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 Christs do­ctrine, we mean that which was generally preach'd by the Apostles, and contains all such points as are necessary to the salvation of the World; not only in particular, to single persons, but for government of the Church, and bringing multitudes, with con­venience, to perfection in this life, and feli­city in the next. Which being establisht, they immediately proceed to this general Position, that All Christ taught, or the Holy Ghost suggested to the Apostles, of this nature, [Page 8] is, by a direct uninterrupted liue, entirely and fully descended to the present Church, which communicates with, and acknowledges subjection to the Roman: Adding also the convers of that proposition, viz. Nothing is so descen­ded, but such Truths; nor any thing held by this tenure, but what is so descended; which being cast up, amounts to this great Con­clusion, No errour was ever, or can be embraced by the Church, in quality of a matter of faith.

The proof consists in this: Since 'tis con­fessed the Catholik Church goes upon this Maxim, that Her Doctrine is received from Christ, and still handed along to the present generation; they who cavil at this assertion, should assign some Age when they conceive an errour crept in; and the maintainer should prove it enter'd not in that Age, Be­cause that Age held nothing was to be ad­mitted, as of Faith, except what was deli­ver'd to it by the former: but the Objectors themselves say, this supposed errour was not deliver'd by the former, since they put it to be, now, first, believ'd; therfore the Age in which they imagin this errour crept in, could not be the first that believ'd it.

And, lest some might reply, though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed maxim, yet anciently it did not; the same argument may be thus reiterated, [Page 9] If this principle which now governs the Church had not always done so, it must have been introduced in some Age since the Apostles: name therfore the Age, and imme­diatly 'tis urged, either the Church had assu­rance, in that Age, all she held was descended lineally, as we spake, from the Apostles, or not: If so, then questionless she held her do­ctrin upon that maxim; For it is the only undoubted and self-evident principle: If not, then she wilfully belyed her self, and con­spired to damn all her posterity, volunta­rily taking up this new Rule of faith and commanding it to be accepted by all the world, as the necessary doctrin of Christ and his Apostles, descended upon the present age by universal Tradition from their An­cestors, and for such to be deliver'd to their children; and all this against the express evidence of her own conscience. Thus far reaches the argument.

He that shall compare this perpetuation of the Church, with the constancy of propa­gating mankind; and proportion the love of happiness and natural inclination to truth, (which is in the superiour part of mankind, and commands powerfully in it) to the material appetite of procuring corpo­ral succession, and weigh what accidents are able and necessary to interrupt the progress [Page 10] of one and the other, will find the propaga­tion of Religion far stronger and less defecti­ble, then that of mankind; supposing them once rooted alike in universality and setled­ness. Since therfore the means of conduct­ing nature to its true and chief end, Felicity, are more principally intended, then those by which it is simply preserv'd in being; this Contemplator will clearly discern, that if humane nature continue to the last and dreadful day, this succession also of a true Church must be carried on through the same extent of time: there appearing indeed no purpose why the world should endure a mi­nute longer, if this once come to fail; that part of mankind, which arrives to bliss, be­ing the end why the rest was made, as man­kind is the end for which all the other ma­terial Creatures are set on work.

Again, if a rational discourser should plot in his head how, with condescendence to the weakness of our nature, he might bring mankind to bliss; and, to this end, plant in it a perpetual and constant know­ledg of the true and straight way thither; & did observe that Man in his immature age is naturally subject to believe, and after his ful growth, tenacious of what he had suck'd in with his milk: could he chuse but see, that to make the Mothers flatter [Page 11] into their Children the first elements of the acquisition of Beatitude, and continually go on nursing them up in the maxims of piety, till their stronger years gave a steddy setledness to their minds; must needs be the most sweet and connatural way that can be imagin'd, to beget a firm and undoubted assent to those happy principles.

If he think on, and chance to light on this truth, that the greatest part of man­kind, some through dulness of understan­ding, some by the distractions of seeking necessaries for their subsistence, or at least conveniences for their accommodation, and others for the diffluence of nature to Plea­sures and Vanities, are, to their very depar­ting hour, wholly incapable of searching out their Religion, either by their own con­templation or the learned books of others: I cannot doubt but such a considerer would without the least difficulty or hesitation, conclude that, were it his design to set up a Religion, which he would have constantly and universally propagated, he must of ne­cessity pitch upon this way; And so, with a resolute and pious confidence pronounce, if God has not already taken this course, cer­tainly he should have done it.

To these considerations give my pen leave to add the confession of our Adversaries, [Page 12] who boldly acknowledge the Roman Church has had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since St. Gregories days; which is now a thousand years, and very near two parts of the three that Chri­stian Religion has endured. They confess those Doctrins, which are common to us and them, remain in our Church uncorrup­ted, and have still descended from Father to Son, by vertue of Tradition, since the very times of the Apostles. They will not deny the Ages, betwixt Constantine and St. Gre­gory, flourisht with an infinity of Persons famous both for piety and learning; and the Church never more vigilant, never more jealous, being continually alarm'd by such Troops of powerful and subtle Hereticks: so that there is no likelihood, gross errours (such as Idolatry and Superstition import) could creep in undiscern'd, in those days. And perhaps, much less betwixt Constantine and the Apostles; the time being so short that it scarce exceeds the retrospection of those who liv'd with Constantine: At least that age could evidently know what was the faith of Christendom in the age of the Apo­stles great Grand-children, and they again be certainly assured of the Doctrin of the Apostles disciples, their Grandfathers. Which is an evidence beyond all testi­mony [Page 13] of writers, that since Constantines time it was known by a kind of self-sight what the Grandchildren of the Apostles held, and it could not be doubted of them but they knew and held the doctrin of the Apostles; that, I say, in Constantines time, the publike doctrin of Christianity was the doctrin of the Apostles.

Besides, the communication of Christians being very difficult and infrequent, during those persecutions; the contagion also of heresies scatter'd it self slowly among Chri­stians in those times. And here I shall note a ridiculous cavil, very common not only in the mouths of the more rash and shallow Protestants, but even in the writings of many of their gravest and most solemn Doctors, who cry out against the Ignorance of our Church, as the cause of our errors, and yet put the Ages in which they insult, that Fri­gebat Scriptura cum vetustis Autoribus, some hundreds of years after the time, wherin they acknowledg the doctrins, term'd er­rours, were already flourishing; as if they could proceed, from a defect which fol­low'd them: A slander so palpably absur'd that all the charity I have can scarce per­swade me to think they are not blinded ra­ther with malice then ignorance, that dare vent such gross contradictions.

[Page 14] And now, having abridg'd as 'twere, the whole sense of Rushworths Dialogues concer­ning Tradition, into this short compendium; I will apply my pen to answer what excep­tions are taken, against either the forme or matter of that Discourse.

THE SECOND ENCOUNTER, Defeating three oppositions made against Tradition.

THe first objection against the form is, that I put my Adversary to prove his position instead of going about to maintain my own. This they imagin, because I bid them assign the Age; which they take to be as much as a demand of them to prove that in such a time came in the error: but 'tis a plain mistake. For I do not require they should prove the errour began in such an Age; but only exact of them, for Argu­ment sake, to name the Age in which they find most difficulty for me to conclude, or wherin they conceive the sinnews of my discours will be most slack and feeble: for the force of the main argument is indifferent [Page 15] to any Age they can pitch upon, equally demonstrative in all, and so, by striking at every one, concludes against all. This I say not, any way to disclaim the advantage we Catholicks have, whilst we press our ad­versary to prove his Thesis, being no less a just then strong and secure retreat; and which I reserve my self the liberty of reti­ring to, perhaps, at another time: but now I only urge him to name one Age at haz­zard, meerly to give way to the prosecuti­on of the argument; a Justice I might do for my self, if I would, without his courtesie, and have all the laws of disputation bear me out in it.

It is therefore to litle purpose to demand, whether I ask of the first man that held such an opinion, or when it came to be univer­sal (though the question be plainly of this later, for we hold it was ever so;) nor is there any art necessary to answer it, the ar­gument made being indifferent to all. The skill therefore required, is only to know what belongs to the form of demonstrating; for the most part, indeed, not found in the quaint discourses of Rhetoricians. But the Adversary thinks, when the Question is put concerning a Doctrine's being Vniversal, it must suppose none to hold the contrary opinion; as if we could not know what is [Page 16] the publick Faith of France, because perhaps a few conceal'd persons may believe som­what different. Wherin, he reflects not, that Heresie signifies the cleaving to a private opinion: so that, when there were any such in former ages, that very thing made them Hereticks (how good wits or great learning so ever they had) if they dissented from the doctrine deliver'd by their forefathers. He presses, Catholiks cannot tell when the communicating of Children began, since St. Austin thinks it an Apostolical Tradi­tion. We answer, we are of that mind too: but with this qualification, that it was a Tradition begun by some Apostles, not all, in some Countries, not all, in some circum­stances, not all: And therfore 'twas neither superstition to use it, nor sacriledg to leave it off; how strongly soever the opponent avers one of these two to be unavoydable.

The second opposition made against the form is, that 'tis a fallacy of that kind, cal­led Soritae, in which the Scepticks found so great difficulty, that they used to press them against the Stoicks and other dogma­tists, as insoluble and manifestly demon­strating there was no science. But, to un­derstand the meaning of this objection, the demonstration propos'd is to begin from the Apostles time: and so it must be suppo­sed, [Page 17] that the next Age after the Apostles, in any controversy against new doctrins, exa­min'd no farther then on which side stood the verdict of the Apostles, wherof they could not be ignorant. The Argument therfore pressed that the next (that is, the third Age) must of necessity take the same method against its Novellists, convincing them of falsity, because their doctrine was contrary to that of those who had heard the Disciples of the Apostles speak. And so, since the Tradition of Faith was convey'd from age to age, stil with this caution, that the latter was to believe such a doctrin, be­cause receiv'd from the former, upon this warrant that it descended lineally from Christ in the same manner, to them, as they deliver'd it to their posterity; it necessarily follows, that this doctrin could not but continue pure even to our present time: un­less some age should prevaricate all bounds of truth and nature, and deliver somthing to the following age, as traditionally de­riv'd from Christ, which had not been so receiv'd.

This argument, so propos'd (though I know not whether so understood) seem'd to the opponent like the ratiocination of one Mr. Thinn, a melancholy Philosopher, who perswaded himself, a person might be found [Page 18] that could leap from off Pauls (for sure he needed a high standing) to Rome, because 'twas possible some man might leap full twenty foot, and no doubt but another som­what more, and still another more then he, and so without end; therfore among all, one quick springer would be found, who could make his jump from hence to the Ca­pitol.

But certainly he that weigh'd the two ar­guments, might without extraordinary stu­dy, have found there was some difference in their form: Mr. Thinn, being oblig'd to take variety of men undetermined: but this ar­gument engaging only sixteen ages, and peradventure, not needing above six, or in rigour, some three, and those such as have had a real existence, wheras the Worlds du­rance and latitude are not sufficient to find men enough to justify Mr. Thinns Proces. This I say was obvious enough to any mean understanding, not preoccupated with pre­judice against the conclusion. But one, who had understood how Aristotle unwrap­ped Zeno's fallacies, might easily have known that Infinity it self could not add more then one full foot to Mr. Thinns lea­pers: if the encrease were made by sub-pro­portional parts, wherof the first was one half foot; and if by equal quantities, as Feet [Page 19] or Inches, he would soon come to an end of his addition, unlesse he put mens strength and nimblenesse to be infinite. But to sit Judge of Religion, of eternal bliss and dam­nation, some curious and unhappy wits dare think requires neither so much indiffe­rency nor reflection as the composition of quantity.

Yet I cannot but admire it could scape a piercing ey to discern, that as the conse­quent of Mr. Thinns discourse is ridiculous and impossible, so that of the proposed de­monstration is evident and undeniable. For what ingenuous forehead will deny, but such verities as all the world allows to re­main still untainted in the Church of Rome, have descended by this traditionary way to us from Christ? Wherfore both the possibi­lity and actuality of this way is not only acknowledg'd by the unanimous confession of all parties, but its force and efficacy made evident by the downright violence of reason: all the controversie being meerly about the multitude and sufficiency of the things receiv'd, not the impotency of the means to convey them to us.

But, to make an end of this petty Que­stion, I appeal to all Masters, nay even Scho­lars in Geometry, whether this form of ar­guing be not the same that Euclid, Archi­medes [Page 20] and Apollonius use in their severest de­monstrations? As when Euclid undertakes to demonstrate this plain and elementary Theoreme, that No Circle can touch another in more then one point; himself acts the part of the Denier, and according to the law of Mathematicks, supposes at random the other point, to see whether the Proposition be maintainable: and if the Contactus in the point assign'd be proved impossible, by an argument applyable to any other that can be offered, the Theoreme remains infallibly demonstrated, and the Rules of that pre­cise and strict Science perfectly comply'd with.

The third opposition is drawn out of a conceited impossibility of the case; and so they demand how can it come to passe that all the Doctors of one age should meet to­gether, to instruct the world of Scholars that are to succeed them in the next? an action, if not impossible, at least so incre­dible, as by no means to be aver'd without legitimate Authority, which they say, is wanting: And further, should we under­take, that not only all Doctors, but all men of one age met with the men of the next, to teach them; it were an enterprize so highly impossible, as not to be thought on even among the wildest capriches of a Ro­mance: [Page 21] yet to so hard straits are we driven, that we must defend the possibility of this later assertion.

Which to compasse, we distinguish this word, Together, as capable of signifying an unity either in place or time: and, if the Op­ponent mean one Age cannot meet ano­ther in a Town or great Hall, as Councils use, I am easily perswaded such interviews are impossible; but if this Assembly needs only the unity of time, I think it will require but a moderate stock of faith to believe, either that men of the same Age live together in that Age, or that Fathers meet with their Children. If then we put all Fathers and Mothers, all Pastors and Teachers to make one Age, and all Children and young per­sons, who come to be instructed, and after­ward outlive their Tutors, to compose the other age; I see no great impossibility in this position, but a clear one in the contra­ry. For, I cannot believe the Opponents think, men, since Christs time, start out of mole-hils with clods on their heads, as it seems Empedocles and Horace imagined, and the Toscans of their wise Tages, high Master of their skill in Augury.

And this answer cuts off another difficul­ty, urg'd by certain Speculatists, that, be­cause, in some rude times, they imagine the [Page 22] learned were few, and therfore subject to corruption by hopes or fears, they might more easily be prevail'd with to proclaim a fals Tenet in that Age; whence, this claim of infallibility would remain broken: But the former answer saves it; for since neither the great multitude of Instructors, nor in­structed persons can meet in any other as­sembly then that of the whole and open World, all possibility of corruption is evi­dently avoided.

THE THIRD ENCOUNTER, Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition.

THe fourth opposition denys the necessity of assigning any Age wherein an errour may be said to have crept in; because (say they) an errour might begin first in one Country, and insensibly steal over into ano­ther, without any notice taken of its novel­ty, so that there is no time wherin its be­ginning is discoverable: For proof, they instance in some errour held by divers He­reticks in divers ages; and tell you, the best [Page 23] Historian knows who was first mentioned to have broacht that errour: wheras perhaps a less diligent or careless Writer may cite some middle or late Author, attributing to him the original invention of that opi­nion.

To this we reply, 'tis too desperate an Answer to call a hundred years an insensible time, to suppose all the Pastors stupify'd, and the Doctors asleep for a whole century together. At least, let us ask this fair que­stion, Was there no Doctor or Bishop made it his business to promote that new opini­on within a hundred years? If you say, no; how could an innovation of any considera­ble importance get footing which had no eminent patron? If you say yes; see whe­ther that was not the occasion of impug­ning all heresies, when extraordinary per­sons divulged them: I, but you'l say, it was so transcendent a Doctor that he overtopt all. Here, I confess my weakness: for if some sky-faln Angel, indeed, should come, with tongue and pen more then humane, I doubt not but he might perhaps endanger a great part of the Church: but, if we make our comparison only betwixt men; who ever had the like reputation in the Greek Church, as Origen? yet he was condemned by the same Church. Who was more elo­quent [Page 24] then Eusebius Caesariensis? more cun­ning then Eusebius Nicomediensis? more subtle then Arius? Let us add a faction so powerful, as to make ten Councils, to num­ber three hundred Bishops; yet, notwith­standing all this, the Arians were condem­ned. The Dragon drew but a third part of the Stars; and the Apostle has armd us, even against the treachery of Angels; charging that, in spight of them, we cleave fast to what we have receiv'd, to what was Preach'd to us, that is, to Tradition: For rely but on what, in memory of our own age, the Church has universally held, and deliver'd, as from Christ, and no subtlety of men or Angels can make you mistake.

Yet, Let it be supposed, some unparallel'd Brain had the power to make a doctrin uni­versal; could this stand with the still way of creeping in insensibly? Is not this position, that a Doctor was so great, & took so much pains to divulge his opinion, wrote so many Books in defence of it, that he overcame all opposers, and at last made it universal; and yet all this while the new doctrin stole in unawares, the Pastors of the Church 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 [Page 25] 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 'tis for our side (says the Zelot) 'tis 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 [Page 26] 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 every­where 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) [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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.

[Page 29] 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 [Page 30] 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? [Page 31] 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. [Page 32] 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, [Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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 [Page 35] 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: 'tis 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.

Tis 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 [Page 37] 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.

[Page 38] 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 [Page 39] 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 [Page 40] 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; 'tis 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 [Page 41] 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 'tis 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 [Page 42] 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, 'tis 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; 'tis 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] into an universal reception. To which I return this clear answer: 'tis 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] 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 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 'tis; 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 [Page 49] 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, [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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-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 [Page 52] 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 'tis 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 [Page 53] 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 [Page 54] created, and not ex traduce, the Assumption of our Lady, and her delivery without pain. To Wadding we may add Salmeron, who has the boldness to say Do­ctores quo juniores eo perspicaciores. Poza is no les audacious, in citing opinions defin'd against the Fathers. Erasmus says myriades Articulorum proruperunt. Fisher, Bishop and Martyr, and as learned as any in his age, consents that Purgatory was brought in by little and little: and Indulgences, after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory. Alphonsus de Castro puts, in the rank of newly receiv'd Doctrines, Indulgen­ces, Transubstantiation, and the procession of the holy Ghost. But beyond all, is the fact of Clement the eighth, a grave and wise Pope; who, desirous to end the controversy be­tween the Dominicans and the Jesuits accu­sed by them of Pelagianism, neither sent for learned men, by way of a Council, to know what their Forefathers had taught them, nor examin'd with which of them the purest Ages sided: but refer'd the whole matter to what St. Austin said: and so it had been defin'd, had not Cardinal Perrons advice prevail'd. And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion, that he knew not himself what he held: wheras, be­fore him all the ancients sided with the [Page 55] Jesuits. Thus far that Book.

I know this term Defining, is frequent­ly used by our Divines in matters of the Churches determinations; nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word, if the thing be understood, to wit▪ that Defining is nothing els but the acknowledging and clea­ring a Tradition, from the dirt and rubbidg opposers had cast upon it. For the rest, that some Fathers have had their eys ty'd, in particular points, so far as not to see the force of Tradition, by which the Church had notice of the truth of some position, is a thing not to be doubted. And, if it were fit or necessary, I could bring instances of bold Divines, in our days, so blinded by ar­guments, that they see not the light of Tra­dition in some particular questions; and so, the expressions only changed, hold condem­ned heresies: So short is the sphear of our discours, if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our Logick, or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the abili­ty of our Reason.

But, what consequence any can draw, out of these sayings, against Tradition, I understand not: unless this be taken for a Maxim, that every one must necessarily know, of a special point, that it is deriv'd by Tradition, because really 'tis so; an [Page 56] inconsequence, I hope already sufficiently demonstrated. Now, if these two can stand together, that, truly the Church has a Tradi­tion for a point, and nevertheless some lear­ned man may be ignorant of it; this argu­ment has no force at all.

As to the positions he cites for newly a­dopted into the family of faith; he fairly shews the priviledg he and his Master had to speak any thing that sounded to his pur­pose, and let his adversaries take care whe­ther true or no: For, nothing is more clear then that the validity of Baptism by Here­ticks was a Tradition, and decided by it: so, the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgment, the spirituality of Angels, are not yet held matters of Faith, but only Theological conclusions; as likewise, the souls being concreated to the perfecting of the body: Then for the blessed Virgin's be­ing free from actual sin, as also her Assump­tion, and her delivery without pain (which others add) these either are known by Tra­dition, or not matters of Catholick Faith: and so, no ways advance our Adversaries pretences. For Alphonsus de Castro, 'tis plain by his very expressions, either he means the manner only, or at most some circumstances unessential to the things, and therefore certainly not cited without [Page 57] some violence offerd to his words.

Poza is a condemned Authour: and Sal­meron's saying not to be followed, or to be understood (as it is, whence he took it) in such things as later disputes have beaten out more plainly; Erasmus was learned in Cri­ticism, and one whom, if not others, his very English Patrons, Warham of Canterbury, Fisher of Rochester, and More in the Chancery, exempt from all calumny of being a deser­tor of the ancient Faith: besides his own Books, especially his Epistle Ad Fratres in­ferioris Germaniae, by effects demonstrate his loyalty; whatever bad impressions a cer­tain liberty of practising his wit too freely may have made in some even great and emi­nent persons. But, what he speaks concer­ning Articles of Faith, he either took from the scoldings of some ignorant Divines, (who are ready to call every word, they found not in their books, when they were Schollers, Heresie) or else because, truly, he understood not what belong'd to Decisions in that kind.

There remain two Authorities really considerable; one of the holy Bishop Fisher; the other, of the prudent Pope. As for the first, I conceive there is a great equivocation through want of care and warinesse in di­stinguishing. For, let us take either the Coun­cil [Page 58] of Florence or Trent, in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences; and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points, those Councils defin'd, are either denied by the Greeks, or brought in by private revelations or new interpretations of Scripture. For, how could he be ignorant, that the Greeks had agreed to the Latin Church, about the defi­nition of Purgatory, in the Council of Florence; or forget himself so far, as not to remember a publick practice, Indulgences, in all the ancient Church, for remission of the Penal injunctions laid upon sinners? Besides, he says, the Latins did not receive Purgatory at once, but by little and little. Whence 'tis evident, by the name Purgatory, he means not only so much as is established in the Council, but the manner also and circum­stances were introduced by revelations of private persons and argumentations of Di­vines. The like he expresses of Indulgences, saying, They began, after men had trembled a while at the pains of purgatory. Whence it is plain, he contented not himself with the precise subject of the Councils Definitions, or the sense of the Church; but included also such interpretations as Divines give of them. So that, by speaking in general terms, and not distinguishing the substance of Pur­gatory, [Page 59] from the Accidents and dressing of it; as likewise, in Iudulgences, not separating what the Church has alwaies practiz'd from the interpretative extention which Divines attribute to them; he is mistaken to sup­pose new Articles of Faith may be brought into the Church. Neither imports it, that he uses those words, No Orthodox man now doubts; for that's true of such Conclusions as are term'd Theological and generally re­ceiv'd in the Schools, yet are not arriv'd to the pitch of making a point of Catholick be­lief: besides, he expresses himself, that this generality extends no farther, then That there is a Purgatory.

In Clement the eighth's action, the main point is to consider, on what grounds he sought to establish the Definition he went about to make. And, upon the immediate step, we both joyntly stand; to wit, that it was to finde out, whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin: But, if I mistake not, my Adversaries make not the same ap­prehension of it that I do. They seem to take St. Austin for one Doctour, peradventure a great one, peradventure the chief, but yet only one: I apprehend him as the leading Champion of the Church in the Question of Grace; whence it follows, that the Doctrin of St. Augustin was the Doctrin of all those [Page 60] Catholick Writers, by whose demonstrati­ons and authority the Pelagians were con­demned; that is, it was the faith of the Church in that age, and consequently, which the Church continued ever after.

Father, because St. Austin neither had the Authority to bring in a new Faith, nor pretends it; but both proves his dictrin to have descended from his Forefathers, and found Pelagius his opinion condemned, be­fore he medled with it, by some Council; that is, by the apprehensions of the then present Church; and, as it spread from Country to Country, was stil found con­trary to the receiv'd doctrin, every where planted in their hearts before Pelagius con­tradicted it. Therefore, I say, I cannot but esteem, that, in the point of Grace, it is all one to say, the Doctrin of St. Austin, and the Doctrin of the Apostles, planted by them and continued to St. Austins daies, illustrated by him, and transmitted to his posterity, even to our present time. If this be true, (as no Catholik can deny, nor prudent per­son doubt but we esteem it so) Pope Clement had great reason to endeavour the decision of that question by the Authority of St. Au­stin: since the doctrin of St. Austin was evidently the faith of that Age; and the faith of that Age the faith of the Christian [Page 61] Church, from the Apostles to us.

But we have another quarrel about St. Au­stins doctrin, that It is so uncertain, himself knew not what he held. Nor do I wonder such a thought should fall into the head of a Gentleman-Divine; especially in a Li­berty of wit, to censure, without the least respect or reverence of Antiquity: But I tremble to hear, that some (of whom we are in justice as wel as charity bound to expect more staydness and Religion) seem so wed­ded to their own Sect, as to mutter the same. My answer, I believe, is already un­derstood.

I say therefore, such as have made it a prin­cipal employment of their lives, to be per­fect in St. Augustin; those who with great attention had read his Polemical Treatises against the Pelagians, (as I take it) some five and thirty times, were of another mind: And so are all those who at this day study him, not to make him speak what they think, but to make themselvs speak what he thinks.

But this question transiit in rem judicatam, since, when it was handled at Rome before the Congregations, when both oppositions and defences were solemnly made by the proof of present books, when the maintai­nainers of the opinion accus'd of Pelagia­nism, [Page 62] were the choicest wits and ancientest Scholers could be pickt out of that so fa­med Society: nevertheless, almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against them; as is evident, both out of the printed Compendium of the Acts of those Congregations, and the very manuscript Acts themselves, extant at this day.

But, let us hear the Pope himself speak. Upon the 8. of July was held the second Congregation; His Holiness began with these words. Nos personaliter vidimus conge­riem locorum, quam vos, qui Molinam defendi­tis, induxistis ex Augustino; & nullus inventus est qui faveat; immo contrarium tenuit Augu­stinus: Vnde mirum quòd tot artibus utamini. And hence it seems they were forc'd to cor­rupt St. Austin to the Popes face the 30 of September following; which being discove­red, the Authour died of melancholy and disgrace. Again, in the tenth Congre­gation, the same Pope taxed them, Quod Scholasticis, maxime suis, non Scripturâ, Con­ciliis, Patribus, uterentur. A sign how sound their way of doctrin is, how sincere their proceedings to defend it.

Yet, 'tis urged farther, that the Fathers who lived before St. Austin, are generally of the contrary opinion. This is a simple [Page 63] assertion without proof, and my name is Thomas: I would entreat therfore such of my Readers as light on this objection, to re­member that the question, of the force of Grace, and liberty of Free will, consists of two truths, that seem, like the Symplegades, to butt at one another, as long as we look at them afar off; but if we make a neerer approach, they shew a fair passage betwixt them. So then, it is not hard that one who studies the question for pleasure, especially in such Fathers as wrote before the com­bating of the truth by Heresies, should be deceiv'd, by the seeming overlaying of that side, which the Fathers had occasion to in­culcate; though they meant nothing lesse then to prejudice the verity, which stands firm on the other side the fretum of this dis­putation. Adde to this, that St. Austin him­self examin'd the Fathers, and found in them the doctrin he maintain'd; nor could it be otherwise, the general apprehension of the Church being against Pelagius. Therfore I shal follow the advice of the Proverb, and be fearful to leap before I look: especially, since a great reader of St. Chrysostom solemn­ly profess'd he could shew as strong places in him for Grace, as in St. Austin; though he be the man chiefly set up against St. Au­stin.

THE EIGHTH ENCOUNTER, Shewing, our Ladies immaculate concep­tion is not likely to become an Article of Faith.

AS for the state of the question, about our Ladies being conceiv'd in Original sin, some would willingly perswade us, the Negative is in great probability to be de­fin'd; whereas certainly there is no Tradi­tion for it (if Wadding's sayings be rightly reported.) But if defining signifies the clea­ring of Tradition, (as we explicate it) no­thing can be more evident, then that there is no probability of defining the negative part: rather it may be in danger of be­ing, at least, censured, for rashly put­ting an exception in the generall rule of Scripture, which expresly condemns all but our Saviour to Original sin; except the defenders can shew good ground for the pri­viledg they pretend, which I much doubt. For, as far as I can understand, the whol warrant of that opinion stands upon a de­votion to our Lady, arising chiefly from a [Page 65] perswasion that original sin is a disgrace to the person in whom 'tis found: So that, if the people were taught original sin is no­thing but a disposition to evil, or a natu­ral weakness, which, unless prevented, brings infallibly sin and damnation; and that in it self it deservs neither reproach nor pu­nishment, as long as it proceeds not to actu­al sin, the heat of vulgar devotion would be cool'd, and the question not thought worth the examining.

However, ther's no great appearance of deciding that point in favour of the nega­tive; since the earnest sollicitations of 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 [Page 66] 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 [Page 67] 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: 'tis 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, 'tis a necessary part of Government; but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths accor­ding [Page 68] 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 [Page 69] 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, 'tis 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 [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] 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, [Page 75] 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 [Page 76] 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, [Page 77] 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 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 [Page 98] 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 [Page 79] 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 [Page 80] 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.

'Tis 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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] usage of the word [...]) the Commo­nalty of Christians.

Nor wil the next Objection give us much trouble, That none oppos'd the Millenary errour before Dionysius Alexandrinus: To which we apply this answer: First, for any thing we know, it was hidden and incon­siderable till his time, and then began to make a noise, and cause people to look into it. Secondly, there are probable Mo­tives to perswade, it was impugn'd long be­fore: For, it being clear, that both Heretiks and Catholiks sustain'd the contrary, we cannot wel suppose it was never contra­dicted till then, though the report of it came not to their ears; since, who consi­ders the few monuments we have of these first Ages, must easily discern the hundred part is not deriv'd to us, of what was then done. But lastly, admit there was no wri­ting against it till Dionysius Alexandrinus; does it follow, there was no preaching nei­ther?

As little can be gathered out of St. Hie­rom's being half afraid to write against it; both because he did write against it, as is clear in his comment upon St. Matthew, and upon Ezekiel, where he cals it a Jewish Fable, l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of, argues nothing of Tradition, but [Page 83] 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 [Page 85] 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, [Page 86] 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 [Page 87] well enough the mystery, might falter in explicating it precisely according to the ri­gour of Logick; and 'tis 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.

[Page 88] The reason of this opposition is the na­ture of these two words, [...] and Hyposta­sis, which primarily and radically signify the same thing; Aristotle telling us, that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia, which in Greek is [...]: whence it appears, this word, [...], does not signify what in Latin is call'd natura, (to which the word substan­tia, by use, is now appropriated, when we speak of this mystery) but only in a secon­dary sense. Again, the word Hypostasis is deriv'd from Substando, or Subsistendo, and therfore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be exprest by Substantia.

Now, applying this to the mystery of the Trinity, Because in God there is one com­mon Nature, abstrahible from three proprie­ties; therfore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis: wherupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis, et tres Ousiae. For Ousia being deriv'd from [...] or Ens, and Ens or Substantia, and (in Greek) Ousia signifying primarily what the Schools term Suppositum (that we see with our eys, a demonstrable singular, named substance, as Bucephalus, A­thos &c. which among men (if restrain'd to particulars) is call'd Socrates or Plato, (if u­sed at larg) in the common name a person:) these men, very Catholikly, said three Ou­sia's [Page 89] and one Hypostasis, meaning three Per­sons and one God. But, the Fathers of the Council of Nice (by much pondering these words, by their debates with the Arians, and to determine a rule in speaking, that Catholicks might not be subject, through equivocation, to be drawn into errour,) a­greed upon the contrary; because Hypostasis was more commonly in use for that we call a Person, and Ousia was rather a School term fetch'd from Philosophers books, and ther­fore might, with less violence to common language, be taken in a secondary sense. Thus it became the rule of speaking in the Church, to say three Hypastases and one Ousia.

Besides, those speeches which Perron cites are not so harsh, but as, in a rigorous inter­pretation, they are fals, so, in a moderate sense, they contain undeniable truths. Phi­losophers divide instruments into Conjuncta and Separata; and, among the Conjuncta, number up our Arms and Legs &c. which are our very substance: It does not therfore follow, if the Son be called an Instrument, that his substance is distinguish'd from the Substance of his Father; because the Instru­mentality consists in nothing but the diffe­rence of their notional conceits of Being and Knowledg, wherof Knowledg seems to be [Page 90] but the Vehiculum of Being towards the ope­ration or effect: So likewise, whoever works by a power that is not in himself, other­wise then from another in whom 'tis princi­pialiter and (as the Greek speaks both anci­ently and at this day,) Authoritativè may, not improperly, be said to be commanded; though the other be not his Master or Bet­ter. Neither is there such rigour in the genders of aliud and alius, but that aliud is many times apply'd to the person; and only Ecclesiastical use, grounded on the height of propriety and distinction of Genders, binds us to this manner of speaking, which for unity and charity sake we observe.

Out of what has been discours'd about the name Ousia, we may easily solve the see­ming contradiction of the Council of An­tioch to that of Nice: for, if Ousia may sig­nify a person, (as we have shew'd it does, in its best and chiefest signification;) then Ho­moousion signifies the same person. So that the Conncil of Antioch, denying Christ to be Homoousios to his Father, deny'd no more then that he was the same person with his Father; which no subtlety can ever prove to be against the Fathers of the Nicen Coun­cil. Nor is this said to reconcile contra­dictories, but discover equivocations: For that this was the true reason of the opposi­tion, [Page 91] is easily deduc'd out of both St. Atha­nasius and St. Hillary, and the question which St. Hierom made to St. Damasus.

But it may be urged, if there were a ver­bal Tradition, how could the Christians, through want of caution, contradict one another: or, had it been as known a part of Religion as the Resurrection, how could Constantine have so slighted it, when it first rose, or Alexander the holy Bishop for a while have remain'd in suspence? To this I answer, If, by verbal Tradition, be under­stood, that the Tradition was deliver'd in set words; certainly those set words could not be doubted of, though their sense must needs be capable of eternal controversy: but the meaning of verbal, here intended, is only as contradistinguisht to written Tradition; which (being in set words, whose interpre­tation is continually subject to dispute) is therfore opposed to Oral or mental, where the sense is known, and all the question is about the words and expressions.

Nevertheless, suppose it had been deli­ver'd in a set and determinate phrase, and that Hereticks began to use other words; a controversy might be about those terms which the Hereticks introduc'd, and many might demur, uncertain of the question in such new expressions: as we see, those who [Page 92] rely on Scripture are in perpetual quarrels about the sense; wheras, to Catholicks, the sense of their Faith is certain, though the words be sometimes in question.

The reason therfore, why, at Arius his first broaching that desperate heresy, Alexander remain'd a while in suspence, was not that he understood not his own Faith, but be­cause he apprehended not what Arius meant, nor whether his propositions were contrary to the receiv'd truth: But when once Arius broke into those speeches, that Christ was a creature, and that there was a time when Christ was not; then that holy Bishop likewise broke into those words, Quis unquam talia audivit? and this is the crime which Socrates reprehends in Arius, that he began to move points [...], formerly not que­stion'd, but receiv'd with an uniform con­sent and credulity. As for Alexanders prai­sing, somtimes one, somtimes the other par­ty, it proves no more then that he was a prudent man: though Ruffinus seems to tax him of oversoftness. But, because few fal­sities can be void of all truth, and few truths (at least before much discussion) totally free from all mixture of circumstantial er­rour; therfore it could not be otherwise then wel, to praise both sides ingenuously, according as they spake truth and reason, [Page 93] and discommend them, when they fell into falsities.

As for Constantine's slighting the Question at first, it shews no more but that, then, he did not penetrate the consequence of it, or rather, was not well enform'd concerning it. For, ordinarily, the craftiest and most active party are they who make the first re­port; and if themselves be in the wrong, (as many times such are more eager and diligent then those that hold the right) their remonstrance is accordingly. And so it was: for, Constantine receiv'd his first in­formation at Nicomedia; very probably too, from Eusebius, Bishop of that City, a most perverse adherent to Arius: nor did Con­stantine himself know wherin the question consisted; as appears by this, that in his whol Letter there is not one word of expli­cation of the point, but only in common, that it was of slight questions, not belong­ing to the substance of Faith; the Arians stil craftily endeavouring to diminish the importance of the controversie. Besides, we have good ground to believe, that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arius, and sollicited into a secr [...] favour of this errour; from whom, 'tis likely, pro­ceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council, for determining the point out of [Page 94] Scripture. Nor imports it, that the Bishops contradicted not this proposition of the Emperour in words; because they had rea­son to follow it, (though not to that end to which the Emperour propos'd it, viz. the so­lution of the question, but) to the convicti­on of the Arians, and satisfaction of the world.

For, to speak to the reality of the business, there was no doubt among the Fathers a­bout the truth or falsity of the main matter, (being fully satisfied concerning that, by Tradition, even from their childhood:) but the question was about the answer to their enemies proofs, and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alledged against them; for the satisfaction of the Church, and the world without the Church, and for the expression of the Catholik doctrin, in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own per­verse meaning: especially, finding they had fo puzled the world with the dust they had rais'd in mens eyes, that even some good Catholiks could scarce see their way, but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those Hereticks maliciously cast be­fore their feet. Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself, that He thought Alexander's par­ty had held the Son of God to be divided [Page 95] from the Father, as one part is cut from another in Bodies; which would have made God a body, and truly two Gods.

For these reasons was their magna conqui­sitio, their turning of Scriptures, and their meeting in Council, as St. Athanasius wit­nesses, speaking in the name of the very Council it self, in his Epistle de Synodis: We met here (says he) not because we wan­ted a Faith, (that is, because we were uncer­tain what to hold) but, to confound those who contradict the truth and goe about novelties.

Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius's Epistle to some Arians, in which he says, The Bishops of the Council appro­ved the word homoousion, because they found it in some illustrious Fathers: for, though the inward sense of that term was perfectly traditional, yet was it not til then precisely fixt to that particular expression. But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommuni­cation of the Contradictors, to hinder men from using unwritten words: and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to pre­vent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language; when every one phrases the mystery, accor­ding to his private fancy, and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule, [Page 96] as, the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers: which interpretation exactly a­grees with the Greek of Eusebius, [...], that literally and truly signifie Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else, as the word [...] was in the Fathers. And so, I need not alledge He was a secret Arian; though, if he were, his testi­mony, as far as it reaches, would be so much the more efficacious against them, as Theodo­ret imploys it.

Now, by all this may be seen, why in Councils there are engag'd so many dispu­tations: for no calumny can be so impu­dent as to deny, the Fathers know their Faith before they meet there; which is plainly imply'd by the Hereticks ordinary protesting against them, as unfit Judges be­cause they are parties, and therfore refusing to come to the Council; besides, the pos­session of the old Religion being as publik and notorious, at such times, as the Sun it self at noon: wherfore, to say they come to seek out or dispute their Religion, by those long conferences, is a pure folly. They then hold their Religion upon Tradition or possession: but dispute things, either for regu­lating the Churches language, that all Ca­tholiks may keep a set form of explication of their Faith; or else to convince their [Page 97] Adversaries out of such grounds as them­selvs admit.

To dispute, whether a Council, not con­firm'd by the Pope, makes an Article de fide, or no? concerns not the difficulty now be­fore us; and engages Catholick against Ca­tholick, which is not our present work. In the mean while, out of all which has been said, we may gather, that there is no appa­rence the Catholick Doctrin, concerning the Trinity, was diversly taught before the Council of Nice, and, then first, establish'd out of the Scriptures: but, that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before, as St. Athanasius expresly teaches; avowing confidently he had demonstrated it, suppli­cating the Emperour to permit the Catho­licks to live in the belief of their Forefa­thers, and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not shew their progenitors. And to say the truth, unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescrib'd by Christ, there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Tri­nity: the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselvs.

Lastly, 'tis objected, there was no reason for the Council of Nice, in this quar­rel, to look into Tradition, since they had such abundance of Scripture. But we must [Page 98] put out our eys, if we do not see that even at this day the Arians are so cunning as to avoid the strongest Texts of Scripture, and explicate them by other places; and that 'tis impossible to convince, in this manner, any Heretick, as long as one place can ex­plicate a hundred opposed. The Council therfore, at last, (though favour'd with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries) was forc'd to conclude out of Tradition: as Theodoretus, St. John Da­mascen, and chiefly St. Athanasius himself confesses: a necessity which the Rules of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Basil, and Vincentius Lyrinensis (who teach, it is to no purpose to dis­pute with Hereticks out of Scripture,) and our own experience of above a hundred years, plainly convince and fully justify to any rational man, whose humour or interest is not to have all Religion obscure and doubtful.

THE TWELFTH ENCOUNTER. That the necessity of Communicating In­fants is no Tradition; But Prayer to Saints is.

THere are yet two instances urged against Tradition. One that, for six hundred years, 'twas believ'd necessary to give the holy Eucharist to children; which custom has now been a long time disused. The proof, as far as I know of the necessity, is drawn only out of St. Austin and St. Inno­centius, and some words of St. Cyprian: The former of which Fathers are cited to make this argument against the Pelagians, The Eucharist cannot be given, unless to those who are baptized: But the Eucharist is necessary for Children: Therfore Baptism is necessary for them. To which I answer with a formal denyal, that any such argu­ment is made by those holy Fathers: For their discours runs thus, It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christs mystical body; but this cannot be done without Baptism: therfore Baptism is ne­cessary [Page 100] for Children. Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers, let the Books judg; I will only add, 'tis a great shallow­ness to think the Pelagians (who deny'd the necessity of Baptism) should admit the ne­cessity of the Eucharist, or that it was easier for those Fathers to prove the necessity of the Eucharist, then of Baptism; So that, their argument must be suppos'd, by the objector, to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscu­rum.

Yet, because, especially, St. Austins words seem equivocal, I will briefly set down the state of the question. St. Dennis tels us, no Priestly function was compleat without the administration of the blessed Sacrament: Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptiz'd. This custom rea­ched even to Infants, but neither universal­ly, that is, in all Churches nor indispensably: For, it was only then used, when Bishops were present at Baptism; as is apparent, both because Communion was never admini­stred, anciently, but after Confirmation; and because, it was always held for the comple­ment of all Priestly Benedictions, as is be­fore declared: Besides, in some Churches, there is not the least sign that ever it was gi­ven to Infants.

Another thing to be understood is, that St. [Page 101] 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 Baptism [...] utilior est. St. Austin. (Disciple [Page 102] 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 pericul [...]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, 'tis 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.

[Page 103] 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.

[Page 104] 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.

[Page 105] 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, 'tis 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, the non-precept, and the reason thereof: out of the first part nothing can be deduced; out of the second this consequence is infer­red, Pagans would be equally scandaliz'd [Page 106] by the Permission, as by the Precept. Wher­fore, if it be commanded, neither certainly ought it be permitted.

Although no law obliges one Divine to maintain the reasons of another, yet I see no such evidence in this consequence, as, for it, to renounce the reason: for, me thinks, if those we call Saints, were meant to be Gods, we should of necessity be bound to worship them; whence it follows, if it be not necessary to worship them, neither are they Gods, nor the worship exhibited to them, such as is due to God; but only of that degree which we give excellent crea­tures: a position so conformable to Nature, that it can scandalize none but the enemies of Perfection; who, under pretence of avoi­ding Idolatry, take away the due honour and excitation to Vertue. But, which way, out of a non-Precept, can be infer'd the non-Teaching of the Doctrin, I cannot imagine; since what those Doctors hold, continues true at this day, when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practiced: For though, in our prayers, there be some directions to Saints; yet, generally, Christians are not bound to such d [...]votions, and they that are, 'tis but their own volun­tary acceptance of the obligation to which such prayers are annexed.

THE THIRTEENTH ENCOUNTER Reflecting on certain considerations: and shewing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Com­munion to be the signe of the true Church.

ALthough, out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend, makes the Churches Definition de­pend upon the Tradition of the point defi­ned, and not Tradition upon them; as if, be­cause by Tradition, we know the Churches Definitions to be true, therfore we know the truth deliver'd by Tradition: Never­theless, since there may be some truth in this reflexion, That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition, let us see what can be said against it: Tis first, therfore, put into consideration, whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels, or the Gos­pel, that is, as much as they preach'd (for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel:) if God would have us trust the Church, he [Page 108] was not both to specifie so much, very plain­ly, in them, and farther deliver such signs as were necessary ever to know Her by.

For answer, I ask a cross question, Whe­ther if God Almighty would have all men see by the Sun, he was first to tell them which It is, and paint 'Its picture on every wall, that so we might know which is the Sun? And because any question may seem rather offensive then deserving any answer, I proceed to the application; and ask, Whe­ther any of those Christians, of whom Saint John says, exierunt ex nobis, could doubt which was the Church, wherof he had been a part and left it? And, since you cannot answer otherwise then affirmatively, I think I need not repeat the same question, of Arius, and Pelagius, and Luther. If then God has provided for all these, that they were taught to yeild obedience to the definitions of this Church, so clearly, that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher, nor of what Church he spake; how dare they presume to accuse him of deficiency in his providence? The same Authority that gave you the Scripture, and told you it was the Word of God, said likewise, that what she taught was no lesse the Word of God. If you believe her report for the Book, why refuse you it for the Doctrin? If her recom­mends [Page 109] be not security enough for the one, they will certainly prove far less for the other; since, unlesse I am strangely mista­ken, the doctrin of the Catholik Church is not so hard to believe, as the story of the Bible: let any Atheist or discreet Moore or Pagan be judge.

Oh, but since the Evangelists wrote Gos­pels, they wrote all they preach'd; for they preach'd nothing but the Gospel. The Gos­pel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium, that is, the Good-spel, or happy tidings of Christs comming: so that the Book or Preaching which tels us Christ is come, is a Gospel, be there never so much, more or lesse, in the Book or Sermon: how then it can be infer'd out of the name Gos­pel, that the Apostles writ as much as they preach'd (for it is not credible they preach'd all they wrote) I am not able to compre­hend.

The second consideration is, how we know when the Church has defined? To which I answer, In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted, when the Church had defined, then when a Parlia­ment had enacted: Why then is there requi­red more information? But, some Divines say more, some less to be enough. Let them be doing in the Schools, as long as the pra­ctice [Page 110] goes on sufficiently for the Churches government.

Thirdly, we are to consider, Whether suf­ficient notes be left to know the Church by? But who shall use these notes? Catholicks? They are in the Church. Hereticks? They know what Church they forsook. Pagans? They look not into the Scriptures to finde the Churches mark. Peradventure those He­reticks whose separation is so long since, that they remember not out of what Church they went. But none are grown so aged yet. However the marks of the Church are appa­rent enough in Scripture, if there want not wil in the seeker to acknowledg them.

The fourth consideration is, Whether points of Faith, or to be of Faith, be infinite (new ones continually springing) or finite? if finite, why are they not all delivered at once, to make an end of incertitude and defining? The answer is, they are both fi­nite and infinite: finite, in gross, and wholy deliver'd by the Apostles, wholy believed and practis'd by this present Church; but infinite, in the detail, by which mans wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith. For, as soon as any sharp and crafty Heretik has varied some proposition, necessary to the explication of a fore-believed Doctrin, there may be occasion of setling some new [Page 111] proposition, which shal be no other then a part of what was formerly believ'd in Sub­stance, though not so explicitly deciphred. As he that professes Christ is a Man, implies he has a mans Nature, a mans Understan­ding, and Will, and Action; though this word Man distinguishes not precisely these faculties: nor does he that repeats all these qualities in particular, say any more then he that said in general he was a Man. Now then I answer the objection, as Aesops Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea: stop the Rivers (said he) and I will performe my bargain: So say I, hinder impertinent curiosities from impor­tuning the Church, and her Truths wil be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice, without making new Definitions.

The last objection; that it will appear a shift to say the Churches definitions are certain, and yet 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 [Page 112] 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 [Page 113] 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? Ile 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, 'tis the most clear and least denyable: Now, this propo­sition, [Page 114] 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 [Page 115] 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 [Page 116] 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 'tis 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 [Page 117] give your licence to all the world) without having any Master or Teacher, what a goodly Common-wealth you wil make?

But 'tis 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 they have no truth in them? a proof, as such, still carrying its truth in its force of concluding; but probable arguments have no force to conclude, and consequently, no truth. For, the truth of a saying is different from that of an argument: a true argument being that which proves the thing to be; a true saying which only affirms it to be.

And, if we look into it, we see, what I say is but the Law of Nature, and naturall constancy: for as, to not act, 'tis enough to have no reason; but, to act, we ought to have a positive cause: so, to remain in the Religion of our Birth and Education, there is no other reason requir'd, then because we are in it; whereas, to change, we must have efficacious motives to perswade us.

Here, my Adversary wil exult, and think, at least, Protestants cannot become Catho­liks, [Page 118] without evidence, which he conceives impossible. And, I grant his consequence, if he can prove his supposition. For, to my sight, nothing is more clear then, that Pro­testants chang'd their Religion from being Catholiks, and that upon but probable grounds: whence it is evident, no Prote­stant, who is formally such, (that is, holds his Religion on probable arguments, against the Catholik Church) but stands in a con­tinual formal rebellion against Her, who by his own acknowledgment was once his Magistrate, and against whom himself con­fesses he has no more then probable excep­tion.

Therfore, whoever, of a Protestant be­comes Catholik, goes so far with evidence, that he reconciles himself to a government under which he once was, and had no just reason to depart from it, (none being suffi­cient to excuse so great a disorder) and so, ought, under peril of eternal damnation, return to his first obedience. For, where he is, he is certain to find no security; since, his relyance, by his own verdict, is at most but upon plausible arguments: wheras, un­der the other government, there may be cer­tainty, for ought he knows; of which there is this fair motive, that they all professe it, which is more forcible for the credit of [Page 119] it, then what ever he can say in abetment of the contrary. Rashly, therfore, he opposes himself to follow a fals way, a way that assuredly leads to unavoydable precipices.

They reply, the Turks also agree in the Law of Mahomet, and yet that brings no evidence their Law is true. But alas! they observe not that, in saying so, they una­wares call themselves no Christians: For, to us, this consent is no argument Maho­metanism is true, because it carries no far­ther then that the Law is Mahomets; And so far is manifest out of their common agree­ment: therfore, in parity, 'tis evident, out of the consent of Christians, that the doctrin handed down from the Apostles, is Christs; and the doubt may perhaps remain with the Objectors, but not with us, whether Cbrists doctrine be true? as neither we nor they doubt that Mahomets preaching was fals.

And seeing the case is common to all Christians, against the Roman Catholik, he only relying on Tradition, they all re­nouncing it, he only can run his Religion up to the Person of Christ, and there leave it securely establisht, upon the infallible credit of his word. And as no other sort of Christi­an society can pretend to this priviledge, so neither can they with any colour of justice, [Page 120] exempt themselves from the Authority of that Church that enjoys it: an Authority, which, if ever she had, and such as she claims it, is of so unchangeable a nature, being constituted by God, being the rock on which the salvation of mankind is built, and the fundamental stone of the Church, no time nor variation of material accidents can pre­judice or prescribe against it. Wherfore, if Protestants at first departed unjustifiably, they remain for ever guilty of the same crime, til they restore themselves to the Pri­mitive union.

Again, who, unles he had renounc'd all mo­rality, ever call'd it liberty, not to know, or not be bound to the rules and principles of good life? Sure these objectors either think religion concerns not good life, but is a vain and empty Idea in the air, little important whether it be known or no: or forget them­selves so far, as to fall into the sequel of this gross absurdity. Besides, who can be so despe­ratly passionate, as to term it liberty, to have no good government; and relaps again to the rude state of barbarousnes, where murther, rapes, & a thousand intolerable insolencies are publikly permitted? For, if we cast our eys on the End of Religion, we shall see, that to want the due Rules, is as inconvenient towards the direction of mankind to final [Page 121] beatitude, as the Laws of Canibals are de­structive to all civil and friendly society. So that 'tis to be ignorant of all reason, to cry up a liberty to have no Religion, or to chuse one indifferently, as unconcern'd whe­ther it be right or wrong. Were it not bet­ter plainly to avow the preferrence of the pleasures and profits of this world, before hopes so far off as the future life; then, with these ambushes, to ensnare unwary souls into the same inconveniencies, under title of a probable Religion?

And truly, if we look upon their lives, we shall find that hoc Janus summus ab imo Personat. I intend not by this any waies to derogate from the old Roman vertues, in this sort of people, as if there may not be found Regulus's, or Cato's, or Seneca's among them: for, I doubt not but the very vapour of Christianity has this wholsom effect among whom it passes, to breed in them as Heroick spirits as ancient Rome ever saw, and more too, if the like occasions presented them­selves: But Nature, and Generosity, and Opinion, too often challenge their shares, or rather mastery, in such actions; and how little can justly be ascribed to the hope of heaven, I rather suspect then declare.

To return therfore to our discourse. The Jew, the Turke, the Heathen, can pretend a [Page 122] profession of his Religion; for all these stick to such conclusions as their principles af­ford them: But the Christian, who cals Christs doctrin his, and confesses that he or his Sect has deserted those who alone pre­tend to the successive livery and seisin of it, can no way presume to the possession, till he plainly demonstrate the clearness of his title. Wherfore, it avails not any drowsie, rather then quiet, nature, to say his Father, (and peradventure Grandfather) was Pro­testant before him, and therfore he is Posses­sor bonae fidei, whilst he pretends only pro­bable arguments: for so long he implies the possession to be unjustly detain'd from the advers party, who has the actual receit by succession; especially when this so un­paralleld a Riot is committed without sus­ficient evidence, by the very Actors confes­sion. A Protestant then, has no better claim to posse [...]sion of Christs Doctrine, by his so long continuance in Heresie, then the Parri­cide in Aristotle, who, having beaten his Fa­ther pleaded that his Father had beat his Grandfather, and his Grandfather his great Grandfather: as though such a graceless entail could prejudice the law of Nature.

Though not so absurd, yet as weak is a­nother Objection taken from the Jewish Cabala: however, it seems worthy of thanks [Page 123] to the Suggestor. What it was, is not hard to guess, our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it, when he reproach'd the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fa­thers or Elders, to the ruin of Gods com­mands. But to decipher it better, I ought to divide it into matter and form. The form I call the Rules: the matter, what was deliver'd or found out by these Rules. As for the matter, it seems in some way pro­portion'd to the proceedings of certain of our Divines, who pretend to be mysticall; and their imployment is, in the sublime mysteries of our Faith, to invent or imagin what they think congruous circumstances, to move the affections to petty devotion: which imaginations, as they are fram'd out of good intentions, so have they many weaknesses, and little or no doctrin in them. Conformable to this we may conceive that, after there were no more Prophets among the Jews, (who fail'd them, not long after the second building of their Temple) the Rabbins began to frame explications on their Books of holy Scripture, and the mysteries learn'd from the Prophets. These interpretations, according to the degree of their skil and prudence, some perform'd better, some worse. But, as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation, not having principles [Page 124] of true knowledg naked before their Eys, but wrapt up in Metaphors and Allegories; all together went among them for sound Law. Til, after our Saviours time, and the dispersion of that generation, some foolish knave, to give authority to this mess of good and bad jumbled together, invented the story how Moses had deliver'd this do­ctrin to the Sanhedrin, and they had con­serv'd it, by traditional conveyances from Father to Son. A story as impossible and incredible, to one who penetrates into the carriage of that Nation, as the Fables of Jeoffrey of Monmouth, and King Arthur's con­quering Hierusalem.

Now, if we look into the form, we shal find it more ridiculous then any Gypses can­ting, or the jugling of Hocus Pocus, and as pernicious to true Doctrin, as any Pseudo­mancy. To make good this censure, I shal in short describe their form: it consists in inventing the sense of Scripture by three abuses of the Letter, which (as far as my me­mory servs me, for I have not the books ne­cessary) are these. One by taking every letter of a word, for a whole word beginning with that letter: Another, by changing let­ters, according to certain rules fram'd by themselvs: The third, to find numbers of years or other things, by the numbers which [Page 125] the letters of the word compound, in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers. So much being deliver'd in short, I cannot conceive any indifferent judgment so blunt, that he sees not how far these ridling ways of explication are from the natural intention of a Writer; and how destructive to all truth, if used otherwise then for pleasure and as a disport of chance and en­counter. Our Country man, Doctor Ala­blaster, invented a far more convenient trick, by purely dividing words and joy­ning the ends of the former to the begin­nings of the following: as we also do, som­times in English, to disguise common words; and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks. But he found this age too subtle, to cozen any considerable number with such trivial bables: Wheras the Cahala gain'd upon the Valentinians and Gnosticks, to build prodigious errours, in very good earnest, upon their more ridiculous invention. I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased somtime, to give way to such toyes, through luxury of wit and gaye­ty of humour: But it is one thing to play for recreation, and a far different to estab­lish a Basis of Faith and doctrin, which is abominable, on such Chimerical dreams. And yet, this it is our Opposer would Fa­ther, [Page 126] upon no less then Moses and the Sanhe­drin and all the sacred Magistracy of the old Law.

Let us give a step farther and see, if it were true, how like it were to our case. The Tradition we speak of, is the publick prea­ching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church, setled by the Apostles tho­row the World: This Cabala, a doctrin pretended, as deliver'd to few, with strict charge to keep it from publicity, and so communicate it again successively to a select Committee of a few; wherein you may see as fair an opportunity for jugling and coze­nage, as, in our case there is impossibility. The Moderns therfore, who profess Cabala, may say they receiv'd it from their prede­cessors: but they can yeild no account why any Age may not have chang'd that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber; and so ther's no possibility of farther assurance, then the vote of a Council of State, for its being deriv'd any higher.

But the Arguer demands, whether they cannot ask me, In what age or year their doctrin was corrupted? And I answer, they may very boldly: But, if I assign an age or year, can they acquit themselvs in point of proof? clearly they cannot: for, since there [Page 127] was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrin (it being forbidden to be divulg'd) 'tis evident, that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age. He urges farther, the notoriousness of the ly, so im­pudent as few would venture on: not re­flecting that he speaks of a secret, altogether incapable of notoriousness. May not they add, says he, the dispersion of their Chur­ches through so many Countries and Lan­guages? I yeild they may, but to no pur­pose, unless they continue Sanhedrins in eve­ry Country: For otherwise, this dispersi­on will prove but the derivation from their Council of Tiberias, or such like time, which is nothing to the succession from Mo­ses. Add to this, that the Nation since Christs time, is infamous for falsifying do­ctrins and corrupting Scriptures: and, even in our Saviours time and long before, their Rabbins were justly branded with the foul imputation of frequent forgery; their Sects and heresies being grown up to that despe­rate height, as to deny there were any spi­rits, or shall be any Resurrection, which is the very top of impiety.

But (what is no less to be consider'd, then any thing yet offer'd) the very subject of the question is different. The Church, we speak of, is a vast and numerous body, spread [Page 128] o're the world; and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remain'd perpetually visible, from Christs time to ours: however some Heretick may pretend the invisible part, viz. that the Faith has been interrupted. But, for the San­hedrin, what assurance, nay what probabi­lity is there of deriving its pedegree, from Moses to the daies of our Saviour? In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges, in the division of the Tribes, in the raign of their Kings, in the 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 'tis 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 [Page 129] 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 'tis 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 [Page 130] resist it; and therfore 'tis 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, [Page 131] 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; [Page 132] 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 [Page 133] 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 'tis 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 [Page 134] 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 god­like 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, [Page 135] 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 [Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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, tis 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. Tis true, the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. [Page 138] 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 'tis enough, not only to disanul the proof, but discredit the Au­thor.

[Page 139] 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 connexion, as the severest discourses of those Philoso­phers: yet the style, wherin they are couch'd in the Bible, is accommodated to vulgar ca­pacities, and the delivery by way of plain and direct affirmation, without attending to the artificial rules of demonstration.

But, because no controversy can be clear and fit for decision, unless it be prepar'd by [Page 140] an exact and rigorous stating the Question; I first intend to set down my own sentiment, which I conceive is also that of the Catho­lick Church: and afterward what I collect to be the opinion of my Adversaries; leaving them this free and just liberty, to correct me if I mistake their mind.

First then, we Catholiks no way doubt but the Scripture is the word of God, and of infallible truth, if rightly understood: and that whoever, being out of the Church, re­ceives the Scripture in that quality; the ground of such reception (if rational) can be no other, then because we taught him so, and deliver'd it to him, as such. For I do not intend to dispute against those Spiritati, who, by an Enthusiastical light, can judge of Scripture without sense and reason: And, to those, who pretend either Fathers or o­ther Christians out of our Church, I an­swer, my meaning is to comprehend in our Church the Fathers; for so goes our positi­on; and consequently all Sects either re­ceiv'd the Scripture immediately from us, or from those who received it from us.

Secondly, we doubt not but the Scripture is highly profitable, for the enablement of Preachers to teach, reprove, confirm, in all points of Catholik doctrin, both concer­ning Speculation and Practice: and by con­sequence [Page 141] that the Church were not so tho­roughly furnisht for all kind of exigenccis without it; for which reason it is of particu­lar usefulness, and indeed necessity to the Church.

Thirdly, we confesse the Bible contains all parts of Catholik Doctrine, in this sense, that all Catholik doctrin may be found there, by places and arguments be deducted thence, nay more, be topically or Orato­rially proved out of it: so that, if an able Preacher be in a Pulpit, where he speaks without contradiction, with a full and free scope; he may, meerly discoursing out of Scripture, carry any point of Catholik doctrin before the generality of his Audi­tory, and convince at the present such a part of them, as either are but indifferently speculative, or have not taken pains in the question.

Fourthly, I affirm, that if any point be brought to an eristicall decision before Jud­ges, where the parties on both sides are ob­stinately bent to defend their own positions, by all the art they can imagin: so the questi­on be not, which part is true, but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture; the Catholik position may be victoriously evidenced, by arguments purely drawn from thence, compared and valued according to [Page 142] true Criticism; without ayd of Fathers, ex­plications, or any other extrinsecal helps. Thus far I esteem all good Catholiks ought to hold; and believe that all, [...], doe, de facto, hold.

Now then, to come to the true difference betwixt our Adversaries and us: I under­stand it consists in this, That having stated a material point, (as whether that which we see and touch in the Eucharist be truly Christs body, or only a figure of it, it self remaining substantially Bread) and that this question be to be handled contentious­ly before Judges, each party pretending to convince and demonstrate, by quotation of places critically exalted to their highest force: whether the Scripture (I say) be a sufficient Storehouse to furnish either side with Texts, unavoidable and convincing beyond any shadow of reply; in the judge­ment of sworn and expert judges, who are wel practis'd what convincing signifies, and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences. This is that wherin I engage the Catholik Negative; and suppose all Adversaries must hold the Af­firmative.

And the first reason of my supposition is, because I never see them attempt any other [Page 143] way of disputing, but out of Scripture: nor yet, in that, do they use so fair play, as to put the places which favour them on the page of receipts, and those which Catho­liks bring to the contrary upon that of ex­pences; and then having by rules of good Criticism examined the qualities of both, prefer that party which is more de­serving.

Next, I know not how that man dare shew his face before any person of common sense, who shal first acknowledg he goes a­gainst the opinion of the whole present Age wherin he lives, against the undoubted testi­mony of a thousand years before him, against the known laws both spiritual and tempo­ral, publikely renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate, empower'd by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws; that shal accuse all his kindred, Ancestors, and whole Country of blindness and ignorance, and pretend all the world is bound to desert them and follow him: and this in a matter, concerning no less an inte­rest then Eternity: and after all this so ar­rogant bawling and high demands, being ask'd what evidence, what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world, shal be forc'd to confess, he can but play at cross and pile with them, to [Page 144] know which of the two sentences is true, which fals. For, setting aside real and ir­refragable conviction, what is there left in speculation, but meer contingency?

Now this strange boldness, this incredible presumption was undeniably Luthers case: and if his, then certainly all his followers: For, neither is the weight and authority of so many ages become less pressing and effi­cacious against his adherents, nor their first plea improved or amended, but rather weaken'd: if by his and all his fellows la­bours, as yet no evidence is produced (an infallible sign none is likely ever to be made:) Nor is the change of temporal laws and Princes any motive, to him that goes upon pure reason, and seriously ayms at the good of his soul.

Again, he whose discours is not convin­cing, and yet wil be medling with truths of highest importance, is either ignorant of that defect, and then he deserves the name of a rash temerarious fellow that dares, in a matter of such consequence advance Propo­sitions (by passion or precipitation) whose quality himself understands not: or else he knows he does not convince; then let him at the beginning of his Sermon express so much, and tel his Auditors, he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation, [Page 145] and propose new Tenets about it; but, in very deed, he can neither prove the old Te­nets are false, nor those which he shall pro­pose, to be true: Can any one think, if the Auditory have either wit enough to disco­ver so grosse an Impostor, or never so little honesty to care what becoms of their souls, or love to Christianity; they wil not with great indignation pull his jump o're his eares, and tumble him out of his Pulpit? Now what difference is there (so the mis­chief be done) whether it be foretold the people or no; saving that, to conceal the wrong, is a more wicked and destructive piece of cunning?

Another consideration is, that in practical things, more probability approaches to cer­tainty, and, by multiplication, contingen­cie at last begets perfect Necessity; but, in speculation, not so. For, as there is more probability to throw seven upon two dice, in forty trials then in foure: so, in five hun­dred, most certainly that cannot fail to be the cast: the reason is, because the number of casting so exceeds the variety of chances, that it makes first a difficulty, and after an impossibility of missing. Now, in specu­lation, if no particular cause precisely com­pel, and determine the effect, variety can prevail nothing; so that, rigorously spea­king [Page 146] a conclusion is no neerer being true, for a hundred unconvincing Arguments, then for one: whence it follows, where there is no demonstration, neither Opinion is securely the better. He therfore that pretends the introduction of a change in a speculative point, ought either to promise evidence and conviction, or else content himself with silence: for 'tis absurd to move any one to change his assent (I speak not here of a practicall resolution) without pro­mising him some abetterment.

Lastly, as far as I can penetrate, he that has a changeable and uncertain Religion, has none at all. For, I conceive a Religion (as we now discourse of it) is the knowledge by which we are to guide our selves in our way and progress towards eternal felicity: so that, if the Religion any one professes be not the true, he cannot by its principles perform what is requisite to the gaining of that end: Neither is any knowledge which such a Probablist has, the right and proper means of cultivating his soul in order to future happiness; and therfore it is as im­poss [...]ble an untrue Religion should lead to Heaven, as a fals way, to London. Now, if a Religion that is not true, be no Religion, he that doubts whether he has the true, is in doubt whether he has any Religion or none; [Page 147] and he that pretends no farther then to doubt about Religion, pretends not to know he has any: but, the act of knowing cannot be had, if he that has it, does not know he has it; therfore he that pretends not to know he has a Religion, confesses himself to have none.

The same is clear in practice. For sup­pose an Apothecary had compos'd a drug for his Patient; but being incertain whe­ther to administer it like a potion or a glister, should sometimes give it one way, sometimes the other: or a Guide, having un­dertaken to conduct a Stranger thorow some untroden Wildernes, & for want of assurance which way to take, should lead him up and down as in a Maze, first to the left hand, then to the right: were not these excellent Masters in their crafts, and worthy of con­tinual imployment; but with this condi­tion, that they practised their Arts upon none but one another? Then, if Religion be the knowledge of conducting our souls to heaven; is not he like to make good speed, that acknowledges himself incertain of the way? who to day marches forwards, and to morrow goes as much backward; to day confesses and adores Christ in the Eu­charist, to morrow blasphemes him, and damns all that adore him; to day prays to [Page 148] Saints, bears respect to a Crucifix, and a com­passion to the dead, to morrow cries out a­gainst all, as Idolatry, Superstition, and meer inventions of lucre?

Still there remains with me one other scruple about this point. Divers great Brains have undertaken the commendati­ons of things, which mankind, is so far from delighting in, that very few can en­dure them; (this aversion rising out of a judgement, not taken up by humour, but taught by nature, which justly abhors all that diminishes or destroys its being), as Blindness, Folly, Sickness, and the like: and contrived many perswasive forms and witty inducements, to invegle their Audi­tory into an evident absurdity. Others we find, who, by whole Sects, maintain'd that all propositions were indifferent; and their practice was, of every subject to speak co­piously and plausibly on both sides: and this in good earnest, out of a setled belief that they could make which side they pleasd the more probable. I ask then, whether the probability either of these two sorts of wits bring for their paradoxes, be sufficient to chuse a point in Religion? If you say, I; What imports it in any point which part you take, that is, whether you have any Religion or none? If you say, no; what [Page 149] means do you prescribe us to know when a probability is great enough; or, who's he that is able to judge the degrees of probabi­lity, when they are sufficient, and when not?

Peradventure you may say, In the first case, the evidence of nature shews their pro­bability to be clearly absurd: and I could answer, why may not Nature sometimes be deceiv'd, as Anaxagoras would perswade us, when he maintain'd Snow was black? but I need not; 'Tis enough to remember, The questions of Religion are concerning actions whose effects appear not to us; and yet, ordinarily the effects are the chief means to frame arguments, and produce certainty, in practice, that the cause is right. 'Tis enough to remember eternall blisse be­longs to the next world; and the Mysterys we dispute, are such as the Son of God only has seen and brought us tydings of. But, what wil you say to the second sort of dis­puters, who equall all probabilities; and are men, against whose eloquence, erudition, and prudence in other things, you cannot ex­cept? To all this I can yet add one plain but very confiderable reflexion; that certainly, to prove any position, those wild capricious Brains cannot find weaker places for their arguments, then a mute, ambiguous, dead writing, not quickned with reason and dis­course: [Page 150] which yet, is the boasted ground of all that renounce the infallibility of the Church, in matters of supernaturall belief.

THE SIXTEENTH ENCOUNTER. Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture.

THe case thus stated, we have won the field: If I have err'd in framing the que­stion, let them correct it, with these two conditions, that they propose it so, as to leave themselves a Rel [...]gion, and different from ours: for unless both these subsist, the quarrel betwixt us is at an end. But if I have rightly exprest the point in controversie, let them bring one place of Scripture that comes home to the question, and carry the Bays. Their position must include these two branches: That Scripture is intended for a ground to decide Controversies in such a contentious way as I have set down: and sufficient to perform this charge. For the former I dare confidently affirm, there is not in the whole Bible an expression so much as glances towards it. And though [Page 151] the second includes the first, and can have no verity nor subsistence without it; yet since there are some who discovering not the first, can perswade themselves they finde the second, we wil try how solidly they proceed.

First then, they cite certain Texts in which they say, the Scripture gives us salva­tion: But there is a wide difference betwixt giving salvation, and being the whol means or adequat cause of it, which is the point to be maintain'd, if they wil prove the Scripture sufficient; else all Faith, Sacra­ments, good works, preaching, &c. must be absolutely excluded as unnecessary, since of every one of them may be said, it gives salvation. Whence in common already ap­pears these arguments are so weak and de­fective, they carry not half way home to our question: Yet let's see at least how far they reach.

In the fifth of St. John, Christ bids the Jews search the Scriptures, because you think (saith he) you have eternal life in them. Our Saviour was discoursing there of such as bore witness to him: and having nam'd his Father and St. John, at last he descends to the Scripture and tells them to this pur­pose, ‘You think to have life in the Scrip­tures; though you deceive your selvs in [Page 152] that opinion; for you have only the kil­ling letter, and not the verifying spirit: Nevertheless search them, for they bear witness that I am the true life, to whom you will not through want of charity and love of God have recours to seek it. Therfore you refuse me, who come in the name of my Father, a sign of Truth, be­cause I seek not mine own interest: But you will receive Antichrist or some other who shall come in his own name, which is a mark of deceit and falshood, so pervers are you.’ This is our Saviours discours: of all which to this argument belong only these words, ‘You think you have life in the Scriptures;’ that is, (if I understand the Text) you deceive your selvs, if you think you have life in them; which surely must needs be a very strong reason to prove, Scriptures give salvation: though if the question were not of the Text, I should make no difficulty of the conclusion.

And it may be noted that our Saviour descends to the proof of Scripture, in the last place: putting Miracles the first, as mo­tives able to convert Sodom and Gomorrha: in the second Preaching, specially they shew­ing some good affection to their Preacher St. John: Lastly, the mute words of Scrip­ture. And as for St. John, our Saviour ex­presly [Page 153] says he cites him, in condescendence to them, that they might be the rather mo­ved to embrace the truth, by that esteem they had already entertain'd of their Preacher. Wheras for Scripture there was only their own conceit, which our Saviour seems to re­prove as an humoursom and froward obsti­nacy, that they would not be convinc'd by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles (the easiest and surest way) nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor, whom them­selvs confess to be a Prophet; nor lastly make a diligent search without prejudice, into Scripture, which, if interpreted with charity and humility, might have led them to him and salvation.

The next place is John 20. These things are written that you may belive that Jesus is the Son of God, and believing may have life in his name. Tis true both Scripture and Faith give life; but not the least mention made here of any such quality in either of them. This only is declar'd that the end of St. Johns writing the Gospel was not to make a compleat History either of our Saviours Acts or doctrin; but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God: to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise, that they might continue true belie­vers [Page 154] in the Church of God, live according to its Rules and be saved by so living, that is, by being true Christians or Jesuits; which is certainly the sense of these words, in his name, or, in the name of Jesus, as to be bap­tiz'd in the name of Jesus, signify's to be enroll'd among the company known to be his.

Now from this Text we may clearly col­lect that St. Johns Gospel was not written by the Authors intention for any such end as the argument urges: Nor, that it gives life, more then this one Article does, that Jesus is the true son of God; Nor yet that this Article gives life, but that life is to be had in the name of Christ, whatever these words signify: Only it may be infer'd that life can­not be had without this Article; but not that this alone is able to give life, or that it cannot be believ'd without St. Johns Gospel, or that St. Johns Gospel of it self is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tra­dition. So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be at­tain'd by Scripture alone, or cannot be had without it.

The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place, as I understand [Page 155] it, is, O Timothy! be constant in the doctrin I have taught thee; and this for two reasons; One common to all converted by me, be­cause thou knowest who I am that deliver'd it to thee; This is the first and principal rea­son, the authority of the Teacher: Another peculiar to thee, because from thy infancy, thou art vers'd in the holy Scriptures, which are proper to make thee wise and un­derstanding in the law of Jesus Christ, or to promote and improve thy salvation, which is obtained by the faith of Jesus. So that, he speaks not of Timothy's becomming a Christian, but his becomming a through furnisht (or extraordinary) Christian, a Do­ctor and Preacher.

And the ground on which I build this explication is derived from the words fol­lowing, where the Apostle expresses this vertue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove; as also from this conside­ration that the sequel, Be constant to my words or Doctrin, because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christs doctrin, is not very exact, but rather opposite to the former, and plain­ly inducing the contrary; as if one should argue, Follow not my doctrin, because mine, but because the Scripture teaches thee it: which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle, as appears in the vers imme­diatly [Page 156] precedent, Be stedfast in those things thou hast learnt, knowing by whom thou wert in­structed; wheras this other discourse is per­fectly consequential, Stand to my doctrin because the Scripture confirms and seconds it, making thee able to defend and prove by arguments, what I have simply taught thee to be true, by the sole evidence of Mira­cles, which beget Faith, not Science.

But to grant our Adversary the less pro­per sense and consequence, that the Scrip­ture was to contribute to the salvation of Timothy himself; still ther's an equivocation in those words, through, or by the faith of Iesus Christ: which may be refer'd to those, (to make thee understanding) Either so, that the sense be, The Scriptures (in which thou hast been vers'd since thy infancy) will contribute to thy salvation, so that thou understand them ac­cording to the Faith of Iesus Christ which I have orally deliver'd to thee; and this is, in direct terms, the Catholick Rule, that the inter­pretation of Scripture is to be govern'd by Tradition or by the faith and doctrin so re­ceiv'd, and formally depends from the first words, Remain constant to my doctrin: Or, by another explication, which is more ma­terial and flat and most incredible, That the old Scripture (for of that only the A­postle speaks, no other being written while [Page 157] Timothy was a child) should be able, without relation to the knowledg of Christ by other means to make a man understanding enough to be saved by the Faith of Him; as may be seen by Sr. Peters being sent to Cornelius.

So that, of these three senses, the first is nothing to our adversaries purpose, and nevertheless is the best; The second posi­tively and highly against him: the third incoherent to the words precedent and fol­lowing, and in it self, an incredible propo­sition. But give it the greatest force the words can, by any art, be heightned to, they come nothing neer the state of the que­stion proposed which concerns the decision of all quarrels carried on by litigious par­ties: Whereas this Text is content with any sufficiency at large to bring men to salvati­on: a point not precisely now controverted betwixt us. Besides Timothy being already a Christian, 'tis a pure folly to think the A­postle sent him to the Scriptures to chuse his Religion.

The words immediatly following the place explicated are urged for a new Argu­ment: They are these: All Scripture is inspi­red from God; and profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, (that is, good life) that the man of God become perfect, being furnisht to every good work. The paraphrase, [Page 158] according to my skil is thus, The holy Writ I spake of, is any Book inspir'd from God, and pro­fitable to teach things unknown, reprehend what is amiss, to set straight what is crooked, to in­struct in good life; that the Church of God, or any member therof, may become perfect, being, by in­structions and reprehensions applyed out of Scrip­ture, by such preachers as Timothy, fitted to any good work or all kinds of good works. This I conceive the natural meaning and most conformable to the Text, were we to seek the interpretation of it indifferently, with­out any eye to our present controversy. And in this sense, 'tis a cleer case, the A­postle speaks of the benefit of Scripture, when explicated and apply'd by a Preacher, in order to the perfecting of those that hear him.

But if, by importunity the adversary will needs have it, that the Scripture should give the quality of being [...] to the person himself that reads it; to content him, I shall not hinder him of his mind, but only prove it nothing to his purpose: For still this must be the sense, that it produces in the reader the excellencies requir'd in a Prea­cher, namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him; as tea­ching, reprehending, &c. so that one way or other, still the Scripture is apply'd to fur­nish [Page 159] him with Precepts, Arguments, Exam­ples, and such like instruments of perswa­sion: but of giving the first Catechism, or binding ones self Apprentice to the Bible, to learn the first rudiments of Christian profes­sion, ther's not the least word or syllable that colours for such a conceit: nor can it indeed consist with the direct meaning of the place; since the being already a Christian, is plainly suppos'd in Timothy, by St. Pauls institutions viva voce, before any exhortati­on to this use of Scripture. So that, here is no question concerning the first choyce of Faith, but of perfection after Faith: much less any mention of convincing in foro con­tentioso, about which is all our contro­versy.

Another place is Acts 26. where St. Paul, defending himself before Agrippa and Festus, against the Jews accusation, who calumnia­ted him that he spake in derogation of the Law, and brought in a new doctrin to the disturbance of the people; made only this answer, that he preach'd nothing but what the Prophets had foretold. His words are these: The Iews for this (teaching Christs doctrin) finding me in the Temple, would have kill'd me: But I having obtain'd succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying (or protesting) to great and little, that I spoke [Page 160] nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass; as, that Christ was to suffer, that he was to be the first should rise from death to life, and preach light both to Iews and Gentils. This is the true interpretation of the Greek Text, as far as ly's in my power to explicate it, according to the intention of St. Paul. I deny not but the words sing­ly taken may be interpreted, I have persisted testifying to great and little, and in my Sermons saying nothing but what &c. But this expli­cation is neither so proper to his defence, nor at all advances the Adversaries cause: For since St. Paul tells us directly what the points are of which he spake; whatever can be gathered out of them, only this is said, that these three points were foretold by Moses and the Prophets: and on the other side, the discours is imperfect, running thus, I preach'd indeed many other things, yet no­thing but what was in Moses and the Prophets, to wit, that Christ was to suffer, &c. His mea­ning therfore is, that since he was in hold, his perpetual endeavours had been, to shew that these things he was accused to have preach'd against the law, were the very mar­row of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets: and that, wheras the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King, who by force of Arms should restore the house [Page 161] of Israel, to a great and flourishing estate, the truth was quite contrary; for, accor­ding to the doctrin of Moses and the Pro­phets, He was to be a passible man, to suffer death, afterwards to rise again triumphant­ly, as the first fruits of the Resurrection, and to send his Disciples both to Jews and Gentiles to spread the light of the Gospel throughout the world.

What advantage against the necessity of Tradition, can be drawn out of this place of Scripture, which doth not so much as talk of the extent of Catholick doctrin, much less come within kenning of our Contro­versy, is beyond my reach: This I know, that, to say all points of Catholick doctrin can be sufficiently prov'd out of Moses and the Prophets, is an assertion I believe our Ad­versaries themselvs will deny; as being both ridiculous in it self and absolutely discrediting the necessity of the new Testa­ment: and yet clearly, without maintai­ning so gross absurdities, they can make no advantage of this Text.

THE SEVENTEENTH ENCOUNTER. Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any, but Scriptural proof in Religion.

WE are at last come to those places in which they most glory, conceiting themselvs able by them utterly to destroy all Traditions: These are such as forbid to add or detract from the holy Scriptures: which, though commonly so explicated by Protestants, yet certainly cannot but appear to every child altogether impertinent to our controversy. For, tis a far different question, Whether we were bound to put no new or Apocryphal Books into the Canon (which our adversaries charge us to have done) or to take none out (which we charge them to do?) from that now in debate, Whether there be any other means of assu­ring matters of Faith, beside the Bible? or rather, Whether Scripture in an eristical and contentious way, be a Rule sufficient to de­cide all controversies in Religion? Never­theless let us see the Texts they alledge for their opinion: Deut. 4. 2. Iosh. 1. and o­thers [Page 163] to the same effect.

My first answer is; suppose these places imported all the force our adversaries pre­tend, we are not in the least degree con­cern'd: since all that's said is clearly spoken of a certain Book or Law, properly and specially belonging to the Jews: and no more obliging Christians then the Book of Leviticus or the Law of Circumcision.

Secondly: since it is held as a main di­stinction and opposition betwixt the Laws of the Jew and of the Christian, that those of the Iew were to be written in Stone and Paper, and those of the Christian in the hearts of men by Tradition: it would rather follow (if such Analogy were to be made) that be­cause nothing but Scripture is to be given to the Jew, only Tradition is to be pressed on the Christian.

Thirdly, to the end this place may have the effect endeavoured by the arguer, all the rest of the Bible, except Deuteronomy or such other Book, to which the Texts cited particularly relate, may be burnt, or at least cast out of the Canon; and not have any power to decide controversies, even in the Jews law. I know 'tis answer'd, that Pro­testants deny not such Books: Neither do we accuse them of it; only we conceive we may safely say, they contradict themselvs, [Page 164] in pressing these places to that effect of one side, and admitting the Books on the other.

My fourth Answer is, that the Law it self enjoyns in certain cases, other precepts to be added; remitting the people upon any doubt, first to Iudges, and afterwards to the High Priest, and commanding their decla­rations to be obey'd, and under greatest pe­nalties punctually observ'd: So that, the consequence drawn out of these places, is both weak in it self and prejudicial to them that use it.

Nor is the inference our adversaries wrest out of the last Chapter of the Apocalyps less unreasonable then the former: where, he that adds or detracts any thing from that Prophecy is accursed: whence pleasant dis­coursers will needs conclude; that Christian doctrin is no otherwise to be proved but by Scripture. Questionless, to speak more pertinently to the Text, they should have said, it was to be prov'd out of nothing but the Apocalyps: but because that would ap­pear too palpable and absurd, they inclu­ded the rest of the Scripture violently a­gainst the express letter and meaning of the Text. This Argument seems to me, as if the fam'd Astrologer Mr. Lilly, had obtain'd a Protection from the State, that none [Page 165] should presume to abuse his Prognostications, by foysting in counterfeit ones, or blotting out any part of his; and thence, one should boldly infer that all our Courts of Justice were commanded to judg such cases as came before them, only out of Lilly's Almanack: with this sole difference, that the arguer here unjustly cogs in the whole Scripture, instead of the single Book of the Apocalyps, which makes his consequence far weaker and more unexcusable then the other; as I confess the similitude I use agreeable ra­ther to the impertinency of the objection, then to the dignity of the subject.

To these two may be parallel'd that Pre­face of St. Luke, so strongly urg'd by some. The words, as I understand them, are these. Seeing many have endeav [...]ured to compile ae history of the things in great abundance acted among us; according as they who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and instruments of the Gospel, have delivered to us: I also have thought fit (excellent Theophilus) since I was present at all, things almost from the beginning, to set them down to thee in order, that thou may­est know the certainty of the Reports which thou hast been taught. This is the Text, though others interpret it otherwise; who (if they will urge any thing out of their own ex­plication) must first justify it against this. [Page 166] But out of this, First St. Luke pretends no more then to tell our Saviours life, like a good Historian; however some of his excel­lent sayings cannot be deny'd their place in his life, as is testifyed by the same St. Luke, in the first of the Acts: and therfore we ought not expect to know more from him, then was fit for an Historian to report; that is, the eminent deeds and sayings of our Savi­our. Now, the end express'd in the Text for the writing of this History may be un­derstood two ways: One, that Theophilus might know which reports were true, which fals: The other, that Theophilus out of the recital of Christs miracles and heroical acti­ons might understand the greatness of his person, and by consequence the certainty of his holy doctrin, which depends from them; But whether one or the other, however there is not a word that this Book should serve for a Catechism, to teach him and all the world the entire body of Christian doctrin, which must be our Adversaries meaning.

There are yet two passages I must not o­mit, because our Adversaries make great account of them: one is the fourth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, That you may learn in us, not to be wise beyond what is writ­ten. To understand this place, you must [Page 167] know there grew some emulations betwixt the disciples of the Apostles, (if I may guess) betwixt those of St. Peter and St. Paul. This St. Paul reprehends at large: but for fear of making the breach wider, instead of closing it, would not name St. Peter, chu­sing rather to put the case, as if it had pass'd betwixt himself and Apollo: and first uses this argument, that Paul and Apollo are but Ministers of Christ: therupon after some di­version, he comes to tel them, how all that any man has, is from God and for the peo­ple; and concludes, to have all esteem'd as the Ministers of Christ and dispensators of his Mysteries: And after he has express'd how little he concerns himself, whether he be wel or ill reputed by them, concludes, telling them he had taken those two names of Paul and Apollo, to teach them this point; and then brings in the words alleadg'd, which I may venture to paraphrase thus. I have disguis'd my discours concerning the e­steem you ought to have of your Preachers, under the names of Apollo and my self; that, by what I teach you to be due to our persons, you may learn not to be affected to your Preachers, above what I have written to you about a dozen lines before: to wit, that they are all ordain'd for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Myste­ries; to the end one of you do not swell with pride [Page 168] 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 [Page 169] 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.

[Page 170] 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 'tis 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 [Page 171] 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, 'tis 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: [Page 166] [...] [Page 167] [...] [Page 168] [...] [Page 169] [...] [Page 170] [...] [Page 171] [...] [Page 172] 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 [Page 174] 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 St. Paul, Who (speaking to the Galathians) protested that whoever circum­cis'd▪ himself, as a thing necessary or be­cause of the old Commandment, was bound to keep the whole Judaical law: So say I, whoever condemns Images, upon this pro­hibition of Moses, is bound to keep all the law of the Jews: For, if these words be a law to us, because they are written in theirs, all that's written in their law must be so to us; since he that made one, made all; and, for whom he made one and deliver'd it to them, for them he made and deliver'd all the rest, as one entire body of law to be ob­serv'd by them. He therfore that counts himself bound by this Law, must (if he have common sense) esteem himself equally ob­liged to all the rest.

Upon the same reason hangs the keeping of the Sabhath day; for, of all the Decalogue, these are the only two points unrepeated in the new Testament: so that, all the rest we are bound to accept in vertue of that, but these two we cannot. Wherfore, whoever holds, The Sabbath day is commanded by God, [Page 175] either does so because he finds it in the old Law: and to him I protest he ought (in con­sequence to this judgment) submit to all that law and become a Jew: or els, because he finds it in observation among Christians, that is, in Tradition: and to him I protest, he is bound to embrace all that comes down by Tradition, namely, the whole Ro­man Catholick Faith: Therfore, every ri­gorous observer of the Sabbath, is bound in common sense, either to be a Jew or a Catho­lick.

To make an end, I know our adversaries alledg many sentences of Fathers to prove the sufficiency of Scripture: wherof the most part I am sure are as far beside the state of the question, as those places of Scripture we come now from examining. However, I finde my self, not concern'd to look into them: pretending no farther at this present, then to consider the ground upon which those I oppose rely, for their assurance, that Scripture is sufficient to decide controver­sies, according to the state of the question, as it is proposed. Now, because they reject wholly the Authority of Fathers, from a de­finitlve sentence in matter of Faith: it is im­possible for them, (if they are not quite Bed­lams) to rely on their Authority for accep­tance of Scripture; for what can be ima­gin'd [Page 176] more palpably absurd then to receive upon their credit the whole Rule of Faith, and yet not take their words for any one Article of Faith? and consequently what can be imagin'd more vain and fruitless then for me to lose my labour in striving to shew that Protestants have no colour from Anti­quity, to expect this al-deciding power in Scripture, whilst themselvs aver the whole multitude of Fathers is not capable of gi­ving a sufficient testimony for their relyance on Scripture: since therfore there is no­thing like a ground in Scripture, and they scorn all ground except Scripture, I must leave them to the freedom of doing it with­out ground.