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
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
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
Captain searches the Hospitals for Perdues Forcers of breaches It is a great step towards the reducing others to reason if first we make our own thoughts rational This is my endeavour this is my fault for which I am so deeply censur'd even by Catholiks As for Persons my writings neither name nor touch any and those who make themselvs pointed at by their forward boasts of defending the opinions I dispute against either understand not me or themselvs for did it deserve the pains I would undertake to shew out of their printed Writers that they doe not with any universality maintain those tenets I contradict If in this present Treatise I have in one place descended to more particulars then my course and nature incline me to I appeal to your own Judgment whether I do more then follow my Adversary by replying upon his very words and therfore your commands ought to be my excuse But some think at least this conjuncture improper to begin this Work I wish they could give me a good cause of delay they should finde me very ready to accept it But I know no time in which destructive Errors should live unconfuted our great Master securing us by his example neque ad horam cessimus nor can your self be ignorant with what fury and violence the opposite opinion strives at this very day to possess the Chruch of God and break the eternal Rule of Christian faith Wherfore though conscious of my own weaknes and that unless God extraordinarily shews his power my endeavours wil take no place yet propter Sion non tacebo propter Hierusalem non quiescam Your most obliged Cosen and obedient servant T. W. 27 March 1654. The Table THe Introduction page 1 The first Encounter Explicating the argument by which Rushworth proves the infallibility of Tradition p. 7 The second Encounter Defeating three Oppositions made against Tradition p. 14 The third Encounter Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition p. 22 The fourth Encounter That unlearned Catholiks rely on the infallibility of Tradition p. 31 The fifth Encounter That Catholik Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition p. 36 The sixth Encounter Disabling three other arguments brought against Tradition p. 44 The seventh Encounter Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new beliefs to the Catholik Church p. 50 The eighth Encounter That our Lady's immaculate Conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith p. 64 The ninth Encounter Shewing the unanimous agreement of Divines that all infallibility is from Tradition p. 70 The tenth Encounter That there was no Tradition for the errour of the Chyliasts p. 77 The eleventh Encounter That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice p. 84 The twelfth Encounter That the necessity of communicating Infants is no Tradition but prayer to Saints is p. 99 The thirteenth encounter Reflecting on certain considerations and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Romes Communion to be the sign of the true Church p. 107 The fourteenth Encounter Four other Arguments revers'd p. 113 The fifteenth Encounter Declaring the state of this question Whether the Scripture can decide Controversies p. 135 The sixteenth Encounter Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture p. 150 The seventeenth Encounter Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion p. 262 The eighteenth Encounter Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding without proceeding to the examination of the Fathers Testimonies p. 173 The first Survey Of the Nature and subject of Deille's Book p. 179 The second Survey Of the two first Chapters of his first book wherin he urges that the Fathers of the three first Ages were few and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies p. 188 The third Survey Of his third and fourth Chapters wherin he objects forgery and corruption of the Fathers works p. 197 The fourth Survey Of the fifth Chapter wherin he objects the Fathers Eloquence and that on set purpose they spake obscurely p. 208 The fifth Survey Of the six Chapters following wherin he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers p. 216 The sixth Survey How the Authority of Fathers is infallible p. 226 The seventh Survey Of the four first Chapters of his second Book wherein he pretends The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church and that they spake not like Judges 232 The eighth Survey Of the two last Chapters of his second Book wherein he says many Fathers have agreed in the same Errors and objects certain varieties between the ancient and modern Church p. 238 The ninth Survey In Answer to two Questions in his last Chapter One the Fathers being rejected to what Judge we ought to recur The other What use is to be made of the Fathers p. 250. ADVERTISMENT THe Reader is desired to take notice that this Apology particularly relates to the last Edition of Rushworth's Dialogues in 80 of the Long-Primer-Letter 1654 as which alone has felt throughout this Authors last hand and principally undertakes the refutation of Lucius Lo. Falkland's Discours of Infallibility and George Lo. Digby now Earl of Bristow his printed Letters to Sir Ken. Digby which he performs in a stile modest and respective answerable to the dignity of their Persons and civility of their Writings The Animadversions upon Daillé are apply'd to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original wherin the Reader wil easily pardon those uncourteous expressions he shal meet with if he consider how little favour he deservs from his equals that insolently condemns his Betters nay perhaps approve the justice of so necessary a resentment since 't were unreasonable in him to pretend the least regard from his Cotemporaries that has compos'd so infamous and injurious a Libel against all Antiquity ERRATA PAge 13. l. 1. since in Const. p. 27. l. 13. Eight's p. 58. l. 20. which were p. 78. l. 10. handing p. 82. l. 16. to our ears p. 102. l. 7. reatus l. 17. is there p. 106. l. 2. be not l. 28. but by their p. 119. l. 2. exposes p. 127. l. 3. evident they cannot p. 128. l. 5. part that is the p. 137 l. 10. the venom p. 142. l. last attempt the other p. 143. l. 1 2 dele but out of Scr. nor yet in that doe they use so fair play p. 148. Parenthesis begins at this l. 10. and ends at being l 13. p. 152. l. 2. vivifying l. 25. in the first p. 174. l. last day as com p. 179. l. 7. with p. 193. l. 2. so few p. 237. l. 28. not bound p. 238. l. 19. certain varieties p. 245. p. 243. l. 23. dele of l. 7. in his p. 248. l. last shal not in AN APOLOGY FOR TRADITION The Introduction THus it will sometimes happen that events of greatest importance take their rise from smal occasions The Controversy this following Treatise undertakes
began in a slight familiar conference betwixt two intimate friends and kinsmen as it were only for exercise to train themselvs and practice their postures but since by the entrance of new Allies is become of so high concernment that what at first was a private voluntary skirmish seems now to spread it selfe into a publique and solemn War Nor need I strain much to make good the phrase since the eminent Names on the one side and the great advantage of ground on the other may justly be admitted to supply the number of an Army in both And because I desire to prepare my self with the fittest proportion I could for the assaults of my Adversaries I have declin'd the Sword and Buckler and taken up a single Rapier chang'd the antique weapons of Dialogue though in my opinion they want neither ornament nor particular efficacy into the modern mode of direct discourse Wherein as I confesse Their guilded Armour shines more and dazles the ey so I fear not when we come to charge our courser steel wil prove substantial and impenetrable However I shall not spend much time in parley but after a short relation how I come to be drawn into the quarrel and by what method I intend to carry it on I shall immediately advance to a close encounter Before those Dialogues wherein that original private conference is at larg delivered were brought to light or as I think fully conceiv'd in the Authors brain an honoured friend and Patron of mine had couch'd some smal but quintessential part of their doctrin in a little pithy Present to a new-converted Lady and having cited it afterward for brevity sake in a controversial Epistle to an eminent Friend engag'd it therby into an almost fatal combat nothing but truth being able to rescue it from so potent an enemy Besides a deceased friend of mine having oblig'd me to declare my opinion concerning a witty discourse made by one of his acquaintance extorted from me an unlick'd Mola representing suddenly and imperfectly my judgement in reference to that Authors work This again stirring the same humours drew the doctrin into an eminent danger of encountring opposition Neverthelesse God so ordering it many years past in calm and happy daies of peace the two Adversaries whom these occasions had provoked not publishing their Labours as things below their persons till all-discovering time as I believe against the Authors intentions brought them both to light and by consequence an imputation on those Dialogues and a necessity on me to dis-engage the honour of their Composer In order to which my intention is not to reply minutely to either of the Opponents works muchles to handle any by-questions but only to chuse out of them or any others what I conceive may possibly be thought as yet unanswer'd and consequently capable of prejudicing those Dialogues By this reserv'd and moderate temper I hope to free my self from all such incivilities as necessarily attend on the undertaking to convince a particular person of weakness or inconsequence in his discours from which kind of captious proceedings besides my Reason I am beholding to my Nature for its extream aversnes Besides in answering a writing many impertinent quarrels are pick'd the substantial controversie lost or confounded and the Truth it self by multiplicity left more obscure then when the disputant began for where many questions are started and none deeply searched into the Reader goes away without any resolution more then what himself brought along with him I intend therefore with all candor and fidelity to select such objections as I think really interest the Controversie and handle them without relation to Books or distinction of Authors or citations of places as one who seeks Truth not the glory of confuting or vanity of answering But some may be unsatisfied with my proceedings and demand if this be my intention why do I cite those Authors in particular and as it were make a shew of answering without any effect I desire those to consider that the names of Author's carry weight among two sorts of Readers One such as diligently peruse the books written on both sides to whom I offer this satisfaction that they may find the solution to any difficulty which occurs concerning this subject in their writings The other such who look no farther then the Title page or whether a book be answer'd or no are insolent upon the writers name and importunely clamorous that 't is a Piece beyond all possibility of reply be it never so weak and trivial to whom the simple profession that 't is answered is a wedg fit for their knot I must confesse next to the assurednesse of my Cause 't is my chiefest comfort to deal with Persons of such quality such as the Protestant party never produced before it seems to have chosen them to live by or die with Two whose Merits found the way of honouring their Descents by their generosity whose eloquence none were found to exceed whose wits none wil be found to equal What erudition in Languages or acutenes in Logick could furnish was treasur'd in their breasts But above all a comprehensive judgement in managing the numerous and weighty affairs of a Kingdom to the very heightning that sublime and subtlest Office Secretary of State which they both successively exalted to such a pitch that it must expect a fall in whoever shall succeed them One is the right honourable George Lord Digby now Earl of Bristol ever mounting the scale of Honour to a degree so far above the reach of others that 't is even beyond their sight The other Lucius Lord Falkland who crown'd his deserved Lawrell with a wreath of Oaken Scyons dying in such a posture as if mischief could not have ravag'd England had it not made its passage through the brest of that Martyr of Peace I can accuse him of nothing but that he left this Book behind him it being too plain what unhappy impression it maks in his Friends since my self almost a stranger cannot read those quaint and gentile expressions those rarities of wit those coruscations of Greek and Latine remarques and which most of all surprizes my admiration those Noble sweetnesses and civilities so unexpected in a quarrelling Treatise but I feel in my heart an unusual sorrow and regret that our thoughts cannot stay on him without the sad check of a fuit But since we are out of hope to resuscitate him that 's gon like the day he died on let us by Davids example leave these flattering weaknesses of nature and seek severe reason in the controversy we pretend to manage THE FIRST ENCOUNTER Explicating the Argument by which RUSHWORTH proves the Infallibility of Tradition THe Dialogues in whose defence we now appear as Second govern their discourse by this fair method First they treat and settle these definitions Tradition we call the delivery of Christs doctrin from hand to hand in that part of the world which with propriety is call'd Christian By
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
so to Religion as to be accounted Articles of Faith if they contradict some other fore-taught Article then the Argument before explicated concerning the infallibility of Tradition and the creeping in of Errours against it returns to its force If neither of these why are they false or upon what grounds condemned But peradventure he excepts not against the Truths but the obligation to believe and profess them Admitting then the additional points to be in themselvs true why will not the Opposer assent to them has he a demonstration against them No for then they could not be true Has he such Arguments that nothing opposite is equivalent to their eminent credibility No for setting aside demonstration no argument can be comparable to the Churches Authority The reason therfore if the inward thoughts be faithfully sifted will at length appeare no other then the preferring his own Opinion before the judgement of the Church which being the effect of an obstinate and malepert pride makes no legitimate excuse for not believing THE FOURTH ENCOUNTER That unlearned Catholiks rely upon the infallibility of Tradition THe next exception is of main importance for it undermines the demonstration at the very root denying that the Church of Rome relys on Tradition and having divided the believers into learned and unlearned first undertakes to prove the unlearn'd not to be grounded on Tradition at least not for their whole Faith For if a question arise never thought on before and once a Council determine the Controversie that decree is accepted as if it had come from Christ by Tradition and all professe a readiness to obey and therfore are like to perform their word if occasion be offerd Besides in Catechisms and instructions the Common-people are not taught that the doctrine comes handed down to them from the Apostles In Sermons we see when any proposition of difficulty or concernment is treated proofs are alleag'd out of Scripture and ancient Fathers a practise even the fathers themselvs continually observe who having propos'd a point are ready to adde it is not they alone that teach this doctrin but the Apostles or Christ or some renouned Father never mentioning Tradition unlesse to oppose or disable it when some Hereticks have laid claim to it as the Quartadecimans Chyliasts Communicants of Infants and the like The charge I confess is fierce let us see what powder it bears what shot We agree the Church comprehends both learned and unlearned and so are bound to maintain that both sorts rely on Tradition As for the first objection then concerning the readiness to embrace a Councils definition with the same assent as if the truth were descended by Tradition I can either and indifferently grant or deny it Since if I please to grant it I have this secure retreat that a conditional proposition has no force unless the condition be possible and for the possibility of the condition I distinguish the subject which may be matter of Practice and Obedience or a speculative proposition Of the first I can allow the assent to be the same that is an equal willingness to observe it Of the second I deny it ever was or can be that a Council should define a question otherwise then by Tradition Therefore to rely on the Councils definition taks not away but confirms the relying on Tradition This if need were I could easily justifie by the expresse proceedings of all the principal Councils Thus the condition having never been put nor supposed ever will be all this Argument rests solely on the Objectors credit and is with as much ease rejected as it was proposed Now should I chuse according to my above reserv'd liberty to deny such equality of assent the Opponent has offerd no proof and so the quarrel is ended for though I could produce instances to the contrary I think it not fit to multiply questions when the argument can be solved with a simple denial But how the Opponent can justify the second branch of his exception that in Catechisms this doctrin is not taught I am wholly ignorant As far as my memory will serve me I never heard the Creed explicated but when the Catechist came to the Article of the Catholick Church he told them how Catholick signify'd an universality of place and time and that for this title of Catholick we were to rely on her testimony Likewise in the word Apostolick he noted that the Apostles were the founders of the Church and her doctrin theirs as being first receiv'd from them and conserv'd by the Church ever since and that for this reason we were to believe her Authority Thus you see that famous phrase of the Colliers faith is built on this very principle we maintain True it is Catechists do not ordinarily descend to so minute particularities as to tel ignorant people whether any position may be exempt from this general Law But then we also know the rule Qui nihil excipit omnia includit Sermons upon which the third instance is grounded are of another nature their intention being not so much literally to teach the Articles of Christian doctrin as to perswade and make what is already believ'd sink into the Auditory with a kind of willingness easiness that their faith be quickned into a principle of action to govern their lives the principal end perhaps for which the Scripture was deliver'd and recommended to us Therfore neither the common practice nor proper design or use of Sermons reaches home to make us understand on what grounds the hearts of Catholicks rely who after all disputations retire themselvs to this safe guard To believe what the Catholik Church teaches as none can be ignorant that has had the least convers with such Catholiks as profess not themselvs Divines For the last period of this objection where the Fathers are brought in to cry out against Tradition and Hereticks made the sole pretenders to that title 't is a bare assertion without so much as a thin rag of proof to cover it of which I believe hereafter we shall have particular occasion to discourse more largely Thus cannot all the diligence I am able to use find any ground of difficulty in the belief of the unlearned but that assuredly their faith is establisht on Tradition if they rely on the Church as it is Catholick and Apostolick which all profess from the gray hair to him that but now begins to lisp his Creed THE FIFTH ENCOUNTER That Catholick Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition T is time now to come to the second part and see what is objected against the learneder sort and the long Robe's Resolution of their faith into Tradition And first is brought on the stage a couple of great Cardinals Perron and Bellarmin the former saying out of St. Austin that the Trinity Freewill Penance and the Church were never exactly disputed before the Arians Novatians Pelagians and Donatists Whence is infer'd that as more was disputed so more was concluded therfore
more known and consequently not all deriv'd by Tradition But if we should answer that disputing betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks is on the Catholick part no other then proving and defending those points which were deriv'd by Tradition and found in Christian action and behaviour this argument were cut up by the roots and all pretence and colour of it taken away Which is the very truth of the business this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots the Catholick Religion securely possesses the World and upon such opposition is at first surpriz'd and the Divines perhaps put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads who easily conceit themselvs wiser then their forefathers and scorn authority unless reason proportion'd to their capacity or humour marshal it in Nevertheless because disputing cannot chuse but bring to light some deductions consequent to the first principally-defended Position I shall not deny the Church may come to know somwhat which haply before she never reflected on But then those new truths belong to the science we call Theology not to Faith and even for those the Church rely's on Tradition as far as they themselvs emerge from doctrins deliver'd by Tradition so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin is that by much canvasing more cleer proofs and answers are discovered or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries acquir'd Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope Iohn 22. from being an Heretick though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God before the day of Judgment because the Church had not as yet defin'd any thing concerning it I confess many more might be produc'd deprehended in the like actions and before all St. Austin excusing St. Cyprian on the same score Now to draw a conclusion from hence this is to be added that surely if there had been a Tradition neither the Pope nor St. Cyprian could be ignorant of it and therfore not excusable upon that account But in truth I wonder this point is no harder press'd for if any would take pains and look into our Schoolmen they might find very many of them maintain that Tradition is necessary only for some points not clearly express'd in Scripture whence it seems to follow they build not the whole body of their Faith upon Tradition For satisfaction of this difficulty I must note there is a vast difference betwixt relying on Tradition and saying or thinking we do so The Platonists and Peripateticks are divided about the manner of vision Aristotle teaching that the object works upon the eye Plato that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm the Platonists saw in one fashion the Peripateticks in another Some as I fear may be experienc'd in too many of our modern Scepticks are of this desperate and unreasonable opinion that we have no maxims evident by Nature but contradictories may be true at once the rest of Philosophers think otherwise yet we see in all natural and civil actions both sides proceed as if those maxims were evident and irresistable So likwise there is a wide distance betwixt these two questions what a man relys on for his assent of Faith what he says or thinks he relys on Look but among the Protestants or other Sectaries they are al taught to answer they rest wholly on the Bible the Bible for their Faith but nine parts of ten seek no farther then the Commands of their own Church that is all those who either cannot read or make it not their study to be cunning in the Scriptures or have so much modesty as to know themselvs unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text who perhaps are not the less numerous but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants Whence farther it is clear that to ask on what a private person grounds his belief and on what the Church is yet a more different question especially if you enquire into what he thinks the Church resolvs her faith For supposing the Church as to some verity should rely on Scripture or Councils a Divine may know the Church holds such a position and yet though of a just size of learning not know or at least not remember on what ground she maintains it and in that case no doubt but his faith stands on the same foundation with that of the Church yet he cannot perhaps suddenly tel whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils To conclude therfore this demand whether Bellarmin himself rely'd on Tradition for all points has not the least resemblance with this other whether he thought the Church did so And to come yet closer to the question 't is evident every believer under that notion as a believer is unlearned and ignorant For as such he rests upon his teacher who in our present case is undoubtedly the Church as Catholick and Apostolick so far therfore the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority As for the other part of the interrogatory on what he thinks the Church rely's for her doctrin it may be enquir'd either in common or particular In common relating generally to the body and substance of Catholick doctrin there is no doubt among Catholicks but their reliance is upon Tradition this being the main profession of great and smal learned and unlearned that Christian Religion is and has been continued in our Church since the days of our Saviour the very same faith the Apostles taught all Nations and upon that score they receive it Speaking thus therfore no Catholick makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition There remains now only what learned men think concerning the ground wheron the Church rely's in some particular cases which we have already shewn concerns not their private belief as 't is the foundation of their spiritual life for so they rely on the Church and what the Church rely's on and by consequence it will prove but a matter of opinion in an unnecessary question belonging purely to Theology not Faith whatever is said in it Whence Divines in this may vary without any prejudice to the Church or salvation either in private or in order to Government seeing the main foundation is surely establisht that every believer as such rely's on the Church immediatly This difficulty therfore is so far resolv'd that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point since it follows not that the Church or any particular member therof rely's on such a ground no not Bellarmin himself though he conceive in some points the Church rely's on Scripture or Councils But since St. Austin marches in the head of this Troop for defence of St. Cyprian let us proceed with more diligence and respect in reconciling the difficulty We are to remember 't is
their Souls But if they take Logick for an ability to discourse beyond the reach of ordinary prudence and that human evidence which governs our lives I see no occasion of expecting any such Logick in our present question The ninth attempt consists in a diligent survey of our Fortifications to spy out some breach or weaker place by which errour may creep into the Church This I cannot call an Argument for none are so unwise as to make such a consequence It may be therfore 't is unlesse they bring strong proof of this necessity in some particular instance that may shew it to be an exception from the common maxim à posse ad esse non valet consequentia And yet in this discourse I find not so much as the very posse which I thus declare If any should deny that George could leap over Pauls-steeple and a quaint Oratour to maintain the affirmative should largely discourse how the rise of the last footing the help of a good staffe the cast of his body and many such circumstances give advantage to the leap but never think of comparing these with the height of the Steeple no sensible person would say he had proved the possibility of performing such a wild and extravagant enterprize So he that discourses at large how errours use to slide into mans life without comparing the power of the causes of errour to the strength of resisting which consists in this principle Nothing is to be admitted but what descends by Tradition as also without considering the heat and zeal stil preserv'd alive in the Churches bowels from the great fire of Pentecost says no more towards proving an errour 's overrunning the Church then the Oratour we exemplified for Georges leaping over the Steeple Wherfore this attempt is so far from the business it deservs not the honour of being accounted an Argument Yet because we compar'd the propagation of the Catholique Faith to the perpetuation of Human kind let us propose the like discours against it and say that in Affrick or the Land of Senega there are under earth great mines of Arsnick Whereof one may at some time or other vapour a contagious smoak which encountring with a strong wind from the South may breed so great a Plague in all the North Countries that none can escape it and hereupon presently conclude that all on this side the Line are quite dead and those who seem to live and discourse are but phantasms and have nothing of real in them though I believe the instances brought in for declaration of so groundless a conceit may seem better to deserve that name THE SEVENTH ENCOUNTER Answering the Greeks and some Divines who object new Beliefs to the Catholick Church THe first is of the Greeks Hieremie Nilus and Barlaam who profess to stand to Tradition and the first seaven General Councils and can be no way disprov'd say's the objector unless by what shall be as forcible against the Catholick cause But truly this instance is so lame it needs a new making before it be answered For the Author expresses not in what points of difference betwixt us and them he intends to urge it If about shavings or fastings and the like we shal have no quarrel against him if about the Procession of the holy Ghost I doubt he will find himself entangled in an equivocation betwixt the matter and manner of that mystery However that all arguments against them will serve against us is but the Authors liberal addition without any proof or means to guess at it That they accuse us to corrupt Tradition by sowing tares among it has two parts one justify's my plea that we rely on Tradition since they charge us with endeavouring to corrupt not disclaim it the other that we do indeed corrupt it is only said not proved and farther shews that the plea of the Greeks is non-non-Tradition alleadging only this that their Fathers do not deliver the doctrin of the procession of the Holy Ghost not that they say the contrary which clearly demonstrates there are no opposite Traditions between them and us As little force has the Note cited out of Tertullian to prove that he thought more was to be believ'd then what was drawn from antiquity because he was content private men might begin good customs in their own houses For sure he could not believe that omnis fidelis could constituere for the whole Church or even for his neighbours house So that we need a great deal of Logick to draw from this remark the creeping of an errour into the Church not a word being so much as intimated that this good custom should be against what was already receiv'd which had been enough to make it rejected and not comprehended in Tertullians known judgment There is another instance strongly urg'd and largly dilated but if I guess right of so much less credit the more 't is opened It is out of a history by one Wadding an Irish man concerning two Treaties of two Kings of Spain with two Popes to tear from them a definition for the Immaculateness of our Ladies Conception I follow an Authors words who has read the book and it seems found a great violence in the carriage of the business which made him express it by the word tearing Who this Wadding is I know not for I have heard of more then one but whether this be any of them I am totally ignorant having never seen the Book nor any other signs by which to discover the Author Out of this Book they collect three arguments One from Waddings testimony another from the State of the question he handles a third from his practice joyntly with the practice of divers others of the same degree For the first I am desirous notice should be taken of the Authors condition When he wrote this book he was Secretary to the Bishop of Carthagena and He his Kings Ambassador to move the Pope to define our Ladies Conception without original sin and in solliciting this to use an extraordinary importunity Wherin I see two circumstances that concern the qualification of his Book One that he was to act a business of great heat and if his zeal were not conformable to the eagerness of his senders he was like to have little thanks for his pains The second that he was Secretary to an Ambassador by which he had priviledg to say and publish Dicenda Tacenda whether they were his own opinions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they any way advanc'd his cause Now this encouraged Secretary undertakes to affirm that many things have been defined against the opinions of some Fathers and in the present case he says peradventure it has been defin'd that our Lady was free from all actual sin He adds the validity of Hereticks Baptism the beatifical vision before the day of Judgment the spirituality of Angels the souls being immediatly created and not ex traduce the Assumption of our Lady and her delivery without pain To Wadding
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
nature But the other notions are made by study and artificial proceeding and prove fals or true according as the precedent discourses are fallible or solid Even so believing is made by nature in us and is all alike in those to whom the object is proposed alike But to explicate and declare it happens differently among Doctors as they understand better or wors Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets which if they do I readily submit if not what doth it impeach the opinion I defend or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offer'd since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth let us therfore permit Divines to try out their own quarrels in their own Schools not mingling them in our business Yet to give some satisfaction let the objector answer me himself Does not the greater part of Divines seek out Tradition Yes will he say but not that Tradition which rely's on the present Church for they seek it in laborious quotations of Fathers in all ages Let 's agree then in this They seek Tradition as well as I But I pray what do they intend by so great labour in heaping of Fathers do they mean it was those Fathers opinion and so make their conclusion good because such a number of Doctors held it or do they farther pretend out of these Fathers testimonies to shew it was the publick doctrin of the Ages in which they lived If the adversary be as ingenuous as he is ingenious he will confess they pretend to argue the publick belief out of this numerous Catalogue Nevertheless for fear some other may be more reserv'd let 's remember what was before objected that some points have been defin'd notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers and this by the verdict of these Divines Whence it clearly appears that this numbring of Fathers would not make a doctrin certain to them unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were imply'd in it Therfore in conclusion it is evident that they also rely for Faith upon the succession of it through divers ages which is the same as the Doctrin's being handed from the Apostles to us So that you see we all agree and I whom you took to be particular in this conceit am thus far of the common opinion But the adversary urges that I come to the knowledg of this succession by the testimony of the present Church wheras they who search it in Fathers find it by the consent of antiquity Suppose it be so what difference makes this It is too great a servility to be bound not to say any word but what has before faln in my adversaries way Yet at least can he justify this do not those Divines according to what himself would have them say profess that the present Churches definition makes a certainty in our Faith Admit then the present Church in a Council or otherways as it shall please those Divines should define that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition from the Apostles to us would not they say Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony Surely it cannot be deny'd I ask again whether the professing a point of doctrin to be hers by receiving it from hand to hand be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrin Therfore all such Divines confess Tradition may be known by the testimony of the present Church Why then do they use such diligence in collecting so many passages out of Fathers chiefly for this reason because Sectaries deny that principle therfore they are forc'd for their satisfaction not for instruction of Catholicks to take so much pains with little thanks many times Though it be true their learned labours confirm besides some weak believer and enlighten the borders of Catholick Faith and so in themselvs are both ornamental and profitable to the Church And now what if I should add that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith but only by Tradition I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes nevertheless because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholick Faith out it shall go and the discours be neither long nor obscure I ask therfore do not these Doctors require to the certainty of a Definition that the Definers proceed without malice or negligence and use all human endeavours to discover the truth I cannot answer for every particular but am sure the principal Divines require these conditions otherwise they doubt not but the definitions may be erroneous I ask again what certainty can we have of this proceeding of the Definitors or was there ever Council yet against which the condemned Party did not cry out that they had fail'd in observing them I conclude therfore two things first that in the Churches definitions of this nature there can be no more then the certainty of moral Prudence according to these mens opinions if they follow their own grounds Secondly that there is no Moral quarrel betwixt Sectaries and them concerning the infallibility of such definitions for the exception generally in the first condemnation of any heresy rises from this part Whether the Judg proceeded equally and not Whether if he did so his authority were to be rejected there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say a Judge does him wrong and yet proceeds rightly for either he judges what he understands not and that 's rashness or seeing the right he pronounces wrong and that 's malice both which are unexcusable from injustice So that I believe in this point they do not assure the Church against Hereticks though both sides should agree in the speculative part that the Difinitors were infallible I know Divines say Catholiks are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought unlesse the contrary be evident and I see they speak with a great deal of reason but withall I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action not of Infallibility and belief I have yet a little scruple about this doctrin For either the Definitors are assur'd the doctrin they define is true or no If not how can it be said they proceed rationally who determin a position as certain which they see not to be so If they are then the Opinion was certain before the Definition on some ground precedent to and independent of it and so not made certain by the definition but only declar'd to the ignorant by the Authority of the Definer that it was and is certain upon other grounds Now excepting Tradition Scripture and Definitions I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable Autority Therefore what is defin'd must be before certain either by Scripture or by Tradition Let those Divines now chuse which
clear in his comment upon St. Matthew and upon Ezekiel where he cals it a Jewish Fable l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of argues nothing of Tradition but the numerosity of that sort of believers occasion'd by the writings of the Heretick Apollinaris as the same Saint testifies Comment 10. in Esaiam Neither doth St. Austin stick to condemn it since those words c. 7. 24. de Civit. Dei esset utcunque tolerabilis signifie that it is not tolerable Yet truly I cannot but admire that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been deriv'd duely and really from the Apostles by verbal Tradition should conceive that either St. Hierom or St. Austin could think such a Tradition to be no sign of the Churches doctrin or not care whether it were or no which seems to me the same as to impute to these Saints a neglect of what they thought to be the Churches opinion or els to the Church a neglect of what was Christs doctrin if She would not accept what She knew was descended verbally from Him or at least that St. Austin and St. Hierom lay this great slander of neglecting the known doctrin of Christ upon the Church THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER That there was Tradition for the Trinity before the Council of Nice THe Chiliad errour seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian which speaks far louder for it self And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence whose testimony is that The Arians would gladly have been try'd by the writings yet remaining of those Authors who lived before the Council of Nice for in them will be found certain propositions which now since the Church-Language is more examin'd would make the Speaker thought an Arian From whence the Opposers infer that before the Council of Nice there was no Tradition for the mystery of the blessed Trinity But to maintain this consequence I see no proof for the Cardinal's words clearly import that the Fathers before that Council though being Catholiks they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity yet in somephrases spake like Arians How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent that these Fathers believ'd not the Trinity or had not receiv'd by Tradition the knowledg of that Mystery I confess my self unable to see the least probability in such an inference If it be permitted to guess what they aim at that make this objection I believe it is that some propositions concerning the Trinity by disputation and discussion have been either deduced or clear'd which before were not remark'd do draw so much consequence upon the mystery as since is found they do out of which they think it follows that such propositions were not delivered by Tradition and so not our whole Faith To this the answer is ready that as he who says a mystery was taught by the Apostles does not intend to say the Apostles taught what the words were in every Language which were to signify this Mystery so neither is his meaning that they taught how many ways the phrase in one language might be varied keeping the same sense But as they left the former to the natural Idiom of the speaker or writer so the latter to the Rules of Grammar as likewise they left it to the speakers skil in Logick to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they deliver'd the Mysteries It is not therfore to be expected that men who had receiv'd the Mystery simply and plainly should without both art and attention know how in different cases to explicate it according to the exact rules of Science And thus the defect of the argument or arguer is that he supposes not only the main verity should be formally convey'd by Tradition but all manner of explication and in all terms which the subtlety or importunity of Hereticks could afterward drive the Catholicks to express this Mystery by a task both impossible to be perform'd and most unreasonable to require and perhaps unprofitable if it were done Nor therfore does it follow that somthing is to be believ'd which came not down by Tradition For as he that says Peter is a man says he is a living creature a body a substance though he uses not those words because all is comprehended in the term Man so he that delivers One God is Father Son and Holy Ghost delivers that those persons are not Alia but Alij and that truly the Son is not an Instrument a commanded servant c. Yet as it may happen that one man sees another to be but knows not what the definition of him is nor needs he ordinarily know it because he knows the thing defined so may it also chance that some Fathers who knew well enough the mystery might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of Logick and 't is no good consequence The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity therfore they held it not or had not learn'd it by Tradition Yet I must also intimate these differences of speech proceeded many times from the various usage of the words as the Greeks generally say the Father is cause of the Son the Latines abhor it calling him Principium which difference is not in the meaning but in the equivocation of the expression So we read in St. Athanasius that he found an opposition in some people one sort saying there were in the Trinity three Hypostases and one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one Hypostasis and St. Hierom though perfect in the Greek Tongue was so exceedingly troubled with this question that he sent to St. Damasus for the resolution of it yet he wel knew there was no difference in the sense but only in the terms however he fear'd lest by the wrong use of the words he might unawares be drawn into a wrong meaning So likewise did St. Athanasius find that the two former parties of which we spake agreed in the Catholick sense though their words were opposite The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis which primarily and radically signify the same thing Aristotle telling us that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it appears this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura to which the word substantia by use is now appropriated when we speak of this mystery but only in a secondary sense Again the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando or Subsistendo and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia Now applying this to the mystery of the Trinity Because in God there is one common Nature abstrahible from three proprieties therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis et tres Ousiae For
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
not let it be known when she has defin'd of it self falls flat to the ground both because I take not that way and if I did since we are not troubled about knowing our Churches Definitions who have the burthen of obeying and do it in practice the Objectors are confuted as Diogenes did Zeno when he disputed against motion by walking before him For all this the Church of Rome must not escape yet And so we are told that if she were design'd for the Pharos to know the rest of the Church by somwhat had been advan'd for otherwise say they we can assign no mark of the true Church the Roman being deny'd to be such as we make her First I answer we have no need of recourse to the Church of Rome it being the infallible distinctive sign of the Church to lay claim to the handed Doctrin or Tradition which evidently appears cannot be claim'd by two For if two agree in a point to day and one dissent to morrow it were madness to say the disagreer can lay claim to yesterdays opinion Secondly we say if we would fly to the Roman Church the oppositions force us not from it For why is not Cardinal Perrons answer to Plessis invincible that the whole Church condemn'd St. Cyprians proceedings Likewise the Asian Bishops were condemn'd in the Council of Nice The African Bishops question was about the enacting a Law which nevertheless was carried for the Bishop of Rome If the Fathers remit us to the Apostolical Churches whose successions were then visible and evident what 's that to us now when all successions are interrupted save only that of the Roman Church The definition of the Council of Calcedon is known to be only the conspiracy of a Cabal never approved as legitimate but revers'd afterwards So that all these angry darts turn their points against their Authors the judgment in every instance having past in favour of the Church they oppose But this question concerning the Church of Rome is of greater extent and importance then to be huddled up in one sheet of Paper Therfore let us leave Her to the acknowledg'd Majesty she possesses in the Christian world and not by slight objections and answers rather seem to undervalue her Dignity then either oppose or defend her Authority You present us therfore next with what is kept for the closing of our stomacks and they are two dishes One that at last we Catholicks resolve into Reason as well as Protestants To this I answer if you mean we must see Reason why we give credit to Authority I agree with you But then since Reason is on both sides Why say you must it be a Wall to us and a Bulrush to others I le tell you Reason has two parts Demonstration and Sophistry and in Demonstrations that evidence which governs our Lives is the most familiar to us and consequently besides its firmness 't is the most clear and least denyable Now this proposition that we ought to believe a knowing person in that wherin our selvs are ignorant is of this nature a Maxime that governs all our life publick and private wherfore our ground or Reason is a wall a rock or if any thing be yet more solid On the other side of all parts of Sophistry that which is built on broken ends of obscure sentences of dead men who cannot declare themselvs is the most weak and contemptible and this being that you rely on Reason therfore to you is weaker and more deceitful then any Bul-rush The second dish is that whatever is deliver'd in defence of the Church of Rome only proves that as yet she is the true Church not that she cannot leave the way she is in and fall to reform as her adversaries cal it or that there may not happen some Shism among the Churches now adhering to her where both parts may claim Tradition and then where is the guide To this I answer I will not weigh the proofs of others for the eternity of the particular Church of Rome since there is no contest betwixt us here about that but those who are acquainted with controversies cannot be ignorant that our writers intend to prove Her indefectibility All I 'le say is did you but agree with us that she is at present the true Church it would be argument enough for you to submit til the cases happen which you suppose possible and I should think my self too grating and severe towards a Person in other respects extreamly recommendable if I should press harder then so upon him nor could I desire a repast more delightful to my soul then to have seen that in practice concerning him which is now too late to be hoped THE FOURTEENTH ENCOUNTER Four other Arguments revers'd SUch is the condition of Religion when the liberty of chusing is permitted to all that have the boldness to challeng it who having no other Scales to poise any arguments propos'd them then the affection to their own wils or prejudice against others reasons suffer every light objection to overballance the most weighty and solid Demonstration Therfore am I forc'd to follow certain other Adversaries my chase not being confin'd only to the noble game into every by-turn and beat every little bush where either the necessity of a desperate cause the fables of some wild Reporter or the craft of any jugling Hypocrite can drive them to hide their weak heads in As for reason in our present business they tel you every one is born in liberty to Religion and til it be demonstrated he is bound to acknowledg some Teacher the presumption stands for liberty and 't is meerly of curtesy and graciousness they take the pains to bring arguments for the Negative This I shal answer as the Caprich of some pragmatical Chaplain not having incivility enough to entertain the least suspition that so great a Wit stored with Art in so busy a time about questions of government should bring forth so mishapen a Monster But alas what cannot an unruly fancy that bites the bridle of reason Say then my young Divines of Politick of Paternal government what you say of Religion Is not the absurdity so palpable it wil make you asham'd That no child is bound to honour Father and Mother till it be demonstrated to him he ought to do so No Subject to obey the Magistrate til after a long dispute his power be evidently proved legitimate Pass from these to Arts and say every one may play the Physitian the Pilot the Judg for Doctor of Divinity you freely give your licence to all the world without having any Master or Teacher what a goodly Common-wealth you wil make But 't is reply'd Nullum tempus occurrit veritati no more then Regi since veritas fortior est Rege I Sir but in your major you put veritas and in your minor falsitas For what is your truth when you come to declare your self but probable arguments of which nothing is more certain then that
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
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