far exceed its strength for the other yet so that even the weaker should not fail to be assured and certain Upon this reason the Doctrin was deliver'd to all the Apostles and by them to the whol community of Christians the Scriptures to some particular person or Church yet such whose credit was untainted and from them by degrees to be spread through the whol Church and communicated to the Pastors in the Books themselvs to the people by their Pastors reading and explications For who does not know before Printing was invented the Bible was not every mans money Whence it appears Scriptures are derived to us by a lower degree of Tradition then that of Catholik doctrin and consequently our Faith and acceptance due to them is not of so high a nature as what we are bound to in respect of doctrin For the sense of Scripture is to be judged by the doctrin as the Church and custom of Antiquity teaches us alwaies commanding and practising that no man exercise his wits in interpreting the holy Scripture against the receiv'd Faith of the Church as in all matters of science they who are Masters in the Art judge the text of Books written upon such subjects by their unwritten skil and practical experience And here I would willingly ask what such Protestants as object this to us can answer for themselvs since they directly professe not to know Scripture by the Spirit and therfore must necessarily rely on Tradition especially those who take for their rule to accept only such Books for Canonical as were never doubted of for they cannot deny but the Scriptures were receiv'd in one Church before another as the Epistles of St. Paul St. John or St. Marks Gospel c. and how do they admit the Apocalyps so long refused by the Greek Churches whom they use to prefer before the Latin But they presse us farther that if a particular Tradition became universal this depended on the Logick of those Ages to discern what testimony was beyond exception I demand what signifies Logick do they mean common sense sufficient to know three and four make seven or wit enough to comprehend and manage with a just degree of discretion the ordinary occurrences in humane actions If they do I must confess it depends on Logick For I cannot think God Almighty deliver'd the Scriptures to Apes or Elephants who have a meer imitation of reason in their outward carriage but to Men that have truly understanding and a capacity of evidence within
never dreaming any such thing is not this as very a Bull as to say an Army shot off all their Attillery that the Enemy might not discover where they lay or to do as is reported of an acquaintance of mine who being in good company to ride through a Town where he was afraid to be taken notice of at his entrance set spurs to his horse holding his Cane straight before him and Trumpeted Tararara Tararara the whole length of the Town Nevertheless since 't is for our side says the Zelot 't is an invincible demonstration But we desire leave to consider one point farther In what times came in the errours our Adversaries so loudly complain of see whether they be not those ages when there were great quarrels about innovations encroaching on the Church and multitudes of exceptions taken so that had any side entertain'd a new errour not common to both parties especially if the novelties were any way notable they could not have been pass'd over without mutual contradictions or upbraidings The doctrines therfore which in those times pass'd unreprehended and were currantly admitted among all parties as being common to them all without question were not Errata sed Tradita Whence certainly it must needs appear a manifest folly to think any errour could run through the Church so uncontrol'd as to gain without the least sign of opposition an universality and much like the story that the great Turk with an Army of three or four hundred thousand men should steal upon Germany by night and take all the good fellows so fast asleep that not a man should escape nor so much as a Goos gaggle to wake the drowsy neighbours and having thus silently run over the Empire should pass into France and thence into Spain and still catch them all napping without the least notice or resistance wherof if any slow and dull heart should doubt as seeming indeed somwhat an improbable story the reporter should immediatly prove all with a why not since the Greeks had surpriz'd Troy so and perhaps some other great Captain one single Town or Garrison Besides if we venture to throw away a little faith on so extravagant a fable the action will still remain unpossible to be conceal'd Who shall hinder the Conqueror from proclaiming such unparalleld victories to applaud himself and terrifie the rest of the world who can forbid his souldiers to Chronicle their own valours and every-where boast such un-heard of exploits Certainly were there no Catholick testimonies of these late unhappy divisions from the Church yet would succeeding ages find evidence enough as to the matter of fact even in the writings of the Reformers themselvs How often do their Books insult o're the blindness of their Predecessors and triumph in the man of God Martin Luther and the quicker light Jo. Calvin as first discoverers of their new-found Gospel can we think it possible distracted Europe should blot out of her memory the sad effects of schism and heresy before the tears they have caus'd be wiped from her eys for my part I am confident our once happy Island will never forget the graceless disorders of Henry the hights unfortunate intemperance though there were not one English Catholick left in the world to remember them by the smart he endures ever since Add to all this the points wherin Protestants accuse us are the most palpably absurd positions that can fall into a Christians head as making Gods of Saints or Statues which were the dotages of the basest sort of Pagans Nor is the example of errours often sprung and often quell'd again of any advantage to the Opponent For our question concerns opinions remaining till this day and by himself supposed to have gaind the mastery of the Church and never fail'd since their beginning because all doctrins which appear to have a being before any age the Adversary can name are thereby evidently proved perpetual Traditions especially when the Authors were such as lived in Communion with the Catholik Church then extant and remain'd in veneration with the Church succeeding Methinks also since the opposer maintains it was more then a whole Age in working it self up to this universality if the errour were gross it must without doubt have been a long time in one Country before it passed into another else we shall scarce find a reason why it became not general in a shorter period of years and so it would easily appear until such an age that new doctrin was never heard of and in every Country the beginnings would be mentioned by the Historians and other writers as who came out of Greece into France to plant Images who first introduced the Priests power of absolution who invented the doctrine of preferring the judgment of the Church before our own private interpretation of Scripture all which we see exactly perform'd against every considerable Heresy a minute and punctual account being stil upon Record who were the original contrivers who the principal abettors where they found patronage where opposition How long they lived and when they died To evade this reason is fram'd the next crimination by saying what is answer'd has its probability if the errours laid to our charge were contrary to Christian doctrine But they only pretend to accuse us of superfaetations or false and defective additions to the Faith first planted which excrescencies only the Reformers seek to take away And though it be manifest when they come to charge us in particular they instance in doctrines substantially opposite to the Faith of Christ as Superstition and Idolatry could their calumnies be justify'd against us yet because this objection civilly renounces such harsh and uncharitable language let us see what may be intended by Superfaetations Either the disliked additions are of truths or of falsities If of truths we expect they would demonstrate who has forbidden us to learn and advance our knowledg in Christian Religion or matters belonging to it Did God give his Law to Beasts that have no discourse nor capacity by joyning two revealed truths to arrive at the discovery of a third Again where is it prohibited for the Doctour and Preacher to know more then the Ideot and old wife What fault then can even the proud and peevish humour of this age find in this point If Hereticks will raise dust and obscure the clearest articles of Christian faith and that so maliciously as without setling some further explication the people are in danger of being perverted is it a sin to establish such defences and Ramparts against encroaching errours If the addition be of falsities let us examin how the Opposer knows they are false If he reply because they are contrary to clear Scripture then they are also contrary to that Faith which deliver'd Scripture to be true If the points be not against Scripture either they crosse some known Article of Faith or only the Principles of naturall reason If they be purely objects of natural reason though truths they belong not
two so potent Kings could so little prevail towards it For all that was done had only this design to appeas the seditions sprung up in Sivil by occasion of a Dominicans Conclusions in which he affirm'd that our Lady was Conspurcata with Original sin But the controversy was so uncivilly carried that it scandaliz'd our English Merchants as one of them there present told me not long after meeting him at Dunkirk But because this objection is much urged let us see the probabilities of its being defin'd The first is that the maintainers of the Affirmative are only a few of one Order and some few taught by them But if good account be made I believe these few will prove some thousand or fifteen hundred of the most learned in the Christian world Their Order is known to have always been the flower of the Schools to have had the Inquisition many ages in their hands to have a stile of Divinity of a higher strain then ordinary by their great study and adhesion to the Doctrin of St. Thomas of Aquine Their Monasteries numerous especially in Spain and Italy no great Convent wherin there are not a dozen or more grave and learned Divines almost all the honours amongst them being distributed according to the probate of ability in knowledg so that the Order is no contemptible part of the Learning of the Church Neither is it credible their Schollars can be few much less as this Author passionatly terms them unus et alter He objects farther the subscriptions of many Prelates Orders and Universities the general acclamation of the people the weighty necessity of cutting off scandals That some Universities oblige the Schollars to make vows to maintain the negative and in a word that the Affirmers hold against the whole Church Nor do I doubt that many Prelates Orders and Universities subscribed the Negative and peradventure to the Petition or that the people who follow the greater cry did demand the same but that the Affirmers held against the whole Church I totally deny and shew manifestly the contrary For Buls having been accepted and standing in force by which all Censure against the Affirmative is forbidden and no one syllable obtain'd any way derogatory to the probability of the opinion but generally a caveat to the contrary expresly put into such instruments and the Defenders of the negative submitting to them 't is clear that all the maintainers of the Negative alow the Affirmative to be probable and by consequence not against the consent of the Church since it seems to imply a flat contradiction that the Church should believe a Negative to be true and yet at the same time admit the affirmative may be true Now as for Universities there are entire ones for the Affirmative and that not on the score of St. Thomas but of the Fathers What Universities strive for the Negative so ranckly as to make men take vows I know not The Article of Paris as I hear is only that they shal not teach it in the University els-where every one is free As for hindring scandals 't is a necessary part of Government but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths according to the inclinations of the people push'd on by the clamours of violent Preachers Notwithstanding all this our adversary presumes this very point may prove an Article of Faith especially if a Council should meet about the decision wherin he proceeds with a very high confidence it being as he thinks now ready to topple into a matter necessary to salvation But I am far from that mind for I see the fervours of the Schools are a quite different thing from the judgments of the Church and how little all those tumults moved the Court of Rome and certainly would have made far less impression in a general Council The controversy betwixt the Jesuits and the Dominicans what a busle makes it in the School and in the world while it stands upon the fairer tongue upon motives esteemable by the people and meer plausibilities Wheras coming to be examin'd before the Pope in Congregations it could not hold water but the weaker part was forc'd to break off the cours of judgment by mingling Princes quarrels into Ecclesiastical questions I dare confidently say if the Point of our Ladies Conception were to be handled either in a Council or grave Congregation the party that free her setting aside the passions of Princes would be distressed to find an argument that themselvs should hope would endure the discussing And so the pretty gradations of our imaginative adversaries who so easily frame a ladder for this opinion to climb up into a matter of Faith is like an odd attempt of an acquaintance of mine who being come out of Lancashire to go beyond-sea and repuls'd at Dover for want of a Pass put off his hose and shooes and began to wade into the sea when being asked what he meant he answer'd he would go on foot since they would not let him pass in the Boat for said he I have often waded through the Beck at my Fathers door when the bridg was taken away By which counterfeiting of simplicity he got to be admitted into the ship wheras those who make their argument from the School-discussions to Church-definitions will if I am not mistaken remain on the wrong side of the water THE NINTH ENCOUNTER Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition THe third argument is drawn from this Waddings proceedings and his consorts with the addition of another not unlearned man according to the cours of these times who puts Scripture and definitions of the Church to be the adaequate ground into which our Faith is resolv'd Besides 't is urg'd that even those who speak of Tradition seek it not in the testimony of the present Church but of the ancient Fathers This being already answer'd in the sixth Objection we need not here add much to it For what imports it if Wadding and his associates understood not upon what grounds the Church uses to resolve and decide controversies and therfore bring Revelations Metaphorical expressions of Scripture the cry of the people a multitude of School Divines and the like arguments so that in their lives and believing or acting as Christians they proceed not out of these grounds but by the Colliers principle rely on the Church and by her on what she rely's Galilaeo dislikes the notions of wet and dry which Aristotle gives do they therfore disagree or not know one anothers meaning when they talk of a wet and dry cloth Among our modern Philosophers great quarrels there are about the explication of time and place yet this hinders not but that in common discours when they speak of years and days Country's and Towns they make a shift to understand one another The reason is because these conceptions used in ordinary discours are planted in them by nature the same objects working the same effect upon souls of one
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
reality of the business there was no doubt among the Fathers about the truth or falsity of the main matter being fully satisfied concerning that by Tradition even from their childhood but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them for the satisfaction of the Church and the world without the Church and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning especially finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast before their feet Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father as one part is cut from another in Bodies which would have made God a body and truly two Gods For these reasons was their magna conquisitio their turning of Scriptures and their meeting in Council as St. Athanasius witnesses speaking in the name of the very Council it self in his Epistle de Synodis We met here says he not because we wanted a Faith that is because we were uncertain what to hold but to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians in which he says The Bishops of the Council approved the word homoousion because they found it in some illustrious Fathers for though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors to hinder men from using unwritten words and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language when every one phrases the mystery according to his private fancy and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule as the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers And so I need not alledge He was a secret Arian though if he were his testimony as far as it reaches would be so much the more efficacious against them as Theodoret imploys it Now by all this may be seen why in Councils there are engag'd so many disputations for no calumny can be so impudent as to deny the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them as unfit Judges because they are parties and therfore refusing to come to the Council besides the possession of the old Religion being as publik and notorious at such times as the Sun it self at noon wherfore to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion by those long conferences is a pure folly They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession but dispute things either for regulating the Churches language that all Catholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselvs admit To dispute whether a Council not confirm'd by the Pope makes an Article de fide or no concerns not the difficulty now before us and engages Catholick against Catholick which is not our present work In the mean while out of all which has been said we may gather that there is no apparence the Catholick Doctrin concerning the Trinity was diversly taught before the Council of Nice and then first establish'd out of the Scriptures but that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before as St. Athanasius expresly teaches avowing confidently he had demonstrated it supplicating the Emperour to permit the Catholicks to live in the belief of their Forefathers and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors And to say the truth unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs Lastly 't is objected there was no reason for the Council of Nice in this quarrel to look into Tradition since they had such abundance of Scripture But we must put out our eys if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture and explicate them by other places and that 't is impossible to convince in this manner any Heretick as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed The Council therfore at last though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition as Theodoretus St. John Damascen and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus Tertullian St. Basil and Vincentius Lyrinensis who teach it is to no purpose to dispute with Hereticks out of Scripture and our own experience of above a hundred years plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER That the necessity of Communicating Infants is no Tradition But Prayer to Saints is THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition One that for six hundred years 't was believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children which custom has now been a long time disused The proof as far as I know of the necessity is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Innocentius and some words of St. Cyprian The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians The Eucharist cannot be given unless to those who are baptized But the Eucharist is necessary for Children Therfore Baptism is necessary for them To which I answer with a formal denyal that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers For their discours runs thus It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body but this cannot be done without Baptism therfore Baptism is necessary for Children Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers let the Books judg I will only add 't is a great shallowness to think the Pelagians who deny'd the necessity of Baptism should admit the necessity of the Eucharist or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist then of Baptism So that their argument must be suppos'd by the objector to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum Yet because especially St. Austins words seem equivocal I will briefly set down the state of the
the non-precept and the reason thereof out of the first part nothing can be deduced out of the second this consequence is inferred Pagans would be equally scandaliz'd by the Permission as by the Precept Wherfore if it be commanded neither certainly ought it be permitted Although no law obliges one Divine to maintain the reasons of another yet I see no such evidence in this consequence as for it to renounce the reason for me thinks if those we call Saints were meant to be Gods we should of necessity be bound to worship them whence it follows if it be not necessary to worship them neither are they Gods nor the worship exhibited to them such as is due to God but only of that degree which we give excellent creatures a position so conformable to Nature that it can scandalize none but the enemies of Perfection who under pretence of avoiding Idolatry take away the due honour and excitation to Vertue But which way out of a non-Precept can be infer'd the non-Teaching of the Doctrin I cannot imagine since what those Doctors hold continues true at this day when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practiced For though in our prayers there be some directions to Saints yet generally Christians are not bound to such dâ—votions and they that are 't is but their own voluntary acceptance of the obligation to which such prayers are annexed THE THIRTEENTH ENCOUNTER Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion to be the signe of the true Church ALthough out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend makes the Churches Definition depend upon the Tradition of the point defined and not Tradition upon them as if because by Tradition we know the Churches Definitions to be true therfore we know the truth deliver'd by Tradition Nevertheless since there may be some truth in this reflexion That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition let us see what can be said against it T is first therfore put into consideration whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels or the Gospel that is as much as they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel if God would have us trust the Church he was not both to specifie so much very plainly in them and farther deliver such signs as were necessary ever to know Her by For answer I ask a cross question Whether if God Almighty would have all men see by the Sun he was first to tell them which It is and paint ' Its picture on every wall that so we might know which is the Sun And because any question may seem rather offensive then deserving any answer I proceed to the application and ask Whether any of those Christians of whom Saint John says exierunt ex nobis could doubt which was the Church wherof he had been a part and left it And since you cannot answer otherwise then affirmatively I think I need not repeat the same question of Arius and Pelagius and Luther If then God has provided for all these that they were taught to yeild obedience to the definitions of this Church so clearly that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher nor of what Church he spake how dare they presume to accuse him of deficiency in his providence The same Authority that gave you the Scripture and told you it was the Word of God said likewise that what she taught was no lesse the Word of God If you believe her report for the Book why refuse you it for the Doctrin If her recommends be not security enough for the one they will certainly prove far less for the other since unlesse I am strangely mistaken the doctrin of the Catholik Church is not so hard to believe as the story of the Bible let any Atheist or discreet Moore or Pagan be judge Oh but since the Evangelists wrote Gospels they wrote all they preach'd for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel The Gospel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium that is the Good-spel or happy tidings of Christs comming so that the Book or Preaching which tels us Christ is come is a Gospel be there never so much more or lesse in the Book or Sermon how then it can be infer'd out of the name Gospel that the Apostles writ as much as they preach'd for it is not credible they preach'd all they wrote I am not able to comprehend The second consideration is how we know when the Church has defined To which I answer In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted when the Church had defined then when a Parliament had enacted Why then is there required more information But some Divines say more some less to be enough Let them be doing in the Schools as long as the practice goes on sufficiently for the Churches government Thirdly we are to consider Whether sufficient notes be left to know the Church by But who shall use these notes Catholicks They are in the Church Hereticks They know what Church they forsook Pagans They look not into the Scriptures to finde the Churches mark Peradventure those Hereticks whose separation is so long since that they remember not out of what Church they went But none are grown so aged yet However the marks of the Church are apparent enough in Scripture if there want not wil in the seeker to acknowledg them The fourth consideration is Whether points of Faith or to be of Faith be infinite new ones continually springing or finite if finite why are they not all delivered at once to make an end of incertitude and defining The answer is they are both finite and infinite finite in gross and wholy deliver'd by the Apostles wholy believed and practis'd by this present Church but infinite in the detail by which mans wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith For as soon as any sharp and crafty Heretik has varied some proposition necessary to the explication of a fore-believed Doctrin there may be occasion of setling some new proposition which shal be no other then a part of what was formerly believ'd in Substance though not so explicitly deciphred As he that professes Christ is a Man implies he has a mans Nature a mans Understanding and Will and Action though this word Man distinguishes not precisely these faculties nor does he that repeats all these qualities in particular say any more then he that said in general he was a Man Now then I answer the objection as Aesops Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea stop the Rivers said he and I will performe my bargain So say I hinder impertinent curiosities from importuning the Church and her Truths wil be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice without making new Definitions The last objection that it will appear a shift to say the Churches definitions are certain and yet
charity grant among Jews it might have been done as not a few think the very Law was lost in the times of their wicked Kings or other oppressions what inference can they make against Christian Tradition Of Books of Scripture peradventure there was a time when some one or rather any one might have been lost because it was in few hands shall we therfore conclude the same possibility of suppression when we treat of Doctrins universally profest by so many Millions when we dispute of Practices every day frequented by the whole Church Stil ther 's one jarring string that grates my ears with its loud discord though the stroak come not from the hand of these objectors yet I wil endeavour to put it in tune Some sick heads roving up and down in their extravagant phansies wil needs entertain a wild conjecture that at first our Saviour was indeed stil'd God and though the learned who had the knack of distinguishing knew wel enough the inward meaning then signify'd only a most eminent aud god-like person yet the common People understanding their Preacher simply as the letter sounded came by degrees universally to believe his true and real divinity But with what ingenuity can such rambling wits think the chief Principle of Christianity should be so negligently taught or accuse so many holy Saints of those purest times to be such deceitful Teachers Besides did not their rashness blind them they would easily see the raising the Person of Christ from humane to divine would necessarily infer a notorious change in the solemn Prayers of the Church and daily devotion of the People which certainly would give so great a stroak to both it could not possibly be attempted either undiscern'd or unresisted Lastly the Christian Faith being delivered not in a set form of words but in sense a thousand ways explicated enforc'd according to the variety of occasions and capacity of the learners how can any ambiguity of phrase endanger them into a mistake who attend not so much to the dead letter as the quickning sense so variously exprest so often incultated to them by their masters THE FIFTEENTH ENCOUNTER Declaring the state of this Question Whether the Scripture can decide controversies THere remains yet a second part of our Apology for as this is the Catholicks principle to adhere to the authority of the Church that is to the living word written in their Breasts which governs all their actions relating to religion so on the other side whoever have at any time under the pretence of reformation oppos'd her Authority such have constantly rais'd up their Altar against Tradition upon the dead letter of the Scriptures Which as the Catholick Church highly reverences when they are animated by the interpretation of Tradition so by too much experience she knows they become a killing letter when abus'd against the Catholick sense in the mouths of the Devil and his Ministers But before we set our feet within the lists I am bound to take notice of an opposition no less common then slight and absurd and this it is When we retire to Tradition after both parties have lost their breath in beating the aerial outside of Scripture they presently cry out Cannot Aristotle cannot Plato make themselves be understood why then should not the Bible as wel determine Controversies If this were not after sixteen hundred years of experience after so much pains of our own since Luthers time idly cast away in tossing the windy balls of empty words without coming to resolution of any one point peradventure it were pardonable but now alas what can it be but an obstinate desire of darkness and a contempt of Gods Law and truth by a bold and irrational assertion and loud clamours to beat down the Catholick Church like Dametas in the Poem striking with both hands and his whole strength but winking all the while Let us therfore open our Eys and look thorow this objection Cannot Plato and Aristotle make themselvs be understood Yes but what then Ergo the Scripture can determine controversies The supposition wherin all venom ly's is conceal'd which thus I display As Aristotle wrote of Physicks and Metaphysicks so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen among Christians But Plato and Aristotle can make themselvs be understood concerning those Sciences therfore the Scripture can do as much concerning these Controversies This ought to be the discourse But had it been cloth'd in so thin and transparent a dress the Authors would have blusht to thrust it into light For t is a most shameless Proposition to say the Scriptures were written of the Controversies long after their date sprung up in the Christian world Beginning from Genesis to the Apocalyps let them name one Book whose theme is any now-controverted Point betwixt Protestants and Catholiks T is true the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. Johns Gospel was to shew the Godhead of Christ which the Arians afterward deny'd but that is not so directly his theme as the miraculous life of our Saviour from whence the Divinity of his Person was to be deduc'd and yet the design so unsuccessful that never any Heresy was more powerful then that which oppos'd the truth intended by His Book But I suppose their reply wil be they purpose not to say the Scripture was written of our present controversies but of the precepts of good life and Articles of Faith necessary to them about which our controversies arise If this be their meaning their Assumption is as ridiculous as in the other their Major or chief Proposition For their argument must be framed thus As Scripture was written of the necessaries to good life so Aristotle and Plato of Physicks and Metaphysicks But Aristotle and Plato writ so plainly that all questions rising about their doctrin can be declared out of their words therfore all questions relating to good life may also be clear'd out of Scriptures Wherin the Minor is so ridiculous to any that have but open'd a Book of Philosophy that 't is enough not only to disanul the proof but discredit the Author And yet were it true the consequence would not hold For whoever considers what belongs to the explication of Authors knows there is a great advantage to discern the sense of those who proceed scientifically above the means to understand one that writes loose Sentences An Archimedes an Euclid a Vitruvius wil be of far easier interpretation where the Subject is of equal facility then a Theognis Phocyllides or Antoninus because the antecedents and consequents do for the most part force a sense on the middle propositions of themselvs ambiguous Now the works of Plato and Aristotle are generally penn'd though not always so rigorously yet stil with an approach to the Mathematical way The Scripture uses a quite different method delivering its precepts without connexion betwixt one another And though I deny not but peradventure the Articles of our belief have in themselvs as much
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
proceeded from or by the Son only both which terms were then in use for this and nothing els can be signify'd by proper added to from or by then he condemn'd St. Cyrils doctrin Now our sly Interpreter would make Theodoret condemn this saying that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son His last reason is one that makes all the rest impertinent and shews they were dilated only to vilify the Saints and the Church whose Crown they are and the Founder of the Church who glorify'd himself in Them and Her 'T is that the Church of Rome and Protestants agree in the position he seemed to labour at so hard what need or occasion had he then to rave into the Fathers about a point wherin there is not the least difference among us Next he excepts at our Controvertists for alledging the Fathers against them since we know they receive not the Fathers I answer there is by nature planted in all honest dispositions such a respect to their Ancestors that though the malicious part of their congregation and this Sophister in chief cry down Antiquity as loud as they can yet shal they never be able wholly to root out of the hearts and consciences of the generality of Christians that esteem and reverence which they naturally bear in their Breasts towards the Fathers of Christianity So that our Controvertists cite writings of those ancient and holy Doctors not in reference to the ensoured and barbarous party of Hereticks but for their sakes who yet retain some spirits of goodness and Christian humanity in them Then he brings divers sayings of Moderns to prove the Authorities of Fathers are not irresistible especially in the interpretation of Scripture among which one somthing insolent Afterwards he reckons the varieties betwixt the ancient and present Church some in Ceremonies some in Disciplin and some as he pretends in Belief these later we have touch'd before the two former for the most part we make no difficulty to acknowledge since the prudential disposure of such discretionary points fals cleerly within the verge of the Churches jurisdiction But here I particularly invite the Ey of the serious Reader to observe how maliciously he corrupts the Council of Trent in two very considerable passages one where he says It anathematizes whoever shall deny that Bishops are a higher Order then Priests wheras in the Latin which himself has the boldness to cite truly in the Margin ther 's no such word to be found as Order but only that Bishops are superiores Presbyteris a phrase implying no necessiy at all of their being several Orders though in that word consists the whole emphasis of his fals imputation His other abuse is yet more gross and palpable concerning our Ladies immaculate Conception for the Council expresly declaring their intention was not to meddle with the Question he says 't is impossible so to expound their words that they shall in plain terms give the ly to all the Fathers and to render this foul play the more plausible among such as look not wel to his fingers he translates in hoc decreto falsly and perversly in this number as if the Council had positively decreed the Blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those who are born in original sin when their very words directly tel him they on purpose resolv'd to prescind from her particular Case and not determin any thing concerning It in that Decree Certainly had this man either face or conscience an ordinary malice could never have engag'd him into such a desperate absurdity so notorious that its practice cannot be unknown even to him though he shut his Eyes against the light since all disputers upon this point unanimously agree that the Council intended wholy to abstract from the question and leave both sides probable nevertheless this shameless forehead dares in such broad and unmannerly language not only slander a grave and venerable Council but outface the whol Catholick world What trust can be given to so bold a Jugler in matters either of less moment or less evidence when in a Case so important as the Decree of a Council and so palpably manifest that all that can read may easily discover the cheat yet he blushes not to venter on 't can any thing be answered in his defence or any excuse made why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave THE NINTH SURVEY In answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judg we ought to recur The other what use is to be made of the Fathers ALl this while our new Edifyer of the reform'd Temple has us'd only his Sword-hand to keep off those dangerous enemies the Fathers now he begins to manage his trowel and bedawb the face of antiquity with a little fine morter Let 's see at least what work he makes though we have smal reason to expect any good building from him that is not able so much as to pull down Thus then workman-like he enters upon his task demanding of himself this question the Fathers being rejected where shall we now lay our foundation to what Rule or Judge must we have recourse He answers To the Scripture and if in any one place it seem obscure we must then seek out another to clear it Which first supposes that for all points necessary there are some evident and clearing Texts But I must ask on what Authority he believes this doth the Scripture declare it so plainly that ther 's no debate about it He knows the whole Catholik Church denys any such self-evident alsufficiency in Scripture Did they who delivered him and his Brethren the Bible recommend it to them under this qualification No for his party went out of the Catholik Church and receiv'd the Scriptures from none but Her who never taught them any such lesson Perhaps you 'l say all other Christians testify'd the verity of that book and so upon their credit you are the more induc'd to accept it But those Christians are such as your selvs generally condemn such as have been cast out for taking this very proposition to justifie their rebellion against Her whom you acknowledge then to have been the true Owner and Mistris of Christs Doctrin Besides any one that has but half an Ey may see no Scripture-disputation with Heretiks was ever finisht without new reply's but the Church has alwaies been forc'd at last to condemn them upon the score of Tradition Thus you borrow'd this desperate device from those who in all ages were thrust out of the same Church for holding the very same principles But suppose there were some clear Texts in our Controversies as we think there are in disfavour of you may they not be rendred obscure by other places objected against them which we pretend you endeavour to doe If so your remedy is worse then the evil and the comparing of divers places is the very cause that makes all balanceable indifferent and obscure Are we not now
more known and consequently not all deriv'd by Tradition But if we should answer that disputing betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks is on the Catholick part no other then proving and defending those points which were deriv'd by Tradition and found in Christian action and behaviour this argument were cut up by the roots and all pretence and colour of it taken away Which is the very truth of the business this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots the Catholick Religion securely possesses the World and upon such opposition is at first surpriz'd and the Divines perhaps put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads who easily conceit themselvs wiser then their forefathers and scorn authority unless reason proportion'd to their capacity or humour marshal it in Nevertheless because disputing cannot chuse but bring to light some deductions consequent to the first principally-defended Position I shall not deny the Church may come to know somwhat which haply before she never reflected on But then those new truths belong to the science we call Theology not to Faith and even for those the Church rely's on Tradition as far as they themselvs emerge from doctrins deliver'd by Tradition so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin is that by much canvasing more cleer proofs and answers are discovered or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries acquir'd Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope Iohn 22. from being an Heretick though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God before the day of Judgment because the Church had not as yet defin'd any thing concerning it I confess many more might be produc'd deprehended in the like actions and before all St. Austin excusing St. Cyprian on the same score Now to draw a conclusion from hence this is to be added that surely if there had been a Tradition neither the Pope nor St. Cyprian could be ignorant of it and therfore not excusable upon that account But in truth I wonder this point is no harder press'd for if any would take pains and look into our Schoolmen they might find very many of them maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some points not clearly express'd in Scripture whence it seems to follow they build not the whole body of their Faith upon Tradition For satisfaction of this difficulty I must note there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we do so The Platonists and Peripateticks are divided about the manner of vision Aristotle teaching that the object works upon the eye Plato that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm the Platonists saw in one fashion the Peripateticks in another Some as I fear may be experienc'd in too many of our modern Scepticks are of this desperate and unreasonable opinion that we have no maxims evident by Nature but contradictories may be true at once the rest of Philosophers think otherwise yet we see in all natural and civil actions both sides proceed as if those maxims were evident and irresistable So likwise there is a wide distance betwixt these two questions what a man relys on for his assent of Faith what he says or thinks he relys on Look but among the Protestants or other Sectaries they are al taught to answer they rest wholly on the Bible the Bible for their Faith but nine parts of ten seek no farther then the Commands of their own Church that is all those who either cannot read or make it not their study to be cunning in the Scriptures or have so much modesty as to know themselvs unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text who perhaps are not the less numerous but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants Whence farther it is clear that to ask on what a private person grounds his belief and on what the Church is yet a more different question especially if you enquire into what he thinks the Church resolvs her faith For supposing the Church as to some verity should rely on Scripture or Councils a Divine may know the Church holds such a position and yet though of a just size of learning not know or at least not remember on what ground she maintains it and in that case no doubt but his faith stands on the same foundation with that of the Church yet he cannot perhaps suddenly tel whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils To conclude therfore this demand whether Bellarmin himself rely'd on Tradition for all points has not the least resemblance with this other whether he thought the Church did so And to come yet closer to the question 't is evident every believer under that notion as a believer is unlearned and ignorant For as such he rests upon his teacher who in our present case is undoubtedly the Church as Catholick and Apostolick so far therfore the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority As for the other part of the interrogatory on what he thinks the Church rely's for her doctrin it may be enquir'd either in common or particular In common relating generally to the body and substance of Catholick doctrin there is no doubt among Catholicks but their reliance is upon Tradition this being the main profession of great and smal learned and unlearned that Christian Religion is and has been continued in our Church since the days of our Saviour the very same faith the Apostles taught all Nations and upon that score they receive it Speaking thus therfore no Catholick makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition There remains now only what learned men think concerning the ground wheron the Church rely's in some particular cases which we have already shewn concerns not their private belief as 't is the foundation of their spiritual life for so they rely on the Church and what the Church rely's on and by consequence it will prove but a matter of opinion in an unnecessary question belonging purely to Theology not Faith whatever is said in it Whence Divines in this may vary without any prejudice to the Church or salvation either in private or in order to Government seeing the main foundation is surely establisht that every believer as such rely's on the Church immediatly This difficulty therfore is so far resolv'd that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point since it follows not that the Church or any particular member therof rely's on such a ground no not Bellarmin himself though he conceive in some points the Church rely's on Scripture or Councils But since St. Austin marches in the head of this Troop for defence of St. Cyprian let us proceed with more diligence and respect in reconciling the difficulty We are to remember 't is
stand to wit that it was to finde out whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin But if I mistake not my Adversaries make not the same apprehension of it that I do They seem to take St. Austin for one Doctour peradventure a great one peradventure the chief but yet only one I apprehend him as the leading Champion of the Church in the Question of Grace whence it follows that the Doctrin of St. Augustin was the Doctrin of all those Catholick Writers by whose demonstrations and authority the Pelagians were condemned that is it was the faith of the Church in that age and consequently which the Church continued ever after Father because St. Austin neither had the Authority to bring in a new Faith nor pretends it but both proves his dictrin to have descended from his Forefathers and found Pelagius his opinion condemned before he medled with it by some Council that is by the apprehensions of the then present Church and as it spread from Country to Country was stil found contrary to the receiv'd doctrin every where planted in their hearts before Pelagius contradicted it Therefore I say I cannot but esteem that in the point of Grace it is all one to say the Doctrin of St. Austin and the Doctrin of the Apostles planted by them and continued to St. Austins daies illustrated by him and transmitted to his posterity even to our present time If this be true as no Catholik can deny nor prudent person doubt but we esteem it so Pope Clement had great reason to endeavour the decision of that question by the Authority of St. Austin since the doctrin of St. Austin was evidently the faith of that Age and the faith of that Age the faith of the Christian Church from the Apostles to us But we have another quarrel about St. Austins doctrin that It is so uncertain himself knew not what he held Nor do I wonder such a thought should fall into the head of a Gentleman-Divine especially in a Liberty of wit to censure without the least respect or reverence of Antiquity But I tremble to hear that some of whom we are in justice as wel as charity bound to expect more staydness and Religion seem so wedded to their own Sect as to mutter the same My answer I believe is already understood I say therefore such as have made it a principal employment of their lives to be perfect in St. Augustin those who with great attention had read his Polemical Treatises against the Pelagians as I take it some five and thirty times were of another mind And so are all those who at this day study him not to make him speak what they think but to make themselvs speak what he thinks But this question transiit in rem judicatam since when it was handled at Rome before the Congregations when both oppositions and defences were solemnly made by the proof of present books when the maintainainers of the opinion accus'd of Pelagianism were the choicest wits and ancientest Scholers could be pickt out of that so famed Society nevertheless almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against them as is evident both out of the printed Compendium of the Acts of those Congregations and the very manuscript Acts themselves extant at this day But let us hear the Pope himself speak Upon the 8. of July was held the second Congregation His Holiness began with these words Nos personaliter vidimus congeriem locorum quam vos qui Molinam defenditis induxistis ex Augustino nullus inventus est qui faveat immo contrarium tenuit Augustinus Vnde mirum quòd tot artibus utamini And hence it seems they were forc'd to corrupt St. Austin to the Popes face the 30 of September following which being discovered the Authour died of melancholy and disgrace Again in the tenth Congregation the same Pope taxed them Quod Scholasticis maxime suis non Scripturâ Conciliis Patribus uterentur A sign how sound their way of doctrin is how sincere their proceedings to defend it Yet 't is urged farther that the Fathers who lived before St. Austin are generally of the contrary opinion This is a simple assertion without proof and my name is Thomas I would entreat therfore such of my Readers as light on this objection to remember that the question of the force of Grace and liberty of Free will consists of two truths that seem like the Symplegades to butt at one another as long as we look at them afar off but if we make a neerer approach they shew a fair passage betwixt them So then it is not hard that one who studies the question for pleasure especially in such Fathers as wrote before the combating of the truth by Heresies should be deceiv'd by the seeming overlaying of that side which the Fathers had occasion to inculcate though they meant nothing lesse then to prejudice the verity which stands firm on the other side the fretum of this disputation Adde to this that St. Austin himself examin'd the Fathers and found in them the doctrin he maintain'd nor could it be otherwise the general apprehension of the Church being against Pelagius Therfore I shal follow the advice of the Proverb and be fearful to leap before I look especially since a great reader of St. Chrysostom solemnly profess'd he could shew as strong places in him for Grace as in St. Austin though he be the man chiefly set up against St. Austin THE EIGHTH ENCOUNTER Shewing our Ladies immaculate conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith AS for the state of the question about our Ladies being conceiv'd in Original sin some would willingly perswade us the Negative is in great probability to be defin'd whereas certainly there is no Tradition for it if Wadding's sayings be rightly reported But if defining signifies the clearing of Tradition as we explicate it nothing can be more evident then that there is no probability of defining the negative part rather it may be in danger of being at least censured for rashly putting an exception in the generall rule of Scripture which expresly condemns all but our Saviour to Original sin except the defenders can shew good ground for the priviledg they pretend which I much doubt For as far as I can understand the whol warrant of that opinion stands upon a devotion to our Lady arising chiefly from a perswasion that original sin is a disgrace to the person in whom 't is found So that if the people were taught original sin is nothing but a disposition to evil or a natural weakness which unless prevented brings infallibly sin and damnation and that in it self it deservs neither reproach nor punishment as long as it proceeds not to actual sin the heat of vulgar devotion would be cool'd and the question not thought worth the examining However ther 's no great appearance of deciding that point in favour of the negative since the earnest sollicitations of
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
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
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
they have no truth in them a proof as such still carrying its truth in its force of concluding but probable arguments have no force to conclude and consequently no truth For the truth of a saying is different from that of an argument a true argument being that which proves the thing to be a true saying which only affirms it to be And if we look into it we see what I say is but the Law of Nature and naturall constancy for as to not act 't is enough to have no reason but to act we ought to have a positive cause so to remain in the Religion of our Birth and Education there is no other reason requir'd then because we are in it whereas to change we must have efficacious motives to perswade us Here my Adversary wil exult and think at least Protestants cannot become Catholiks without evidence which he conceives impossible And I grant his consequence if he can prove his supposition For to my sight nothing is more clear then that Protestants chang'd their Religion from being Catholiks and that upon but probable grounds whence it is evident no Protestant who is formally such that is holds his Religion on probable arguments against the Catholik Church but stands in a continual formal rebellion against Her who by his own acknowledgment was once his Magistrate and against whom himself confesses he has no more then probable exception Therfore whoever of a Protestant becomes Catholik goes so far with evidence that he reconciles himself to a government under which he once was and had no just reason to depart from it none being sufficient to excuse so great a disorder and so ought under peril of eternal damnation return to his first obedience For where he is he is certain to find no security since his relyance by his own verdict is at most but upon plausible arguments wheras under the other government there may be certainty for ought he knows of which there is this fair motive that they all professe it which is more forcible for the credit of it then what ever he can say in abetment of the contrary Rashly therfore he opposes himself to follow a fals way a way that assuredly leads to unavoydable precipices They reply the Turks also agree in the Law of Mahomet and yet that brings no evidence their Law is true But alas they observe not that in saying so they unawares call themselves no Christians For to us this consent is no argument Mahometanism is true because it carries no farther then that the Law is Mahomets And so far is manifest out of their common agreement therfore in parity 't is evident out of the consent of Christians that the doctrin handed down from the Apostles is Christs and the doubt may perhaps remain with the Objectors but not with us whether Cbrists doctrine be true as neither we nor they doubt that Mahomets preaching was fals And seeing the case is common to all Christians against the Roman Catholik he only relying on Tradition they all renouncing it he only can run his Religion up to the Person of Christ and there leave it securely establisht upon the infallible credit of his word And as no other sort of Christian society can pretend to this priviledge so neither can they with any colour of justice exempt themselves from the Authority of that Church that enjoys it an Authority which if ever she had and such as she claims it is of so unchangeable a nature being constituted by God being the rock on which the salvation of mankind is built and the fundamental stone of the Church no time nor variation of material accidents can prejudice or prescribe against it Wherfore if Protestants at first departed unjustifiably they remain for ever guilty of the same crime til they restore themselves to the Primitive union Again who unles he had renounc'd all morality ever call'd it liberty not to know or not be bound to the rules and principles of good life Sure these objectors either think religion concerns not good life but is a vain and empty Idea in the air little important whether it be known or no or forget themselves so far as to fall into the sequel of this gross absurdity Besides who can be so desperatly passionate as to term it liberty to have no good government and relaps again to the rude state of barbarousnes where murther rapes a thousand intolerable insolencies are publikly permitted For if we cast our eys on the End of Religion we shall see that to want the due Rules is as inconvenient towards the direction of mankind to final beatitude as the Laws of Canibals are destructive to all civil and friendly society So that 't is to be ignorant of all reason to cry up a liberty to have no Religion or to chuse one indifferently as unconcern'd whether it be right or wrong Were it not better plainly to avow the preferrence of the pleasures and profits of this world before hopes so far off as the future life then with these ambushes to ensnare unwary souls into the same inconveniencies under title of a probable Religion And truly if we look upon their lives we shall find that hoc Janus summus ab imo Personat I intend not by this any waies to derogate from the old Roman vertues in this sort of people as if there may not be found Regulus's or Cato's or Seneca's among them for I doubt not but the very vapour of Christianity has this wholsom effect among whom it passes to breed in them as Heroick spirits as ancient Rome ever saw and more too if the like occasions presented themselves But Nature and Generosity and Opinion too often challenge their shares or rather mastery in such actions and how little can justly be ascribed to the hope of heaven I rather suspect then declare To return therfore to our discourse The Jew the Turke the Heathen can pretend a profession of his Religion for all these stick to such conclusions as their principles afford them But the Christian who cals Christs doctrin his and confesses that he or his Sect has deserted those who alone pretend to the successive livery and seisin of it can no way presume to the possession till he plainly demonstrate the clearness of his title Wherfore it avails not any drowsie rather then quiet nature to say his Father and peradventure Grandfather was Protestant before him and therfore he is Possessor bonae fidei whilst he pretends only probable arguments for so long he implies the possession to be unjustly detain'd from the advers party who has the actual receit by succession especially when this so unparalleld a Riot is committed without susficient evidence by the very Actors confession A Protestant then has no better claim to posseâ—sion of Christs Doctrine by his so long continuance in Heresie then the Parricide in Aristotle who having beaten his Father pleaded that his Father had beat his Grandfather and his Grandfather his great
captivity first of the ten then of the two other Tribes very little mention of any such Magistrate much less evidence of a perfect continuance How far then are we from having any certainty of a doctrin's succession by them of whom 't is very obscure whither any such persons were or no A third objection is collected from the natural proness in Mankind to conserve Tradition by which they intend to shew Religion is corrupted Wherin you may note the force of wit and Logick to draw arguments against a truth even out of these very causes which are made to conserve the truth impugned The arguments are three First that divers Fathers for zeal to the received doctrin were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes which new is an ocular certainty That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrin I willingly grant but that it was for zeal to Religion and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy I am not satisfy'd nor does the Author bring any proof I remember they object as absurd that men should stand feet to feet I remember they conceit those under us would fal into heaven for the rest some places of Scripture are alledg'd so that not our of zeal to Tradition but through misunderstanding the Scripture they fel into this errour Yet I deny not there may perhaps be some argument out of Religion as men confirm their opinions from all they can The second proof I imagin touches the History of Virgilius who for a like opinion is reported to have lost his Bishoprick But 't is a mistake for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charg'd with this errour That he held there was another Sun and Moon belonging to the hemisphere opposite to us and a new world nor is it certain whether truly he thought so or recanted or was falsly accus'd but wel known he was afterward made Bishop and lived and dyed with opinion of sanctity But though the two first proofs are slender the third wil require more strength to resist it and therfore 't is especially recommended to the Reader to look on the place it being in a Council and our own proper confession and so apparently strong and altogether insoluble if the Author be inexpugnabilis Dialecticus as well as St. Augustine in his Burlesque phrase Thus then begins this Onset which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength I wil also desire you says he to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council set out by Binius and there you wil find that the Latins confess they added to the Creed the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son because the contrary opinion seem'd to them by consequence opposite to a confes'd Tradition of Christs eternal Divinity which yet appears by what Cardinal Perron has excellently shown not to be contradictory to Faith but that this consequence was ill drawn which may have been in other points too and so have brought in no smal number of errours since neither was their Logick certain to conclude better nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly at any other times then they were at that Thus far the charge And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request as wil I hope appear by my answer if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron with whom I do not engage nor need I since the Council has age and can speak for it self As also by the way note that since the addition of Filióque which was about the year 440 in St. Leo's time there has not any tittle been added to the Churches Creed though very many Heresies have been condemn'd So that the Objector is forward in his assertions without seconding them with solid proofs To come now to the Combate I doubt much he who was so sollicitous to have me look into the Council was not so careful as to cast an eye upon it himself Else he would have found the question had not been of adding the words Filióque or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of the using them the adding having been for the controversy with Photius the using for the expression of our belief which the Council says consists in two points First that the Divinity is the same in all the three Persons that is there is not three Divinities in three Persons nor yet one Divinity from which the Persons or Personalities be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 different and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Second that none should have any cause to suspect the holy Ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherfore the insufficiency of the consequence which he says Cardinal Perron demonstrates is not to our purpose no such inference appearing in the Council the Latins or Roman Church only professing that if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son as one principium or cause then the Divinity were divided in the Father and Son and by consequence in the Holy Ghost too and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Council speaks Whence we may see the Opponent mistook the whole case there being no question of the cause of adding but of what was express'd nor any dispute of Christs Divinity but of the Vnity of the Divinity with the Persons and in it self Nor any drawing of consequences but an expression of Catholick doctrin nor any supposed errour but a truth confess'd both by Protestants and us and finally the words are said to be used to express this point that He proceeds from the Son and not question'd why the opinion is held that He proceeds from the Son which is far different from what we now contend about There is another objection and Cardinal Perron made the Author as having reported out of Isidore that the Jews complotted together to abolish the book of Wisdom because it spake too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself wil not avouch because it would rank the Book by him pretended to be Apocryphal too high yet though it be acknowledg'd fals he conceives it strong enough against us because it shews such a thing might be done Let us poize a little the weight of this Argument It might have been done therfore your Tradition may fail you First I demand how you prove it might have been done because Isidore said it was done The Spanish Conquerors when first they enter'd the miracles of the Western World reported They climb'd up great hils in the Sea Therfore was it possible They talk't much of waters which restor'd Youth Therfore it is credible But Isidore's authority convinces this If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil somthing were said But 't is Isidore surnamed Mercator one that collects and patches together truths and falsities almost indifferently at least our men spare not to reject him in matters of great moment Thus the bare possibility that it might have been done is not it self yet sufficiently prov'd But let us pass that and without much straining our
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
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
conceiting themselvs able by them utterly to destroy all Traditions These are such as forbid to add or detract from the holy Scriptures which though commonly so explicated by Protestants yet certainly cannot but appear to every child altogether impertinent to our controversy For t is a far different question Whether we were bound to put no new or Apocryphal Books into the Canon which our adversaries charge us to have done or to take none out which we charge them to do from that now in debate Whether there be any other means of assuring matters of Faith beside the Bible or rather Whether Scripture in an eristical and contentious way be a Rule sufficient to decide all controversies in Religion Nevertheless let us see the Texts they alledge for their opinion Deut. 4. 2. Iosh. 1. and others to the same effect My first answer is suppose these places imported all the force our adversaries pretend we are not in the least degree concern'd since all that 's said is clearly spoken of a certain Book or Law properly and specially belonging to the Jews and no more obliging Christians then the Book of Leviticus or the Law of Circumcision Secondly since it is held as a main distinction and opposition betwixt the Laws of the Jew and of the Christian that those of the Iew were to be written in Stone and Paper and those of the Christian in the hearts of men by Tradition it would rather follow if such Analogy were to be made that because nothing but Scripture is to be given to the Jew only Tradition is to be pressed on the Christian. Thirdly to the end this place may have the effect endeavoured by the arguer all the rest of the Bible except Deuteronomy or such other Book to which the Texts cited particularly relate may be burnt or at least cast out of the Canon and not have any power to decide controversies even in the Jews law I know 't is answer'd that Protestants deny not such Books Neither do we accuse them of it only we conceive we may safely say they contradict themselvs in pressing these places to that effect of one side and admitting the Books on the other My fourth Answer is that the Law it self enjoyns in certain cases other precepts to be added remitting the people upon any doubt first to Iudges and afterwards to the High Priest and commanding their declarations to be obey'd and under greatest penalties punctually observ'd So that the consequence drawn out of these places is both weak in it self and prejudicial to them that use it Nor is the inference our adversaries wrest out of the last Chapter of the Apocalyps less unreasonable then the former where he that adds or detracts any thing from that Prophecy is accursed whence pleasant discoursers will needs conclude that Christian doctrin is no otherwise to be proved but by Scripture Questionless to speak more pertinently to the Text they should have said it was to be prov'd out of nothing but the Apocalyps but because that would appear too palpable and absurd they included the rest of the Scripture violently against the express letter and meaning of the Text. This Argument seems to me as if the fam'd Astrologer Mr. Lilly had obtain'd a Protection from the State that none should presume to abuse his Prognostications by foysting in counterfeit ones or blotting out any part of his and thence one should boldly infer that all our Courts of Justice were commanded to judg such cases as came before them only out of Lilly's Almanack with this sole difference that the arguer here unjustly cogs in the whole Scripture instead of the single Book of the Apocalyps which makes his consequence far weaker and more unexcusable then the other as I confess the similitude I use agreeable rather to the impertinency of the objection then to the dignity of the subject To these two may be parallel'd that Preface of St. Luke so strongly urg'd by some The words as I understand them are these Seeing many have endeavâ—ured to compile ae history of the things in great abundance acted among us according as they who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and instruments of the Gospel have delivered to us I also have thought fit excellent Theophilus since I was present at all things almost from the beginning to set them down to thee in order that thou mayest know the certainty of the Reports which thou hast been taught This is the Text though others interpret it otherwise who if they will urge any thing out of their own explication must first justify it against this But out of this First St. Luke pretends no more then to tell our Saviours life like a good Historian however some of his excellent sayings cannot be deny'd their place in his life as is testifyed by the same St. Luke in the first of the Acts and therfore we ought not expect to know more from him then was fit for an Historian to report that is the eminent deeds and sayings of our Saviour Now the end express'd in the Text for the writing of this History may be understood two ways One that Theophilus might know which reports were true which fals The other that Theophilus out of the recital of Christs miracles and heroical actions might understand the greatness of his person and by consequence the certainty of his holy doctrin which depends from them But whether one or the other however there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christian doctrin which must be our Adversaries meaning There are yet two passages I must not omit because our Adversaries make great account of them one is the fourth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians That you may learn in us not to be wise beyond what is written To understand this place you must know there grew some emulations betwixt the disciples of the Apostles if I may guess betwixt those of St. Peter and St. Paul This St. Paul reprehends at large but for fear of making the breach wider instead of closing it would not name St. Peter chusing rather to put the case as if it had pass'd betwixt himself and Apollo and first uses this argument that Paul and Apollo are but Ministers of Christ therupon after some diversion he comes to tel them how all that any man has is from God and for the people and concludes to have all esteem'd as the Ministers of Christ and dispensators of his Mysteries And after he has express'd how little he concerns himself whether he be wel or ill reputed by them concludes telling them he had taken those two names of Paul and Apollo to teach them this point and then brings in the words alleadg'd which I may venture to paraphrase thus I have disguis'd my discours concerning the esteem you ought to have of your Preachers under the names of Apollo and my self that by what I teach you to be due to our
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