AN APOLOGY FOR RUSHWORTH'S DIALOGUES.  
WHEREIN The Exceptions of the Lords FALKLAND and DIGBY are answered: AND The Arts of their commended DAILLé discovered.  
By THO. WHITE, Gent.  Psal. 63. 8. Sagittae Parvulorum factae sunt plagae eorum. 
A Paris, Chez Jean Billain Ruë St. Jaques a l'ensign St. Augustin. 1654.   

TO His ever Honoured cousin Mr. ANDREW WHITE, of the House of THUNDERSLEY.  
Honoured cousin,  
THough Kindred, Education, and known love all conspire to make me obnoxious to any good Counsel you please to give me; yet the averseness I have from answering Books, permitted me not, in our last interview, to promise obedience to your directions. But, since that happiness of seeing you, an unanimous consent of other friends has made me more steadily reflect on what you desired; and considering besides, that the Doctrine of Rushworth's Dialogues takes a path not much beaten by our modern Controvertists, I resolved to imitate the example of the penitent Son, who, after denial, performed his father's commands. Behold then, here, the brood hatched and brought forth by your advice: pray heaven it prove worthy your acknowledging! which I say, not, to engage you in the patronage of what I deliver, farther than truth shall convince your judgement; or to make the World imagine these Conceptions may find shelter in your breast: No, I am as cruel to my writings, as the ostrich to her Eggs: when once they are laid, let nature play her part to foster or smother the Chickens, as she pleases. Let truth commend or condemn my say. He that is ready to renounce falsity, and acknowledge his weakness, is stronger than envy, and beyond the shot of malice. Neither have I occasion to suspect any imputation should fall upon you for this publishing my Present to you, as I fear it happened to another friend: For, I apprehend, I may have written here some Periods, which none will expect should be approved by you; Only, who understands the amplitude of your soul, may know, it is able to harbour with indifferency what is spoken against your own sense and consent; it being the gift and task of a wise man, Imperare liberis. What I have performed, wherein failed, is your part to judge; for myself, I can profess I desire not to irritate the meanest person, nor seek I the glory of oppugning the Greatest: my ayne is, to open and establish truth; Frivolous and by-questions I have on set purpose avoided. Whether all objections of moment are answered, as I cannot affirm, so I can protest I am no more conscious of declining any, then of dissembling, when I writ myself  
Your affectionate cousin and humble servant, THO. WHITE. Paris, Sept. 21. 1652.   

A Second DEDICATION to the same Person.  
Learned, and by me ever to be honoured cousin!  
'tIs so long since the former Address to you was written, that no wonder it should now be ashamed to come abroad without some excuse to justify the slowness of its pace; which is no other, than a simple protest, that it has not stuck in my hands for at least a whole year and an half. Upon these few words I could sit down and confidently promise myself your pardon; But emergent imputations force me to a larger Apology: The expedition in some other late Works of mine rendering the seeming neglect of this more obnoxious to exception; as if I were rather ambitious to display the errors of some of our own side, than the enormities of professed Enemies; and yourself are conceived to have a part in this suspicion.  
Now, since, from that long and constant commerce you have still maintained with true virtue & Learning, I cannot but expect a great rationality and amplitude in your Soul, even to bear with the defectuousnes of others, as far as you see they govern themselves by that measure of understanding which God affords them, I find myself obliged to give you the best account I can of my proceed, which I doubt not will prove so much an easier task, as you, with whom I am to deal, are of a higher strain, than our trivial discoursers; for, as I think, those who set up their rest, that there is no science to be attained by study, are pardonable, if they choose opinions by pretence of devotion or reality of interest: So I give my cause for lost, if they be my Judges. But I hope the great fire of truth, which first kindled in my young breast a glowing of it, and an earnestness of seeking it in St. Thomas his way, has not been by length of time as much quenched in you, as quickened in me; and therefore with a full confidence I represent my Case to you, not doubting but the evidence I produce will justify, if not the action itself, at least the necessity I have to act as long as the present persuasion is not forced from me.  
To come then to my Plea; If St. Peter commands us to be ready to give satisfaction to all that shall ask it, concerning the hope that is in us, by which is meant our belief, the basis and firm support of our hope; If the design of all that meddle with this sort of study should chief aim to show, that the doctrines of Christianity are conformable to reason, and such as a prudent Person, though also learned, may embrace, without prejudice either to his discretion, or knowledge: If the suggesting to our first parents, that God sought to govern them like fools, without the least discernment betwixt good or evil, be the greatest and unworthiest calumny Satan himself could invent to charge upon the Almighty: If it be the basest condition that can befall a rational Essence, and the most contrary both to God and man, whose natures consist in knowing and reasoning; what can I conclude, but that such Teachers, as, for ignorance or interest, obstinately resolve (in treating with those who are out of the Church) to maintain opinions, whereof no account can be made, either out of Antiquity or Reason, are unworthy the function they profess, and highly obstructive to the progress of the Catholic faith?  
You, who have looked into the large Volumes of Controvertists on both sides, cannot but know they are petty questions, and the impugnances of private opinions, that swell those vast Tomes into such an unwieldy and intolerable bulk; I'm sure not only I, but divers of my friends have had experience, that those very opinions (for opposing which, I am exclaimed against) have been the retardment of the most ingenious and disinteressed party of Protestants; and that others, who were become Catholics, out of a pure necessity which they saw of submitting themselves to some unerring authority, when they heard their faith declared in a rational way, found themselves eased, as it were, of chains and imprisonment, and translated into a natural state and liberty. I need not press, how ulcers in our vitals, are more dangerous then in our outward members; and that we cannot convince others, whilst our selus are ignorant in the Points we pretend to teach them. No wise Captain searches the Hospitals for Perdues & Forcers of breaches. It is a great step towards the reducing others to reason, if first we make our own thoughts rational. This is my endeavour, this is my fault, for which I am so deeply censured, even by catholics.  
As for Persons, my writings neither name nor touch any: and those who make themselves pointed at by their forward boasts of defending the opinions I dispute against, either understand not me or themselves: for, did it deserve the pains, I would undertake to show out of their printed Writers, that they do not, with any universality, maintain those tenets I contradict. If in this present Treatise I have in one place descended to more particulars than my course and nature incline me to, I appeal to your own judgement, whether I do more than follow my Adversary, by replying upon his very words; and therefore your commands ought to be my excuse.  
But some think, at least this conjuncture improper to begin this Work, & I wish they could give me a good cause of delay; they should find me very ready to accept it; But I know no time in which destructive Errors should live unconfuted; our great Master securing us by his example, neque ad horam cessimus; nor can yourself be ignorant with what fury and violence the opposite opinion strives at this very day to possess the church of God, and break the eternal Rule of Christian faith. Wherefore, though conscious of my own weakness, and that, unless God extraordinarily shows his power, my endeavours will take no place, yet propter Zion non tacebo, & propter Jerusalem non quiescam.  
Your most obliged cousin, and obedient servant, T. W. 27 March 1654.   


The Table.  
THe Introduction page 1  
The first Encounter. Explicating the argument, by which Rushworth proves the infallibility of Tradition p. 7  
The second Encounter. Defeating three Oppositions made against Tradition p. 14  
The third Encounter. Solving two other Objections against the infallibility of Tradition p. 22  
The fourth Encounter. That unlearned Catholics rely on the infallibility of Tradition p. 31  
The fifth Encounter. That Catholik Divines rely on the same infallibility of Tradition p. 36  
The sixth Encounter. Disabling three other arguments brought against Tradition p. 44  
The seventh Encounter. Answering the Greeks and some Divines. who object new beliefs to the Catholic Church p. 50  
The eighth Encounter. That our Lady's immaculate Conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith p. 64  
The ninth Encounter. Showing the unanimous agreement of Divines, that all infallibility is from Tradition p. 70  
The tenth Encounter. That there was no Tradition for the error of the Chyliasts p. 77  
The eleventh Encounter. That there was Tradition for the Trinity, before the Council of Nice p. 84  
The twelfth Encounter. That the necessity of communicating Infants is no Tradition, but prayer to Saints is. p. 99  
The thirteenth encounter. Reflecting on certain considerations, and showing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion, to be the sign of the true Church p. 107  
The fourteenth Encounter. Four other Arguments reversed p. 113  
The fifteenth Encounter. Declaring the state of this question, Whether the Scripture can decide Controversies? p. 135  
The sixteenth Encounter. Examining five Texts brought for the sufficiency of Scripture p. 150  
The seventeenth Encounter. Examining such places as are brought against the admittance of any but Scriptural proof in Religion p. 262  
The eighteenth Encounter. Declaring the reasons of the Authors concluding, without proceeding to the examination of the father's Testimonies p. 173  
The first Survey. Of the Nature and subject of Deille's Book p. 179  
The second Survey. Of the two first Chapters of his first book; wherein he urges, that the Fathers of the three first Ages were few, and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies p. 188  
The third Survey. Of his third and fourth Chapters; wherein he objects forgery and corruption of the father's works p. 197  
The fourth Survey. Of the fifth Chapter, wherein he objects the father's Eloquence, and that on set purpose they spoke obscurely p. 208  
The fifth Survey. Of the six Chapters following, wherein he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers p. 216  
The sixth Survey. How the Authority of Fathers is infallible p. 226  
The seventh Survey. Of the four first Chapters of his second Book; wherein he pretends, The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church; and that they spoke not like Judges. 232  
The eighth Survey. Of the two last Chapters of his second Book; wherein he says, many Fathers have agreed in the same Errors; and objects certain varieties between the ancient and modern Church p. 238  
The ninth Survey. In Answer to two Questions, in his last Chapter: One, the father's being rejected, to what Judge we ought to recur? The other, What use is to be made of the Fathers? p. 250.    

ADVERTISEMENT.  
THe Reader is desired to take notice, that this Apology particularly relates to the last Edition of Rushworth's Dialogues (in 80 of the Long-Primer-Letter 1654., as which alone has felt throughout this author's last hand) and principally undertakes the refutation of Lucius Lo. Falkland's discourse of Infallibility, and George Lo. Digby (now Earl of Bristol) his printed Letters to Sir Ken. Digby; which he performs in a stile modest and respective, answerable to the dignity of their Persons, and civility of their Writings.  
The Animadversions upon Daillé are applied to the English Translation by T. S. not to the French Original; wherein the Reader will easily pardon those uncourteous expressions he shall meet with, if he consider how little favour he deservs from his equals, that insolently condemns his Betters; nay perhaps approve the justice of so necessary a resentment; since 'twere unreasonable in him to pretend the least regard from his Cotemporaries, that has composed so infamous and injurious a Libel against all Antiquity.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 13. l. 1. since in Const. p. 27. l. 13. Eight's, p. 58. l. 20. which were. p. 78. l. 10. handing p. 82. l. 16. to our ears. p. 102. l. 7. reatus, & l. 17. is there. p. 106. l. 2. be not. & l. 28. but by their. p. 119. l. 2. exposes. p. 127. l. 3. evident they cannot. p. 128. l. 5. part, that is, the▪ p. 137▪ l. 10. the venom. p. 142. l. last, attempt the other. p. 143. l. 1, 2, deal (but out of Scr. nor yet in that do they use so fair play) p. 148. Parenthesis gins at (this, l. 10. and ends at being) l, 13. p. 152. l. 2. vivifying, & l. 25. in the first. p. 174. l. last, day, as come— p. 179. l. 7. with. p. 193. l. 2. so few. p. 237. l. 28. not bound, p. 238. l. 19 certain varieties, p. 245. p. 243. l. 23. deal of, l. 7. in his. p. 248. l. last, shall not in.   

AN APOLOGY FOR TRADITION.  

The Introduction.  
THus it will sometimes happen; that events of greatest importance take their rise from small occasions. The Controversy, this following Treatise undertakes, began in a slight familiar conference betwixt two intimate friends and kinsmen, as it were only for exercise to train themselves, and practise their postures: but since by the entrance of new Allies is become of so high concernment, that what at first was a private voluntary skirmish, seems now to spread itself into a public and solemn War. Nor need I strain much to make good the phrase, since the eminent Names, on the one side, and the great advantage of ground on the other, may justly be admitted to supply the number of an Army in both.  
And, because I desire to prepare myself with the fittest proportion I could for the assaults of my Adversaries, I have declined the Sword and Buckler, and taken up a single Rapier; changed the antique weapons of Dialogue, (though▪ in my opinion, they want neither ornament nor particular efficacy) into the modern mode of direct discourse: Wherein, as I confess, Their guilded Armour shines more, and dazzles the eye; so I fear not, when we come to charge, our courser steel will prove substantial and impenetrable. However I shall not spend much time in parley; but after a short relation how I come to be drawn into the quarrel, and by what method I intent to carry it on, I shall immediately advance to a close encounter.  
Before those Dialogues (wherein that original private conference is at large delivered) were brought to light, or (as I think) fully conceived in the author's brain; an honoured friend, 
Sr. K. D.  and Patron of mine had couched some small, but quintessential part of their doctrine in a little pithy Present to a new-converted Lady; and having cited it afterward for brevity sake, in a controversial Epistle to an eminent Friend, 
L. Digby.  engaged it thereby into an almost fatal combat; nothing but truth being able to rescue it from so potent an enemy.  
Besides, a deceased friend of mine having obliged me to declare my opinion concerning a witty discourse made by one of his acquaintance, extorted from me an unlicked Mola, representing suddenly and imperfectly, 
L. Falkl.  my judgement in reference to that author's work. This again, stirring the same humours, drew the doctrine into an eminent danger of encountering opposition. Nevertheless, God so ordering it, many years past, in calm and happy days of peace, the two Adversaries (whom these occasions had provoked) not publishing their Labours, as things below their persons; till all-discovering time (as I believe) against the author's intentions, brought them both to light, and, by consequence, an imputation on those Dialogues, and a necessity on me to disengage the honour of their Composer.  
In order to which, my intention is not to reply minutely to either of the Opponents works; muchles to handle any by-questions: but only to choose out of them, or any others, what I conceive may possibly be thought as yet unanswered, and consequently capable of prejudicing those Dialogues.  
By this reserved and moderate temper, I hope to free myself from all such incivilities as necessarily attend on the undertaking to convince a particular person of weakness or inconsequence in his discourse, from which kind of captious proceed, besides my Reason, I am beholding to my Nature for its extreme averseness. Besides, in answering a writing, many impertinent quarrels are picked, the substantial controversy lost or confounded, and the Truth itself, by multiplicity, left more obscure than when the disputant began: for, where many questions are started and none deeply searched into, the Reader goes away without any resolution, more than what himself brought along with him. I intent therefore with all candour and fidelity, to select such objections as I think really interest the controversy; and handle them without relation to Books or distinction of Authors, or citations of places: as one who seeks Truth, not the glory of confuting or vanity of answering.  
But some may be unsatisfied with my proceed, and demand, if this be my intention, why do I cite those Authors in particular; and, as it were, make a show of answering, without any effect: I desire those to consider, that the names of Author's carry weight, among two sorts of Readers; One, such as diligently peruse the books written on both sides; to whom I offer this satisfaction, that they may find the solution to any difficulty which occurs concerning this subject, in their writings: The other, such who look no farther than the Title page, or whether a book be answered or no, are insolent upon the writer's name, and importunely clamorous, that 'tis a Piece beyond all possibility of reply, be it never so weak and trivial; to whom the simple profession that 'tis answered, is a wedg fit for their knot.  
I must confess, next to the assuredness of my Cause, 'tis my chiefest comfort to deal with Persons of such quality: such as the Protestant party never produced before: it seems to have chosen them to live by, or die with. Two, whose Merits found the way of honouring their Descents, by their generosity; whose eloquence none were found to exceed, whose wits none will be found to equal. What erudition in Languages, or acuteness in logic could furnish, was treasured in their breasts: But above all, a comprehensive judgement, in managing the numerous and weighty affairs of a Kingdom to the very heightening that sublime and subtlest Office, (Secretary of State) which they both, successively, exalted to such a pitch, that it must expect a fall in whoever shall succeed them.  
One is, the right honourable George Lord Digby (now Earl of Bristol) ever mounting the scale of Honour to a degree so far above the reach of others, that 'tis even beyond their sight: The other, Lucius Lord Falkland, who crowned his deserved laurel with a wreath of Oaken Scyons; dying in such a posture, as if mischief could not have ravaged England, had it not made its passage through the breast of that Martyr of Peace. I can accuse him of nothing, but that he left this Book behind him; it being too plain what unhappy impression it makes in his Friends, since myself, almost a stranger, cannot read those acquaint and gentile expressions, those rarities of wit, those coruscations of Greek and Latin remarks, and (which most of all surprises my admiration) those Noble sweetnesses and civilities so unexpected in a quarrelling Treatise; but I feel in my heart an unusual sorrow and regret, that our thoughts cannot stay on him, without the sad check of a fuit.  
But, since we are out of hope to resuscitate him that's gone, like the day he died on; let us (by David's example) leave these flattering weaknesses of nature, and seek severe reason in the controversy we pretend to manage.   

THE FIRST ENCOUNTER, Explicating the Argument, by which RUSHWORTH proves the Infallibility of Tradition.  
THe Dialogues (in whose defence we now appear, as Second) govern their discourse by this fair method: First, they treat and settle these definitions; Tradition we call, the delivery of Christ's doctrine from hand to hand, in that part of the world which, with propriety, is called Christian: By Christ's doctrine, we mean that which was generally preached 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 established, they immediately proceed to this general Position, that All Christ taught, or the Holy Ghost suggested to the Apostles, of this nature, is, by a direct uninterrupted live, 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 error 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 Catholic 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 error crept in; and the maintainer should prove it entered not in that Age, Because that Age held nothing was to be admitted, as of Faith, except what was delivered to it by the former: but the Objectors themselves say, this supposed error was not delivered by the former, since they put it to be, now, first, believed; therefore the Age in which they imagine this error crept in, could not be the first that believed it.  
And, lest some might reply, though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed maxim, yet anciently it did not; the same argument may be thus reiterated, If this principle which now governs the Church had not always done so, it must have been introduced in some Age since the Apostles: name therefore the Age, and immediately 'tis urged, either the Church had assurance, in that Age, all she held was descended lineally, as we spoke, from the Apostles, or not: If so, then questionless she held her doctrine upon that maxim; For it is the only undoubted and self-evident principle: If not, than she wilfully belied herself, 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 doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, descended upon the present age by universal Tradition from their Ancestors, and for such to be delivered 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 superior part of mankind, and commands powerfully in it) to the material appetite of procuring corporal succession, and weigh what accidents are able and necessary to interrupt the progress of one and the other, will find the propagation of Religion far stronger and less defectible, then that of mankind; supposing them once rooted alike in universality and setledness. Since therefore the means of conducting nature to its true and chief end, Felicity, are more principally intended, than those by which it is simply preserved 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 knowledge of the true and strait way thither; & did observe that Man in his immature age is naturally subject to believe, and after his full growth, tenacious of what he had sucked in with his milk: could he choose but see, that to make the Mothers flatter into their Children the first elements of the acquisition of Beatitude, and continually go on nursing them up in the maxims of piety, till their stronger years gave a steady setledness to their minds; must needs be the most sweet and connatural way that can be imagined, to beget a firm and undoubted assent to those happy principles.  
If he think on, and chance to light on this truth, that the greatest part of mankind, some through dulness of understanding, some by the distractions of seeking necessaries for their subsistence, or at least conveniences for their accommodation, and others for the diffluence of nature to Pleasures and Vanities, are, to their very departing hour, wholly incapable of searching out their Religion, either by their own contemplation or the learned books of others: I cannot doubt but such a considerer would without the least difficulty or hesitation, conclude that, were it his design to set up a Religion, which he would have constantly and universally propagated, he must of necessity pitch upon this way; And so, with a resolute and pious confidence pronounce, if God has not already taken this course, certainly he should have done it.  
To these considerations give my pen leave to add the confession of our Adversaries, who boldly acknowledge the Roman Church has had universal Tradition for the whole body of its faith ever since St. Gregory's days; which is now a thousand years, and very near two parts of the three that Christian Religion has endured. They confess those doctrines, which are common to us and them, remain in our Church uncorrupted, and have still descended from Father to Son, by virtue of Tradition, since the very times of the Apostles. They will not deny the Ages, betwixt Constantine and St. Gregory, flourished with an infinity of Persons famous both for piety and learning; and the Church never more vigilant, never more jealous, being continually alarmed by such Troops of powerful and subtle heretics: so that there is no likelihood, gross errors (such as Idolatry and Superstition import) could creep in undiscerned, 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 lived with Constantine: At least that age could evidently know what was the faith of Christendom in the age of the Apostles great grandchildren, and they again be certainly assured of the doctrine of the Apostles disciples, their Grandfathers. Which is an evidence beyond all testimony of writers, that since Constantine's time it was known by a kind of self-sight what the grandchilds of the Apostles held, and it could not be doubted of them but they knew and held the doctrine of the Apostles; that, I say, in Constantine's time, the public doctrine of Christianity was the doctrine of the Apostles.  
Besides, the communication of Christians being very difficult and infrequent, during those persecutions; the contagion also of heresies scattered itself 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, wherein they acknowledge the doctrines, termed errors, were already flourishing; as if they could proceed, from a defect which followed them: A slander so palpably absurd that all the charity I have can scarce persuade me to think they are not blinded rather with malice then ignorance, that dare vent such gross contradictions.  
And now, having abridged as 'twere, the whole sense of rushworth's Dialogues concerning Tradition, into this short compendium; I will apply my pen to answer what exceptions are taken, against either the form 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 imagine, 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 error 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 wherein they conceive the sinews of my discourse will be most slack and feeble: for the force of the main argument is indifferent 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 Catholics have, whilst we press our adversary to prove his Thesis, being no less a just then strong and secure retreat; and which I reserve myself the liberty of retiring to, perhaps, at another time: but now I only urge him to name one Age at hazard, merely to give way to the prosecution of the argument; a Justice I might do for myself, if I would, without his courtesy, and have all the laws of disputation bear me out in it.  
It is therefore to little 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 acquaint discourses of Rhetoricians. But the Adversary thinks, when the Question is put concerning a Doctrine's being universal, it must suppose none to hold the contrary opinion; as if we could not know what is the public Faith of France, because perhaps a few concealed persons may believe somewhat different. Wherein, he reflects not, that heresy signifies the cleaving to a private opinion: so that, when there were any such in former ages, that very thing made them heretics (how good wits or great learning so ever they had) if they dissented from the doctrine delivered by their forefathers. He presses, catholics 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 therefore 'twas neither superstition to use it, nor sacrilege to leave it off; how strongly soever the opponent avers one of these two to be unavoidable.  
The second opposition made against the form is, that 'tis a fallacy of that kind, called Soritae, in which the sceptics found so great difficulty, that they used to press them against the Stoics and other dogmatists, as insoluble and manifestly demonstrating there was no science. But, to understand the meaning of this objection, the demonstration proposed is to begin from the Apostles time: and so it must be supposed, that the next Age after the Apostles, in any controversy against new doctrines, examined no farther than on which side stood the verdict of the Apostles, whereof they could not be ignorant. The Argument therefore pressed that the next (that is, the third Age) must of necessity take the same method against its novelists, 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 conveyed from age to age, still with this caution, that the latter was to believe such a doctrine, because received from the former, upon this warrant that it descended lineally from Christ in the same manner, to them, as they delivered it to their posterity; it necessarily follows, that this doctrine could not but continue pure even to our present time: unless some age should prevaricate all bounds of truth and nature, and deliver something to the following age, as traditionally derived from Christ, which had not been so received.  
This argument, so proposed (though I know not whether so understood) seemed to the opponent like the ratiocination of one Mr. Thinn, a melancholy Philosopher, who persuaded himself, a person might be found that could leap from off Paul's (for sure he needed a high standing) to Rome, because 'twas possible some man might leap full twenty foot, and no doubt but another somewhat more, and still another more than he, and so without end; therefore among all, one quick springer would be found, who could make his jump from hence to the Capitol.  
But certainly he that weighed the two arguments, might without extraordinary study, have found there was some difference in their form: Mr. Thinn, being obliged 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, whereas the world's durance and latitude are not sufficient to find men enough to justify Mr. Thinns process. 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 itself could not add more than one full foot to Mr. Thinns lepers: if the increase were made by sub-proportional parts, whereof the first was one half foot; and if by equal quantities, as Feet or Inches, he would soon come to an end of his addition, unless he put men's strength and nimbleness 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 eye 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? Wherefore both the possibility and actuality of this way is not only acknowledged by the unanimous confession of all parties, but its force and efficacy made evident by the downright violence of reason: all the controversy being merely about the multitude and sufficiency of the things received, not the impotency of the means to convey them to us.  
But, to make an end of this petty Question, I appeal to all Masters, nay even Scholars in Geometry, whether this form of arguing be not the same that Euclid, Archimedes and Apollonius use in their severest demonstrations? As when Euclid undertakes to demonstrate this plain and elementary theorem, that No Circle can touch another in more than one point; himself acts the part of the Denier, and according to the law of mathematics, supposes at random the other point, to see whether the Proposition be maintainable: and if the Contactus in the point assigned be proved impossible, by an argument appliable to any other that can be offered, the theorem remains infallibly demonstrated, and the Rules of that precise and strict Science perfectly complied with.  
The third opposition is drawn out of a conceited impossibility of the case; and so they demand how can it come to pass 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 averred 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 enterprise so highly impossible, as not to be thought on even among the wildest caprices of a Romance: yet to so hard straits are we driven, that we must defend the possibility of this later assertion.  
Which to compass, 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 persuaded 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 Christ's time, start out of molehills 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, urged by certain Speculatists, that, because, in some rude times, they imagine the learned were few, and therefore subject to corruption by hopes or fears, they might more easily be prevailed with to proclaim a falls 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 error may be said to have crept in; because (say they) an error 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 wherein its beginning is discoverable: For proof, they instance in some error held by divers heretics in divers ages; and tell you, the best Historian knows who was first mentioned to have broached that error: whereas 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 stupefied, and the doctor's 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'll say, it was so transcendent a Doctor that he overtopped all. Here, I confess my weakness: for if some sky-faln Angel, indeed, should come, with tongue and pen more than 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 than Eusebius Caesariensis? more cunning than Eusebius Nicomediensis? more subtle than 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 armed us, even against the treachery of Angels; charging that, in spite of them, we cleave fast to what we have received, to what was preached to us, that is, to Tradition: For rely but on what, in memory of our own age, the Church has universally held, and delivered, as from Christ, and no subtlety of men or Angels can make you mistake.  
Yet, Let it be supposed, some unparallelled Brain had the power to make a doctrine 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 doctrine 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 artillery, that the Enemy might not discover where they lay? or to do, as is reported of an acquaintance of mine, who being in good company, to ride through a Town, where he was afraid to be taken notice of, at his entrance set spurs to his horse, holding his Cane strait before him, and Trumpeted Tararara Tararara the whole length of the Town? Nevertheless, since 'tis for our side (says the zealot) 'tis an invincible demonstration.  
But we desire leave to consider one point farther; In what times came in the errors, 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 entertained a new error, not common to both parties, especially if the novelties were any way notable, they could not have been passed over without mutual contradictions or upbraid. The doctrines therefore which in those times passed unreprehended, and were currently 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 error could run through the Church so uncontrol'd, as to gain, without the least sign of opposition, an universality: and much like the story, that the great Turk, with an Army of three or four hundred thousand men, should steal upon Germany by night and take all the good fellows so fast asleep that not a man should escape, nor so much as a Goos gaggle to wake the drowsy neighbours, and, having thus silently run over the Empire, should pass into France; and thence into Spain, and still catch them all napping without the least notice or resistance: whereof, if any slow and dull heart should doubt, as seeming indeed somewhat an improbable story, the reporter should immediately prove all with a why not? since the Greeks had surprised 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 impossible to be concealed. Who shall hinder the Conqueror from proclaiming such unparallelled victories, to applaud himself and terrify the rest of the world? who can forbid his soldiers to Chronicle their own valours, and everywhere boast such un-heard of exploits? Certainly, were there no Catholic testimonies of these late unhappy divisions from the Church, yet would succeeding ages find evidence enough (as to the matter of fact) even in the writings of the Reformers themselves. How often do their Books insult o'er 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 newfound 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 caused be wiped from her eyes? for my part, I am confident our once happy Island will never forget the graceless disorders of Henry the heights unfortunate intemperance, though there were not one English Catholic left in the world, to remember them by the smart he endures ever since.  
Add to all this, the points, wherein 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 errors often sprung and often quelled again, of any advantage to the Opponent. For our question concerns opinions remaining till this day, and by himself, supposed to have gained the mastery of the Church, and never failed since their beginning: because all doctrines, which appear to have a being before any age the Adversary can name, are thereby evidently proved perpetual Traditions; especially when the Authors were such as lived in Communion with the Catholic Church then extant, and remained in veneration with the Church succeeding.  
Methinks also since the opposer maintains it was more than a whole Age in working itself up to this universality, if the error 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 doctrine 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 priest's power of absolution, who invented the doctrine of preferring the judgement of the Church before our own private interpretation of Scripture; all which we see exactly performed against every considerable Heresy, a minute and punctual account being still upon Record, who were the original contrivers, who the principal abettors, where they found patronage, where opposition, How long they lived, and when they died.  
To evade this reason, is framed the next crimination, by saying what is answered has its probability, if the errors laid to our charge were contrary to Christian doctrine: But they only pretend to accuse us of superfetations, 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 justified against us: yet, because this objection civilly renounces such harsh and uncharitable language, let us see what may be intended by superfetations.  
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 knowledge in Christian Religion, or matters belonging to it. Did God give his Law to Beasts, that have no discourse nor capacity, by joining two revealed truths to arrive at the discovery of a third? Again, where is it prohibited for the doctor and Preacher to know more than the idiot and old wife? What fault then can even the proud and peevish humour of this age find in this point? If heretics will raise dust, and obscure the clearest articles of Christian faith, and that so maliciously, as without settling some further explication, the people are in danger of being perverted: is it a sin to establish such defences and Ramparts against encroaching errors?  
If the addition be of falsities; let us examine 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 delivered Scripture to be true. If the points be not against Scripture; either they cross some known Article of Faith, or only the Principles of natural 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, than the Argument before explicated (concerning the infallibility of Tradition, and the creeping in of errors 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 themselves, true; why will not the Opposer assent to them? has he a demonstration against them? No, for than 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 Church's Authority. The reason therefore, if the inward thoughts be faithfully sifted, will at length appear no other, than the preferring his own Opinion before the judgement of the Church: which being the effect of an obstinate and malapert pride, makes no legitimate excuse for not believing.   

THE FOURTH ENCOUNTER. That unlearned Catholics 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 unlearned not to be grounded on Tradition; at least, not for their whole Faith. For, if a question arise never thought on before, and once a Council determine the controversy, that decree is accepted, as if it had come from Christ by Tradition; and all profess a readiness to obey, and therefore are like to perform their word, if occasion be offered. 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 alleged out of Scripture and ancient Fathers: a practice even the fathers themselves continually observe, who, having proposed a point, are ready to add, it is not they alone that teach this doctrine, but the Apostles or Christ, or some renowned Father; never mentioning Tradition, unless to oppose or disable it, when some heretics have laid claim to it, as the Quartadecimans, Chyliasts, Communicants of Infants, and the like.  
The charge I confess is fierce; let us see what powder it bears, what shot. We agree, the Church comprehends both learned and unlearned, and so are bound to maintain that both sorts rely on Tradition. As for the first objection then, concerning the readiness to embrace a Councils definition, with the same assent, as if the truth were descended by Tradition; I can either and indifferently grant or deny it: Since, if I please to grant it, I have this secure retreat, that a conditional proposition has no force, unless the condition be possible: and for the possibility of the condition, I distinguish the subject; which may be matter of Practice and Obedience, or a speculative proposition. Of the first I can allow the assent to be the same; that is, an equal willingness to observe it: Of the second, I deny it ever was or can be, that a Council should define a question otherwise then by Tradition; Therefore, to rely on the Councils definition takes not away, but confirms the relying on Tradition. This, if need were, I could easily justify, by the express proceed 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 choose (according to my above reserved liberty) to deny such equality of assent; the Opponent has offered no proof, and so the quarrel is ended: for though I could produce instances to the contrary, I think it not fit to multiply questions when the argument can be solved with a simple denial.  
But how the Opponent can justify the second branch of his exception, that in Catechisms this doctrine 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 Catholic Church, he told them how Catholic signified an universality of place and time; and that, for this title of Catholic, we were to rely on her testimony. Likewise, in the word Apostolic, he noted that the Apostles were the founders of the Church, and her doctrine theirs, as being first received from them and conserved by the Church ever since; and that for this reason we were to believe her Authority. Thus you see, that famous phrase of the Collier's faith is built on this very principle we maintain. True it is, Catechists do not ordinarily descend to so minute particularities, as to tell 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 doctrine, as to persuade and make what is already believed sink into the Auditory, with a kind of willingness & easiness, that their faith be quickened into a principle of action to govern their lives, the principal end perhaps for which the Scripture was delivered and recommended to us. Therefore, neither the common practice, nor proper design or use of Sermons reaches home, to make us understand on what grounds the hearts of Catholics rely; who after all disputations, retire themselves to this safe guard, To believe what the Catholic Church teaches; as none can be ignorant that has had the least convers with such Catholics as profess not themselves Divines.  
For the last period of this objection, where the Fathers are brought in to cry out against Tradition, and heretics 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 established on Tradition, if they rely on the Church as it is Catholic and Apostolic; which all profess, from the grey hair to him that but now gins to lisp his Creed.   

THE FIFTH ENCOUNTER That Catholic 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 inferred that, as more was disputed, so more was concluded; therefore more known, and consequently not all derived by Tradition.  
But if we should answer, that disputing, betwixt Catholics and heretics, is, on the Catholic part, no other then proving and defending those points which were derived by Tradition, and found in Christian action and behaviour, this argument were cut up by the roots, and all pretence and colour of it taken away: Which is the very truth of the business: this being inseparably the difference betwixt Heresy and Catholicism, that when those perverse novelties first peep out of their dark grots, the Catholic Religion securely possesses the World; and upon such opposition is at first surprised, and the Divines, perhaps, put to cast about for plausible defences and grounds to satisfy unstable heads, who easily conceit themselves wiser than their forefathers, and scorn authority, unless reason proportioned to their capacity or humour marshal it in.  
Nevertheless, because disputing cannot choose but bring to light some deductions, consequent to the first & principally-defended Position; I shall not deny the Church may come to know somewhat, 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 relies on Tradition, as far as they themselves emerge from doctrines delivered by Tradition: so that the truth attested by the learned Cardinal out of St. Austin, is, that, by much canvasing, more clear proofs and answers are discovered, or more ample Theological science concerning such mysteries, acquired.  
Bellarmin is brought in excusing Pope John 22. from being an heretic, though he held no souls were admitted to the vision of God, before the day of judgement; because the Church had not as yet defined any thing concerning it: I confess, many more might be produced 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 therefore not excusable upon that account. But, in truth, I wonder this point is no harder pressed; 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 expressed 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 peripatetics are divided about the manner of vision; Aristotle teaching, that the object works upon the eye; Plato, that the eye sends out a line of Spirits or rays to the object: Yet nothing were more ridiculous then to affirm, the Platonists saw in one fashion, the peripatetics in another. Some (as I fear may be experienced in too many of our modern sceptics) 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 irresistible. So likewise, 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 all taught to answer, they rest wholly on the Bible, the Bible, for their Faith; but nine parts of ten seek no farther than 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 themselves unable to resolve those many intricate controverted points by the bare letter of the Text; who, perhaps are not the less numerous, but certainly the more excusable part of Protestants.  
Whence, farther, it is clear that; to ask on what a private person grounds his belief, and on what, the Church? is yet a more different question; especially, if you inquire into what he thinks the Church resolus 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 tell, whether it be resolved into Scripture or Councils. To conclude therefore this demand, whether Bellarmin himself relied 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 Catholic and Apostolic; so far, therefore, the Collier and Bellarmin depend on the same Authority. As for the other part of the interrogatory, on what he thinks the Church relies for her doctrine? it may be enquired either in common or particular. In common (relating generally to the body and substance of Catholic doctrine,) there is no doubt, among Catholics, but their reliance is upon Tradition, this being the main profession of great and small, 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 therefore, no Catholic makes any scruple but Religion comes to him by Tradition.  
There remains now, only, what learned men think, concerning the ground whereon the Church relies, in some particular cases: which we have already shown concerns not their private belief, as 'tis the foundation of their spiritual life; for, so, they rely on the Church, and what the Church relies 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 established, that every believer, as such, relies on the Church immediately. This difficulty therefore is so far resolved, that it little imports what opinion Bellarmin or any other private Doctor holds in the point: since it follows not that the Church, or any particular member thereof, relies on such a ground; no not Bellarmin himself, though he conceive, in some points, the Church relies 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 heretic? the opinion becomes heretical by being against Tradition, without circumstances; but the Person is not an heretic, unless he knows there is such a Tradition. Now, St. Cyprians case was about a doctrine included in a practice, which, he saw well, was the custom 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 alleges for St. Cyprian; 'tis true, I have no assurance this Apology can be alleged for John 22. but another perhaps may, that the multitude of Fathers (which he conceived to be on his side) might persuade him, the opposite opinion could not be a constant Tradition. There remains only beauty's excuse to be justified, which is not of so great moment: Divines helping themselves 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 satisfy all such objections as are drawn from some father's mistakes against the common Faith. For nothing can be more certain, then, if any Father had known the doctrine, contrary to his error, to have been universally taught in the Catholic 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 nearer the Fountain, could less doubt that the stream, of which he saw no other rise, reached home to the springhead. This therefore is evident, that whoever erred, knew nothing of such a Tradition, whencesoe're that ignorance took its root: the several causes of which depend upon the several cases of their mistakes, here not pressed, and therefore not examined.   

THE SIXTH ENCOUNTER, Disabling three other Arguments brought against Tradition.  
THe seventh objection pretends, not only different, but opposite Traditions might be derived 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 happened so in the case of the Quartadecimani, who inherited from St. John a certain custom, which was condemned by a practice derived from some other Apostles. But the weakness of this objection appears by its very proposal: For, since all Catholics, 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, coged into the definition, on purpose to take away this objection; the necessity of it is evident: because, all that wear 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 expressly verified in the example of the quartadecimen; their contention being merely about a Ceremony, not an Article of Faith. wherefore, only indifferent and unnecessary practices are subjects of such a double Tradition: and, by consequence, such Traditions are not of Christian belief, 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 than 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 gained such a general acknowledgement.  
The example of this is in certain Books of Scripture, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the apocalypse; whereof, in St. Jerom's time, the Greek Churches refused the one, and the Latin the other; yet now both have prevailed 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 unequal working of the Causes: and so, Christ having delivered, by the hands of his Apostles, two things to his Church, his doctrine, 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 doctrine was delivered to all the Apostles, and by them to the whole 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 whole Church, and communicated to the Pastors, in the Books themselves; to the people, by their Pastors reading and explications. For, who does not know, before Printing was invented, the Bible was not every man's money? Whence it appears, Scriptures are derived to us by a lower degree of Tradition, then that of Catholic doctrine; and consequently our Faith and acceptance due to them is not of so high a nature as what we are bound to in respect of doctrine. For the sense of Scripture is to be judged by the doctrine: as the Church and custom of Antiquity teaches us: always commanding and practising, that no man exercise his wits in interpreting the holy Scripture against the received 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 skill and practical experience.  
And here I would willingly ask, what such Protestants as object this to us, can answer for themselves? since they directly profess not to know Scripture by the Spirit, and therefore 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 received in one Church before another; as the Epistles of St. Paul, St. John, or St. Marks Gospel, etc. and how do they admit the apocalypse, so long refused by the Greek Churches, whom they use to prefer before the Latin?  
But they press us farther; that, if a particular Tradition became universal, this depended on the logic of those Ages, to discern what testimony was beyond exception. I demand what signifies logic? do they mean common sense, sufficient to know three and four make seven; or wit enough to comprehend and manage with a just degree of discretion, the ordinary occurrences in humane actions? If they do; I must confess it depends on logic: For I cannot think God Almighty delivered the Scriptures to Apes or Elephants, who have a mere 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 logic 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 logic 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 error 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, therefore 'tis; unless they bring strong proof of this necessity in some particular instance, that may show it to be an exception from the common maxim, à posse ad esse non valet consequentia: And yet, in this discourse, I find not so much as the very posse, which I thus declare. If any should deny that George could leap over Paul's-steeple; and a acquaint orator (to maintain the affirmative) should largely discourse, how the rise of the last footing, the help of a good staff, 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 enterprise. So, he that discourses at large, how errors use to slide into man's life, without comparing the power of the causes of error 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 still preserved alive in the church's bowels from the great fire of Pentecost: says no more towards proving an error's overrunning the Church, than the orator we exemplified, for George's leaping over the Steeple. Wherefore this attempt is so far from the business, it deservs not the honour of being accounted an Argument.  
Yet, because we compared the propagation of the Catholic Faith, to the perpetuation of Human kind, let us propose the like discourse against it: and say, that in Africa or the Land of Senega, there are under earth, great mines of arsenic: Whereof one may at some time or other, vapour a contagious smoke, which, encountering 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 Catholic Church.  
THe first is of the Greeks; Hieremie Nilus and Barlaam, who profess to stand to Tradition and the first seven General Councils, and can be no way disproven, says the objector, unless by what shall be as forcible against the Catholic cause. But truly, this instance is so lame, it needs a new making, before it be answered: For the Author expresses not in what points of difference betwixt us and them, he intends to urge it. If, about shave or fastings and the like; we shall 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 author's liberal addition, without any proof or means to guests 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 shows that the plea of the Greeks is non-Tradition; alleging only this, that their Fathers do not deliver the doctrine 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 believed, than what was drawn from antiquity; because he was content private men might begin good customs in their own houses: For sure he could not believe, that omnis fidelis could constituere for the whole Church, or even for his neighbour's house. So that we need a great deal of logic to draw from this remark, the creeping of an error into the Church: not a word being so much as intimated, that this good custom should be against what was already received; which had been enough to make it rejected, and not comprehended, in tertullia's known judgement.  
There is another instance, strongly urged and largely 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 Lady's Conception. (I follow an author's 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 than 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 wadding testimony; another from the State of the question he handles: a third, from his practice, jointly with the practice of divers others of the same degree. For the first, I am desirous notice should be taken of the author's condition; When he wrote this book, he was Secretary to the Bishop of Carthagena, and He his King's Ambassador, to move the Pope to define our Lady's Conception without original sin; and, in soliciting this, to use an extraordinary importunity: wherein 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 privilege to say and publish Dicenda Tacenda, whether they were his own opinions or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so they any way advanced 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 defined, that our Lady was free from all actual sin: He adds, the validity of heretics Baptism, the beatifical vision before the day of judgement, the spirituality of Angels, the souls being immediately 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 defined 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 received 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 examined with which of them the purest Ages sided: but referred the whole matter to what St. Austin said: and so it had been defined, had not Cardinal perron's advice prevailed. And St. Austin was so various in his own opinion, that he knew not himself what he held: whereas, before him all the ancients sided with the Jesuits. Thus far that Book.  
I know this term Defining, is frequently used by our Divines in matters of the church's determinations; nor do I see any great inconvenience in the word, if the thing be understood, to wit▪ that Defining is nothing else but the acknowledging and clearing a Tradition, from the dirt and rubbish opposers had cast upon it. For the rest, that some Fathers have had their eyes tied, 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 sphere of our discourse, if not directed by a carefulness to wel-imploy our logic, or by a secret grace steering us towards truth beyond the ability of our Reason.  
But, what consequence any can draw, out of these say, 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 derived by Tradition, because really 'tis so; an inconsequence, I hope already sufficiently demonstrated. Now, if these two can stand together, that, truly the Church has a Tradition for a point, and nevertheless some learned man may be ignorant of it; this argument has no force at all.  
As to the positions he citys for newly adopted into the family of faith; he fairly shows the privilege 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 than that the validity of Baptism by heretics was a Tradition, and decided by it: so, the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgement, 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 Catholic 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 some violence offered to his words.  
Poza is a condemned author: 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 scold of some ignorant Divines, (who are ready to call every word, they found not in their books, when they were scholars, heresy) or else because, truly, he understood not what belonged 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 wariness in distinguishing. For, let us take either the Council of Florence or Trent, in which we have the church's sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences; and see whether the holy Bishop says any of the points, those Councils defined, 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 public 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, from the Accidents and dressing of it; as likewise, in judulgences, not separating what the Church has always practised from the interpretative extension 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 termed Theological and generally received in the Schools, yet are not arrived to the pitch of making a point of Catholic 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 jointly stand; to wit, that it was to find 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 doctor, 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 doctrine of St. Augustin was the doctrine of all those Catholic 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 meddled with it, by some Council; that is, by the apprehensions of the then present Church; and, as it spread from Country to Country, was still found contrary to the received doctrine, 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 doctrine of St. Austin, and the doctrine of the Apostles, planted by them and continued to St. Augustine's days, illustrated by him, and transmitted to his posterity, even to our present time. If this be true, (as no Catholic 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 doctrine of St. Austin was evidently the faith of that Age; and the faith of that Age the faith of the Christian Church, from the Apostles to us.  
But we have another quarrel about St. Augustine's doctrine, 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 well 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 themselves 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 accused of Pelagianism, were the choicest wits and ancientest scholars could be picked 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 forced to corrupt St. Austin to the Pope's face the 30 of September following; which being discovered, the author died of melancholy and disgrace. Again, in the tenth Congregation, the same Pope taxed them, Quod Scholasticis, maxim suis, non Scripturâ, Conciliis, Patribus, uterentur. A sign how sound their way of doctrine is, how sincere their proceed 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 assertion without proof, and my name is Thomas: I would entreat therefore 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 nearer approach, they show 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 deceived, by the seeming overlaying of that side, which the Fathers had occasion to inculcate; though they meant nothing less than to prejudice the verity, which stands firm on the other side the fretum of this disputation. Add to this, that St. Austin himself examined the Fathers, and found in them the doctrine he maintained; nor could it be otherwise, the general apprehension of the Church being against Pelagius. Therefore I shall follow the advice of the Proverb, and be fearful to leap before I look: especially, since a great reader of St. Chrysostom solemnly professed he could show as strong places in him for Grace, as in St. Austin; though he be the man chief set up against St. Austin.   

THE EIGHTH ENCOUNTER, showing, our Ladies immaculate conception is not likely to become an Article of Faith.  
AS for the state of the question, about our Ladies being conceived in Original sin, some would willingly persuade us, the Negative is in great probability to be defined; 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 general rule of Scripture, which expressly condemns all but our Saviour to Original sin; except the defenders can show good ground for the privilege they pretend, which I much doubt. For, as far as I can understand, the whole warrant of that opinion stands upon a devotion to our Lady, arising chief from a persuasion 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 itself it deservs neither reproach nor punishment, as long as it proceeds not to actual sin, the heat of vulgar devotion would be cooled, and the question not thought worth the examining.  
However, there's no great appearance of deciding that point in favour of the negative; since the earnest solicitations of two so potent Kings could so little prevail towards it: For, all that was done had only this design, to appears the seditions sprung up in Sivil by occasion of a Dominicans Conclusions, in which he affirmed that our Lady was Conspurcata with Original sin. But, the controversy was so uncivilly carried, that it scandalised 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 defined. The first is, that the maintainers of the Affirmative are only a few of one Order, and some few taught by them: But, if good account be made, I believe these few will prove some thousand or fifteen hundred of the most learned in the Christian world. Their Order is known to have always been the flower of the Schools; to have had the Inquisition many ages in their hands: to have a stile of Divinity of a higher strain then ordinary; by their great study and adhesion to the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquine: Their Monasteries numerous, especially in Spain and Italy; no great Convent wherein 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 knowledge: so that the Order is no contemptible part of the Learning of the Church. Neither is it credible their scholars can be few; much less, as this Author passionately 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 scholars to make vows to maintain the negative; and in a word that the Affirmers hold against the whole Church. Nor do I doubt that many Prelates, Orders and Universities subscribed the Negative, and peradventure to the Petition, or that the people (who follow the greater cry) did demand the same: but, that the Affirmers held against the whole Church, I totally deny, and show manifestly the contrary. For, bulls having been accepted and standing in force, by which all Censure against the Affirmative is forbidden, and no one syllable obtained any way derogatory to the probability of the opinion; but generally, a caveat to the contrary expressly put into such instruments and the Defenders of the negative submitting to them: 'tis clear, that all the maintainers of the Negative allow 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 rankly as to make men take vows, I know not: The Article of Paris, as I hear, is only that they shall not teach it in the University; elsewhere every one is free. As for hindering scandals, 'tis a necessary part of Government; but certainly obliges not to a defining or deciding of Truths according to the inclinations of the people, pushed 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: wherein 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 judgements 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 bustle makes it in the School and in the world; while it stands upon the fairer tongue, upon motives esteemable by the people, and mere plausibilities? Whereas coming to be examined before the Pope in Congregations, it could not hold water; but the weaker part was forced to break off the course of judgement, by mingling Princes quarrels into Ecclesiastical questions. I dare confidently say, if the Point of our Ladies, Conception were to be handled, either in a Council or grave Congregation: the party that free her (setting aside the passions of Princes) would be distressed to find an argument that themselves 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 repulsed at Dover for want of a Pass, put off his hose and shoes and began to wade into the sea; when, being asked what he meant, he answered 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 father's door when the bridge was taken away. By which counterfeiting of simplicity he got to be admitted into the ship: whereas 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. Showing the unanimous agreement of Divines, that all infallibility is from Tradition.  
THe third argument is drawn from this wadding proceed and his consorts, with the addition of another not unlearned man (according to the course of these times) who puts Scripture and definitions of the Church to be the adequate ground into which our Faith is resolved. Besides, 'tis urged, 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 answered 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 therefore bring Revelations, Metaphorical expressions of Scripture, the cry of the people, a multitude of School Divines, and the like arguments) so that in their lives and believing or acting as Christians, they proceed not out of these grounds, but, by the collier's principle, rely on the Church, and by her, on what she relies. Galileo dislikes the notions of wet and dry, which Aristotle gives: do they therefore disagree or not know one another's 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 discourse, 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 discourse) 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 falls 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 worse.  
Now then admit all those we call Schoolmen were against the doctrine I maintain, though I conceive such an universal agreement impossible, unless they be supposed to demonstrate their Tenets, (which if they do, I readily submit; if not) what doth it impeach the opinion I defend? or what would it avail to bring one or more on my behalf, whose authorities may be rejected with the same facility as offered; since they neither carry with them security from error nor evidence of Truth? let us therefore 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 relies 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 intent by so great labour in heaping of Fathers? do they mean it was those father's opinion? and so make their conclusion good, because such a number of Doctors held it: or do they farther pretend, out of these father's testimonies, to show it was the public doctrine 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 public belief out of this numerous Catalogue. Nevertheless, for fear some other may be more reserved, let's remember, what was before objected, that some points have been defined, notwithstanding the opposition of many Fathers; and this, by the verdict of these Divines: Whence it clearly appears that this numbering of Fathers would not make a doctrine certain to them; unless they thought the sense of the respective Ages were employed in it: therefore, 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 knowledge of this succession, by the testimony of the present Church; whereas 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 fallen 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 church's definition makes a certainty in our Faith? Admit then the present Church (in a Council or otherways, as it shall please those Divines) should define, that a point doubted of were come down by Tradition, from the Apostles to us; would not they say, Tradition were sufficiently known by such a Testimony? Surely it cannot be denied; I ask again: whether the professing a point of doctrine to be hers, by receiving it from hand to hand, be not to testify and define that Tradition stands for this doctrine? Therefore 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? Chief for this reason, because Sectaries deny that principle: therefore they are forced for their satisfaction (not for instruction of Catholics) 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 Catholic Faith: and so in themselves are both ornamental and profitable to the Church.  
And now, what if I should add, that these very Doctors hold there is no security of Faith, but only by Tradition? I know I am thought subject to talk Paradoxes: nevertheless, because it is a point important to the unity of the rule of Catholic Faith, out it shall go, and the discourse be neither long nor obscure. I ask therefore, 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 failed in observing them? I conclude therefore two things; first, that, in the church's definitions of this nature, there can be no more than the certainty of moral Prudence, according to these men's 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 judge proceeded equally? and not, Whether, if he did so, his authority were to be rejected? there being seldom found so blind a boldness in any as to say, a Judge does him wrong, and yet proceeds rightly: for either he judges what he understands not, and that's rashness; or, seeing the right, he pronounces wrong, and that's malice: both which are unexcusable from injustice. So that, I believe, in this point, they do not assure the Church against heretics, though both sides should agree in the speculative part, that the Difinitors were infallible.  
I know, Divines say, Catholics are bound to believe the Definitor proceeded as he ought, unless the contrary be evident; and I see they speak with a great deal of reason: but withal, I see this maxim is a principle of Obedience and Action, not of Infallibility and belief.  
I have yet a little scruple about this doctrine. For, either the Definitors are assured the doctrine they define is true, or no: If not, how can it be said they proceed rationally, who determine a position, as certain, which they see not to be so? If they are, than 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 declared to the ignorant, by the Authority of the Definer, that it was and is certain, upon other grounds. Now, excepting Tradition, Scripture and Definitions, I know not any thing men seek into for an irrefragable authority: Therefore, what is defined, must be, before, certain, either by Scripture, or by Tradition.  
Let those Divines, now, choose which they think fittest to cleave to: For Rushworth has declared his opinion sufficiently; and it is clear enough, what all they must say, Catholics 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 Catholic Church; where we see an heretic is termed so, for choosing 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 error, and before the interposure of the Church: He is therefore an heretic, before any decision makes him so.   

THE TENTH ENCOUNTER That there was no Tradition for the error of the Chiliasts.  
BEsides the objections we have already endeavoured to answer, some other instances are urged: As, of Origen, whose doctrine 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 chief they insist upon the Chiliasts error, as an unquestionable apostolical Tradition. To try the business, let us remember, we called Tradition, the handling of a doctrine, preached and settled 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 published and settled 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 surprised St. Irenaeus; who (as may be inferred out of his Presbyteri meminerunt) learned it of Papias, (for the plural number does not infer that there was more than 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 esteemed it not, as a point necessary to salvation; but rather a piece of Learning higher than the common: since he both acknowledges other Catholics held the contrary, and entitles those of his persuasion 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, right in all opinions, that is, wholly of his own mind; for no man can think another right in any position, wherein he dissentes from him: Nay, he shows 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 merely out of the Prophets. Whence it appears, there is no ground or probability this was ever a Tradition, or any other than the opinion of some Fathers, occasioned by Papias, and confirmed by certain places of Scripture, not well understood, most errors being indeed bolstered up by the like misapplications; a scandal that ever since the practice of the Tempter upon Christ himself, may well 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 ways in force against them; one formally, as if it had been taught by the Apostles directly, Christ shall not reign upon earth a thousand years, as a temporal King: The other, that something incompossible with such a corporal reign was taught by Them: and of this I find two; one general, another particular; the general one is, that the pleasures and rewards promised to Christians are spiritual, and the whole design of the Christian Law aims at the taking away all affections towards corporal Objects; whereas this error appoints corporal contentments for the reward of Martyrs, and by consequence, either increases, 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 judgement: wherefore it is evident, by the later, that it is against Tradition; and, by the former, that it is not only so, but a Mahometan, or at least, a Jewish error, 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 received it, as delivered 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 less cannot be said of it;) where is the force of this so plausible argument? Add to this that the very expression of Ireneus proves it to be no Tradition; for he sets down the supposed words of our Saviour, which plainly shows it is a Story, not a Tradition; a Tradition (as we have explicated it) being a sense delivered not in set words, but settled in the auditor's 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.) Nevertheless, 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 Catholic or Christian right believers, which descends not from the Primitive, and so cannot be transferred to the Derivatives from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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; whereof one he resembles to the Sadduces, the other he acknowledges to be good Christians, and says they are many, or (in the eloquent usage of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) the Commonalty of Christians.  
Nor will the next Objection give us much trouble, That none opposed the Millenary error 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 persuade, it was impugned long before: For, it being clear, that both heretics and Catholics sustained the contrary, we cannot well 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 derived 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 calls it a Jewish Fable, l. 11. and because the multitude he speaks of, argues nothing of Tradition, but the numerosity of that sort of believers, occasioned by the writings of the heretic 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, signify, that it is not tolerable.  
Yet truly I cannot but admire, that he who puts the Chiliasts opinion to have been derived duly 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 church's doctrine, 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 church's opinion; or else, to the Church, a neglect of what was Christ's doctrine, 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 doctrine of Christ, upon the Church.   

THE ELEVENTH ENCOUNTER, That there was Tradition for the Trinity, before the Council of Nice.  
THe Chiliad error seems to have been only an Usher to the Arian; which speaks far louder for itself. And that learned Cardinal Perron is placed in the front of their Evidence, whose testimony is, that The Arians would gladly have been tried 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 examined) 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 catholics, they knew and held the mystery of the Trinity, yet) in somephrases spoke like Arians: How then can any man draw out of this Antecedent, that these Fathers believed not the Trinity, or had not received by Tradition the knowledge of that Mystery? I confess myself unable to see the least probability in such an inference.  
If it be permitted to guests 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 cleared, which before were not remarked 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 intent 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 skill in logic, to contrive explications or definitions for the terms wherein they delivered the Mysteries.  
It is not therefore to be expected that men, who had received 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 conveyed by Tradition; but all manner of explication and in all terms, which the subtlety or importunity of heretics could afterward drive the Catholics to express this Mystery by: a task both impossible to be performed, and most unreasonable to require, and perhaps unprofitable if it were done.  
Nor therefore does it follow that something is to be believed, 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 etc. Yet, as it may happen, that one man sees another to be, but knows not what the definition of him is; nor needs he ordinarily know it, because he knows the thing defined: so may it also chance that some Fathers, who knew well enough the mystery, might falter in explicating it precisely according to the rigour of logic; and 'tis no good consequence, The Fathers were less exact in some expressions concerning the Trinity, therefore they held it not or had not learned 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 Latins 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 well knew there was no difference in the sense, but only in the terms; however he feared 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 spoke, agreed in the Catholic sense, though their words were opposite.  
The reason of this opposition is the nature of these two words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Hypostasis, which primarily and radically signify the same thing; Aristotle telling us, that Hypostasis is prima or primò substantia, which in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: whence it appears, this word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, does not signify what in Latin is called 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 derived from Substando, or Subsistendo, and therefore usually translated Subsistentia and might properly be expressed by Substantia.  
Now, applying this to the mystery of the Trinity, Because in God there is one common Nature, abstrahible from three proprieties; therefore the nature seems to substare to the said properties and so deserv the name Hypostasis: whereupon some explicated the Trinity to be una hypostasis, et tres Ousiae. For Ousia being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Ens, and Ens or Substantia, and (in Greek) Ousia signifying primarily what the Schools term Suppositum (that we see with our eyes, a demonstrable singular, named substance, as Bucephalus, Athos etc. which among men (if restrained to particulars) is called Socrates or Plato, (if used at large) in the common name a person:) these men, very Catholikly, said three Ousia's and one Hypostasis, meaning three Persons and one God. But, the Fathers of the Council of Nice (by much pondering these words, by their debates with the Arians, and to determine a rule in speaking, that Catholics might not be subject, through equivocation, to be drawn into error,) agreed upon the contrary; because Hypostasis was more commonly in use for that we call a Person, and Ousia was rather a School term fetched from philosopher's books, and therefore 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 citys are not so harsh, but as, in a rigorous interpretation, they are falls, 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 etc. which are our very substance: It does not therefore follow, if the Son be called an Instrument, that his substance is distinguished from the Substance of his Father; because the Instrumentality consists in nothing but the difference of their notional conceits of Being and knowledge, whereof knowledge seems to be but the Vehiculum of Being towards the operation or effect: So likewise, whoever works by a power that is not in himself, otherwise then from another in whom 'tis principialiter and (as the Greek speaks both anciently and at this day,) Authoritatiuè 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 applied 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 discoursed 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 showed 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, denied no more than that he was the same person with his Father; which no subtlety can ever prove to be against the Fathers of the Nicen Council. Nor is this said to reconcile contradictories, but discover equivocations: For that this was the true reason of the opposition, is easily deduced 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 remained in suspense? To this I answer, If, by verbal Tradition, be understood, that the Tradition was delivered 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 therefore 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 delivered in a set and determinate phrase, and that heretics began to use other words; a controversy might be about those terms which the heretics introduced, and many might demur, uncertain of the question in such new expressions: as we see, those who rely on Scripture are in perpetual quarrels about the sense; whereas, to Catholics, the sense of their Faith is certain, though the words be sometimes in question.  
The reason therefore, why, at Arius his first broaching that desperate heresy, Alexander remained a while in suspense, 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 received 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 questioned, but received with an uniform consent and credulity. As for Alexander's praising, sometimes one, sometimes the other party, it proves no more than 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 error; therefore it could not be otherwise then well, to praise both sides ingenuously, according as they spoke truth and reason, and discommend them, when they fell into falsities.  
As for Constantine's slighting the Question at first, it shows no more but that, then, he did not penetrate the consequence of it, or rather, was not well informed 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 than those that hold the right) their remonstrance is accordingly. And so it was: for, Constantine received 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 wherein the question consisted; as appears by this, that in his whole 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 still craftily endeavouring to diminish the importance of the controversy. Besides, we have good ground to believe, that some learned men in Court were prevented by Arius, and solicited into a secret favour of this error; from whom, 'tis likely, proceeded that motion of Constantine to the Council, for determining the point out of Scripture. Nor imports it, that the Bishops contradicted not this proposition of the Emperor in words; because they had reason to follow it, (though not to that end to which the Emperor proposed 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 enemy's proofs, and to consult what arguments and reasons should be alleged against them; for the satisfaction of the Church, and the world without the Church, and for the expression of the Catholic doctrine, in such words as the Arians could not equivocally interpret to their own perverse meaning: especially, finding they had fo puzzled the world with the dust they had raised in men's eyes, that even some good Catholics could scarce see their way, but were in danger of stumbling against the blocks those heretics maliciously cast before their feet. Eusebius Caesariensis testifies of himself, that He thought Alexander's party had held the Son of God to be divided from the Father, as one part is cut from another in Bodies; which would have made God a body, and truly two Gods.  
For these reasons was their magna conquisitio, their turning of Scriptures, and their meeting in Council, as St. Athanasius witnesses, speaking in the name of the very Council itself, 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 go about novelties.  
Neither can any argument be made out of Eusebius' 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 till then precisely fixed to that particular expression. But the same Bishpos consented to the Excommunication of the Contradictors, to hinder men from using unwritten words: and was not that a proper and prudent remedy to prevent the inconveniences that easily arise from confusion and incertainty of language; when every one phrases the mystery, according to his private fancy, and governs not his terms by some constant and steady rule, as, the writings of the Apostles or ancient Fathers: which interpretation exactly agrees with the Greek of Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that literally and truly signify Words written neither in Scripture nor any where else, as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in the Fathers. And so, I need not allege 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 employs it.  
Now, by all this may be seen, why in Councils there are engaged 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 employed by the heretics ordinary protesting against them, as unfit Judges because they are parties, and therefore refusing to come to the Council; besides, the possession of the old Religion being as public and notorious, at such times, as the Sun itself at noon: wherefore, 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 church's language, that all Catholics may keep a set form of explication of their Faith; or else to convince their Adversaries out of such grounds as themselves admit.  
To dispute, whether a Council, not confirmed by the Pope, makes an Article de fide, or no? concerns not the difficulty now before us; and engages Catholic against Catholic, which is not our present work. In the mean while, out of all which has been said, we may gather, that there is no appearance the Catholic doctrine, concerning the Trinity, was diversely taught before the Council of Nice, and, than first, established out of the Scriptures: but, that it was the known and confessed faith of all the Ages before, as St. Athanasius expressly teaches; avowing confidently he had demonstrated it, supplicating the Emperor to permit the Catholics to live in the belief of their Forefathers, and upbraiding his adversaries that they could not show their progenitors. And to say the truth, unless a man be so perverse as to affirm Christians did not use the form of Baptism prescribed by Christ, there can be no doubt of the Tradition of the blessed Trinity: the very words of Baptism carrying the Tradition in themselves.  
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 put out our eyes, 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 heretic, as long as one place can explicate a hundred opposed. The Council therefore, at last, (though favoured with as much advantage as Scripture could give over its adversaries) was forced to conclude out of Tradition: as Theodoretus, St. John Damascen, and chief 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 heretics 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 believed 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 baptised: But the Eucharist is necessary for Children: therefore Baptism is necessary for them. To which I answer with a formal denial, that any such argument is made by those holy Fathers: For their discourse runs thus, It is necessary for Children to be incorporated into Christ's mystical body; but this cannot be done without Baptism: therefore Baptism is necessary for Children. Whether of us take the right sense of these Fathers, let the Books judge; I will only add, 'tis a great shallowness to think the Pelagians (who denied 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 supposed, by the objector, to be drawn ex magis obscuro ad minus obscurum.  
Yet, because, especially, St. Augustine's words seem equivocal, I will briefly set down the state of the question. St. Dennis tells us, no Priestly function was complete without the administration of the blessed Sacrament: Thence came a custom to communicate those who were baptised. 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 administered, anciently, but after Confirmation; and because, it was always held for the compliment of all Priestly Benedictions, as is before declared: Besides, in some Churches, there is not the least sign that ever it was given to Infants.  
Another thing to be understood is, that St. Austin uses to explicate the Communion to be an incorporation into Christ's 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 Christ's 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, account 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 itself was to Infants, that is, in how perpetual use. And presently Tertullian (the mainly cited and glorified 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 to the other two) reports what happened to himself, having asked Baptism in his Childhood, by reason of a sudden danger of death: which being passed, his Baptism was deferred 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 itself was not perpetually administered to Infants, can we think the Eucharist was? or is here any probability it was so used 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 falls: 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. Count. Lucifer. about the middle.  
The last instance is of Prayer to Saints, which is proved not to have proceeded by Tradition from the Apostles time; by four arguments. First, because divers Fathers held that the souls of Saints were not received into Heaven, till the day of judgement; therefore 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 Catholics 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 acknowledged 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 than 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 learned by Tradition that Saints go to heaven, that is, are admitted to the fight of God, before the day of judgement.  
The next proof is, that prayer to Saints began with a doubting preface of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; to which I find myself no ways engaged to frame a particular answer, having no farther ground from my Adversary (who citys 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 believed not the Immortality of the Soul. Whether this also be pretended to be the meaning of that Optative term, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I cannot judge; for than I should easily admit it has some force against the Tradition of praying to Saints: But, if it be but an Oratorial expression and obtestation, such as is in St. Paul, when he presses men to good works, by the like phrase; I know not how it reaches any way to his intent, and much less against the receiving of this use by Tradition: except the objector suppose that, truly, the first Prayer he finds in writing was the first that ever was made, which is neither proved nor probable.  
The third opposition is out of Nicephorus Calixtus, who reports, that Prayers to the Virgin Mary were first brought into the public liturgy, by Petrus Gnaphaeus, a heretic. The consequence I should make out of this antecedent is, that, seeing the Author's being a heretic (a condemned 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 liturgy, 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 will prove the contrary, I am not able to make any likely conjecture.  
The last argument is drawn out of the confession of our own doctors, 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 yield 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 scandalised by the Permission, as by the Precept. Wherefore, 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 scandalise none but the enemies of Perfection; who, under pretence of avoiding Idolatry, take away the due honour and excitation to virtue. But, which way, out of a non-Precept, can be inferred the non-Teaching of the doctrine, I cannot imagine; since what those Doctors hold, continueth true at this day, when it cannot be denied that Praying to Saints is both taught and practised: For though, in our prayers, there be some directions to Saints; yet, generally, Christians are not bound to such devotions, 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 showing that there is nothing able to disprove the Church of Rome's Communion to be the sign of the true Church.  
ALthough, out of the whole preceding discourse it be evident that this way I defend, makes the church's Definition depend upon the Tradition of the point defined, and not Tradition upon them; as if, because by Tradition, we know the church's Definitions to be true, therefore we know the truth delivered by Tradition: Nevertheless, since there may be some truth in this reflection, That Tradition is known sometimes by Definition, let us see what can be said against it: 'tis first, therefore, put into consideration, whether since four Disciples of Christ have written Gospels, or the Gospel, that is, as much as they preached (for they preached nothing but the Gospel:) if God would have us trust the Church, he was not both to specify 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, whereof 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 yield obedience to the definitions of this Church, so clearly, that they could neither doubt which Church was their teacher, nor of what Church he spoke; 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 less the Word of God. If you believe her report for the Book, why refuse you it for the doctrine? If her recommends be not security enough for the one, they will certainly prove far less for the other; since, unless I am strangely mistaken, the doctrine of the Catholic Church is not so hard to believe, as the story of the Bible: let any Atheist or discreet Moor or Pagan be judge.  
Oh, but since the Evangelists wrote Gospels, they wrote all they preached; for they preached nothing but the Gospel. The Gospel is known to be the same with the Greek Evangelium, that is, the goodspel, or happy tidings of Christ's coming: so that the Book or Preaching which tells us Christ is come, is a Gospel, be there never so much, more or less, in the Book or Sermon: how then it can be inferred out of the name Gospel, that the Apostles writ as much as they preached (for it is not credible they preached all they wrote) I am not able to comprehend.  
The second consideration is, how we know when the Church has defined? To which I answer, In the practice of sixteen ages it has no more been doubted, when the Church had defined, then when a Parliament had enacted: Why then is there required more information? But, some Divines say more, some less to be enough. Let them be doing in the Schools, as long as the practice goes on sufficiently for the church's government.  
Thirdly, we are to consider, Whether sufficient notes be left to know the Church by? But who shall use these notes? Catholics? They are in the Church. Heretics? They know what Church they forsook. Pagans? They look not into the Scriptures to find the Churches mark. Peradventure those heretics 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 will in the seeker to acknowledge 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 wholly delivered by the Apostles, wholly believed and practised by this present Church; but infinite, in the detail, by which man's wit can parcel out this general stock of Faith. For, as soon as any sharp and crafty heretic has varied some proposition, necessary to the explication of a fore-believed doctrine, there may be occasion of settling some new proposition, which shall be no other than a part of what was formerly believed in Substance, though not so explicitly deciphred. As he that professes Christ is a Man, implies he has a man's Nature, a man's 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 than he that said in general he was a Man. Now then I answer the objection, as Aesop's Master did those who would have bound him to drink up the Sea: stop the Rivers (said he) and I will perform my bargain: So say I, hinder impertinent curiosities from importuning the Church, and her Truths will be undoubtedly seen in her belief and practice, without making new Definitions.  
The last objection; that it will appear a shift to say the church's definitions are certain, and yet not let it be known when she has defined, of itself falls flat to the ground: both because I take not that way; and, if I did, since we are not troubled about knowing our church's Definitions, who have the burden of obeying and do it in practice, the Objectors are confuted as Diogenes did Zeno, (when he disputed against motion,) by walking before him.  
For all this, the Church of Rome must not escape yet: And so, we are told that, if she were designed for the Pharos to know the rest of the Church by, somewhat had been advaned; for, otherwise (say they) we can assign no mark of the true Church, the Roman being denied 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 doctrine, or Tradition, which evidently appears cannot be claimed 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 yesterday opinion.  
Secondly, we say, if we would fly to the Roman Church, the oppositions force us not from it: For, why is not Cardinal perron's answer to Plessis invincible, that the whole Church condemned St. Cyprians proceed? Likewise the Asian Bishops were condemned in the Council of Nice. The African Bishop's question was about the enacting a Law, which nevertheless, was carried for the Bishop of Rome.  
If the Fathers remit us to the Apostolical Churches, whose successions were, then, visible and evident; what's that to us, now, when all successions are interrupted, save only that of the Roman Church? The definition of the Council of Chalcedon is known to be only the conspiracy of a Cabal, never approved as legitimate; but reversed afterwards: So that all these angry darts turn their points against their Authors; the judgement in every instance having passed 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: therefore, let us leave Her to the acknowledged 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 therefore next, with what is kept for the closing of our stomaches; and they are two dishes: One, that at last we Catholics resolve into Reason, as well as Protestants. To this I answer, if you mean we must see Reason why we give credit to Authority, I agree with you: But then, since Reason is on both sides, Why (say you) must it be a Wall to us, and a Bulrush to others? I'll 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, that we ought to believe a knowing person, in that wherein our selus are ignorant, is, of this nature, a maxim that governs all our life, public and private: wherefore 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 themselves, is the most weak and contemptible: and this being that you rely on, Reason therefore, to you is weaker and more deceitful than any bulrush.  
The second dish is, that whatever is delivered 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 call 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 intent to prove Her indefectibility. All I'll say is, did you but agree with us, that she is at present the true Church, it would be argument enough for you to submit, till the cases happen which you suppose possible; and I should think myself too grating and severe towards a Person, in other respects extremely recommendable, if I should press harder, than 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 reversed.  
SUch is the condition of Religion, when the liberty of choosing is permitted to all that have the boldness to challenge it; who having no other Scales, to poise any arguments proposed them, than the affection to their own wills or prejudice against others reasons, suffer every light objection to overbalance the most weighty and solid Demonstration. Therefore am I forced to follow certain other Adversaries (my chase not being confined only to the noble game) into every by-turn and beat every little bush, where either the necessity of a desperate cause, the fables of some wild Reporter, or the craft of any juggling Hypocrite can drive them to hid their weak heads in.  
As for reason, in our present business, they tell you, every one is born in liberty to Religion, and, till it be demonstrated he is bound to acknowledge some Teacher, the presumption stands for liberty, and 'tis merely of courtesy and graciousness, they take the pains to bring arguments for the Negative. This I shall answer as the Caprich of some pragmatical Chaplain; not having incivility enough to entertain the least suspicion, 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 politic, of Paternal government, what you say of Religion: Is not the absurdity so palpable, it will make you ashamed? 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, till, after a long dispute his power be evidently proved legitimate? Pass from these to Arts, and say every one may play the physician, the Pilot, the judge, (for Doctor of Divinity, you freely give your licence to all the world) without having any Master or Teacher, what a goodly commonwealth you will make?  
But 'tis replied, Nullum tempus occurrit veritati, no more than 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 yourself, 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 natural 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 required, then because we are in it; whereas, to change, we must have efficacious motives to persuade us.  
Here, my Adversary will exult, and think, at least, Protestants cannot become catholics, 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 changed their Religion from being catholics, 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 Catholic Church) but stands in a continual formal rebellion against Her, who by his own acknowledgement was once his Magistrate, and against whom himself confesses he has no more than probable exception.  
Therefore, 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 departed 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 reliance, by his own verdict, is at most but upon plausible arguments: whereas, under the other government, there may be certainty, for aught he knows; of which there is this fair motive, that they all profess it, which is more forcible for the credit of it, than what ever he can say in abetment of the contrary. Rashly, therefore, he opposes himself to follow a falls way, a way that assuredly leads to unavoidable 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 than that the Law is Mahomet's; And so far is manifest out of their common agreement: therefore, in parity, 'tis evident, out of the consent of Christians, that the doctrine handed down from the Apostles, is Christ's; 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 Mahomet's preaching was falls.  
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 established, upon the infallible credit of his word. And as no other sort of Christian society can pretend to this privilege, so neither can they with any colour of justice, exempt themselves from the Authority of that Church that enjoys it: an Authority, which, if ever she had, and such as she claims it, is of so unchangeable a nature, being constituted by God, being the rock on which the salvation of mankind is built, and the fundamental stone of the Church, no time nor variation of material accidents can prejudice or prescribe against it. Wherefore, if Protestants at first departed unjustifiably, they remain for ever guilty of the same crime, till they restore themselves to the Primitive union.  
Again, who, unless he had renounced all morality, ever called 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 desperately passionate, as to term it liberty, to have no good government; and relapse again to the rude state of barbarousness, where murder, rapes, & a thousand intolerable insolences are publicly permitted? For, if we cast our eyes on the End of Religion, we shall see, that to want the due Rules, is as inconvenient towards the direction of mankind to final beatitude, as the Laws of cannibals 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 choose one indifferently, as unconcerned 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 intent not by this any ways to derogate from the old Roman virtues, in this sort of people, as if there may not be found Regulus', or Cato's, or Seneca's among them: for, I doubt not but the very vapour of Christianity has this wholesome effect among whom it passes, to breed in them as heroic 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 therefore to our discourse. The Jew, the Turk, the Heathen, can pretend a profession of his Religion; for all these stick to such conclusions as their principles afford them: But the Christian, who calls Christ's doctrine 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. Wherefore, it avails not any drowsy, rather than quiet, nature, to say his Father, (and peradventure Grandfather) was Protestant before him, and therefore he is Possessor bonae fidei, whilst he pretends only probable arguments: for so long he implies the possession to be unjustly detained from the advers party, who has the actual receipt by succession; especially when this so unparallelled a Riot is committed without sufficient evidence, by the very Actors confession. A Protestant then, has no better claim to possession of Christ's Doctrine, by his so long continuance in heresy, than 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 to the Suggestor. What it was, is not hard to guests, our Saviour himself having given us the hint of it, when he reproached the Jews for following the Traditions of their Fathers or Elders, to the ruin of God's 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 delivered or found out by these Rules. As for the matter, it seems in some way proportioned to the proceed of certain of our Divines, who pretend to be mystical; and their employment is, in the sublime mysteries of our Faith, to invent or imagine what they think congruous circumstances, to move the affections to petty devotion: which imaginations, as they are framed out of good intentions, so have they many weaknesses, and little or no doctrine in them. Conformable to this we may conceive that, after there were no more Prophets among the Jews, (who failed 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 learned from the Prophets. These interpretations, according to the degree of their skill and prudence, some performed better, some worse. But, as the Jews were a superstitious and ignorant Nation, not having principles of true knowledge naked before their eyes, but wrapped up in Metaphors and Allegories; all together went among them for sound Law. till, after our saviour's 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 delivered this doctrine to the Sanhedrin, and they had conserved 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 Jerusalem.  
Now, if we look into the form, we shall find it more ridiculous than any Gypses canting, or the juggling of Hocus Pocus, and as pernicious to true doctrine, as any Pseudomancy. To make good this censure, I shall 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 framed by themselves: The third, to find numbers of years or other things, by the numbers which the letters of the word compound, in such Languages where their letters are used for cyphers. So much being delivered in short, I cannot conceive any indifferent judgement so blunt, that he sees not how far these riddling 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 alabaster, invented a far more convenient trick, by purely dividing words and joining the ends of the former to the beginnings of the following: as we also do, sometimes in English, to disguise common words; and the Hebrew is far more apt for such knacks. But he found this age too subtle, to cousin any considerable number with such trivial babbles: whereas the Cahala gained upon the Valentinians and gnostics, to build prodigious errors, in very good earnest, upon their more ridiculous invention. I am not ignorant some eminent persons have been pleased sometime, to give way to such toys, through luxury of wit and gaiety of humour: But it is one thing to play for recreation, and a far different to establish a Basis of Faith and doctrine, which is abominable, on such Chimerical dreams. And yet, this it is our Opposer would Father, upon no less than 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 public preaching and teaching and practice exercised in the Church, settled by the Apostles thorough the World: This Cabala, a doctrine pretended, as delivered 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 juggling and cozenage, as, in our case there is impossibility. The Moderns therefore, who profess Cabala, may say they received it from their predecessors: but they can yield no account why any Age may not have changed that which was in the breasts of few shut up together in a chamber; and so there's no possibility of farther assurance, than the vote of a Council of State, for its being derived any higher.  
But the Arguer demands, whether they cannot ask me, In what age or year their doctrine was corrupted? And I answer, they may very boldly: But, if I assign an age or year, can they acquit themselves in point of proof? clearly they cannot: for, since there was no Register nor visible effects of this doctrine (it being forbidden to be divulged) 'tis evident, that cannot convince it was not corrupted in that year or age. He urges farther, the notoriousness of the lie, 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 yield 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 Christ's time, is infamous for falsifying doctrines and corrupting Scriptures: and, even in our saviour's 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 considered, than any thing yet offered) the very subject of the question is different. The Church, we speak of, is a vast and numerous body, spread o'er the world; and he must be a mad man that would go about to deny this Body has remained perpetually visible, from Christ's time to ours: however some heretic 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 pedigree, from Moses to the days of our Saviour? In all their oppressions during the time of the Judges, in the division of the Tribes, in the reign 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 intent to show Religion is corrupted: wherein you may note the force of wit and logic, 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 doctrine, were very earnest against the belief of the Antipodes, which, new, is an ocular certainty. That divers Fathers did oppose that doctrine, I willingly grant: but that it was for zeal to Religion, and not through the opinion of absurdity in Philosophy, I am not satisfied, 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 fall into heaven; for the rest, some places of Scripture are alleged; so that, not our of zeal to Tradition, but through misunderstanding the Scripture, they fell into this error. 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 imagine touches the History of Virgilius; who, for a like opinion, is reported to have lost his bishopric. But 'tis a mistake; for that holy man was no Bishop when he was charged with this error, 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 falsely accused; but well known he was afterward made Bishop, and lived and died with opinion of sanctity.  
But though the two first proofs are slender, the third will require more strength to resist it; and therefore '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 gins this Onset, which our Adversary manages with as much civility as strength. I will also desire you (says he) to look into the 584. Page of the Florentine Council, set out by Binius: and there you will find, that the Latins confess they added to the Creed, the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son, because the contrary opinion seemed to them, by consequence, opposite to a confessed Tradition of Christ's 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 small number of errors; since neither was their logic certain to conclude better, nor were they less apt to add to their Creeds accordingly, at any other times, than they were at that. Thus far the charge: And I have been obsequious to so ingenious a request; as will, I hope, appear by my answer, if I first wash my hands from Cardinal Perron, with whom I do not engage: nor need I, since the Council has age and can speak for itself. 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 church's Creed; though very many Heresies have been condemned. So that the Objector is forward in his assertions, without seconding them with solid proofs.  
To come now to the combat, I doubt much he, who was so solicitous 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherefore, the insufficiency of the consequence, which (he says) Cardinal Perron demonstrates, is not to our purpose; no such inference appearing in the Council: the Latins or Roman Church only professing that, if the holy Ghost did not proceed out of the Father and the Son, as one principium or cause, than 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 expressed; nor any dispute of Christ's Divinity, but of the unity of the Divinity with the Persons and in itself; Nor any drawing of consequences, but an expression of Catholic doctrine; nor any supposed error, but a truth confessed 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 questioned 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 spoke too plainly of Christ. The story the Objector himself will not avouch, because it would rank the Book (by him pretended to be Apocryphal) too high: yet, though it be acknowledged falls, he conceives it strong enough against us, because it shows such a thing might be done. Let us poise a little the weight of this Argument: It might have been done; therefore 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 entered the miracles of the Western World, reported, They climbed up great hills in the Sea: therefore was it possible? They talked much of waters which restored Youth: therefore it is credible? But Isidore's authority convinces this. If it were Isidore the holy Bishop of Sevil, something 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, itself, yet, sufficiently proved.  
But let us pass that, and, without much straining our charity, grant among Jews it might have been done, as not a few think the very Law was lost in the times of their wicked Kings or other oppressions: what inference can they make against Christian Tradition? Of Books of Scripture, peradventure there was a time, when some one, or rather any one might have been lost; because it was in few hands: shall we therefore conclude the same possibility of suppression, when we treat of doctrines universally professed by so many Millions? when we dispute of Practices every day frequented by the whole Church.  
Still there's one jarring string, that grates my ears with its loud discord; though the stroke come not from the hand of these objectors, yet I will endeavour to put it in tune. Some sick heads roving up and down in their extravagant fancies will needs entertain a wild conjecture, that at first our Saviour was indeed styled God, and though the learned, who had the knack of distinguishing, knew well enough the inward meaning than signified only a most eminent and 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, 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 stroke to both, it could not possibly be attempted, either undiscerned or unresisted. Lastly the Christian Faith being delivered not in a set form of words, but in sense a thousand ways explicated & enforced 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 quickening sense, so variously expressed, 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 Catholics principle to adhere to the authority of the Church, that is, to the living word written in their Breasts, which governs all their actions relating to religion: so on the other side, whoever have at any time, (under the pretence of reformation) opposed her Authority, such have constantly raised up their Altar against Tradition, upon the dead letter of the Scriptures: Which, as the Catholic Church highly reuerences, when they are animated by the interpretation of Tradition; so, by too much experience, she knows they become a kill letter, when abused, against the Catholic 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 than 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 well, determine Controversies? If this were not after sixteen hundred years of experience, after so much pains of our own, since Luther's 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 God's Law and truth, by a bold and irrational assertion and loud clamours to beat down the Catholic Church; like Dametas in the Poem, striking with both hands and his whole strength, but winking all the while?  
Let us, therefore open our eyes and look thorough this objection, Cannot Plato and Aristotle make themselves be understood? Yes; but what then? Ergo the Scripture can determine controversies? The supposition wherein all venom ly's is concealed; which thus I display: As Aristotle wrote of physics and metaphysics, so the Scripture was written of those controversies which since are risen among Christians: But Plato and Aristotle can make themselves be understood concerning those Sciences: therefore the Scripture can do as much concerning these Controversies. This aught to be the discourse. But had it been clothed in so thin and transparent a dress, the Authors would have blushed 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 apocalypse, let them name one Book, whose theme is any, now-controverted, Point betwixt Protestants and Catholics. 'tis true, the intent and extrinfical end of writing St. John's Gospel was, to show the Godhead of Christ, which the Arians afterward denied, 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 deduced: and yet the design so unsuccessful, that never any Heresy was more powerful, then that which opposed the truth intended by His Book.  
But, I suppose, their reply will 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 physics and metaphysics: But Aristotle and Plato writ so plainly, that all questions, rising about their doctrine, can be declared out of their words: therefore all questions relating to good life, may also be cleared out of Scriptures. Wherein the Minor is so ridiculous to any that have but opened a Book of Philosophy, that 'tis enough, not only to disannul the proof, but discredit the Author.  
And yet were it true, the consequence would not hold: For whoever considers what belongs to the explication of Authors, knows, there is a great advantage to discern the sense of those who proceed scientifically, above the means to understand one that writes lose Sentences. An Archimedes, an Euclid, a Vitruvius will be of far easier interpretation, where the Subject is of equal facility, than a Theognis, Phocyllides, or Antoninus, because the antecedents and consequents do, for the most part, force a sense on the middle propositions, of themselves ambiguous. Now, the works of Plato and Aristotle are generally penned, though not always so rigorously, yet still 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 themselves as much connexion, as the severest discourses of those Philosophers: yet the style, wherein they are couched 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 prepared by an exact and rigorous stating the Question; I first intent to set down my own sentiment, which I conceive is also that of the Catholic 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 Catholics 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 delivered it to him, as such. For I do not intent 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 received 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 Catholic doctrine, both concerning Speculation and Practice: and by consequence that the Church were not so thoroughly furnished for all kind of exigenccis without it; for which reason it is of particular usefulness, and indeed necessity to the Church.  
Thirdly, we confess the Bible contains all parts of Catholic Doctrine, in this sense, that all Catholic doctrine 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, merely discoursing out of Scripture, carry any point of Catholic doctrine 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 bend to defend their own positions, by all the art they can imagine: so the question be not, which part is true, but only which is more or less conformable to Scripture; the Catholic position may be victoriously evidenced, by arguments purely drawn from thence, compared and valued according to true Criticism; without aid of Fathers, explications, or any other extrinsical helps. Thus far I esteem all good Catholics ought to hold; and believe that all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, do, 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 Christ's body, or only a figure of it, itself 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 well practised what convincing signifies, and how much the various acceptions of words and mutability of meanings import in the construction of sentences. This is that wherein I engage the Catholic 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 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 catholics bring to the contrary upon that of expenses; 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 show his face before any person of common sense, who shall first acknowledge he goes against the opinion of the whole present Age wherein he lives, against the undoubted testimony of a thousand years before him, against the known laws both spiritual and temporal, publicly renouncing all obedience to all kinds of Magistrate, empowered by God and Man with just authority to conserve those laws; that shall 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 than Eternity: and after all this so arrogant bawling and high demands, being asked what evidence, what proof he can bring to introduce so great a mutation in the world, shall be forced to confess, he can but play at cross and pile with them, to know which of the two sentences is true, which falls. For, setting aside real and irrefragable conviction, what is there left in speculation, but mere contingency?  
Now this strange boldness, this incredible presumption was undeniably Luther's 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 weakened: 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 aims at the good of his soul.  
Again, he whose discourse is not convincing, and yet will be meddling 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 tell his Auditors, he is come to speak to them concerning their salvation, 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 gross an Impostor, or never so little honesty to care what becomes of their souls, or love to Christianity; they will not with great indignation pull his jump o'er his ears, 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, contingency 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 four: 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 a conclusion is no nearer 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 therefore 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 practical 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 ourselves 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 therefore it is as impossible an untrue Religion should lead to Heaven, as a falls 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; and he that pretends no farther than 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; therefore 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 composed 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 thorough some untrodden wilderness, & 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 employment; 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 Saints, bears respect to a Crucifix, and a compassion to the dead, to morrow cries out against all, as Idolatry, Superstition, and mere 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 persuasive forms and witty inducements, to invegle their Auditory into an evident absurdity. Others we find, who, by whole Sects, maintained 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 settled belief that they could make which side they pleased the more probable. I ask then, whether the probability either of these two sorts of wits bring for their paradoxes, be sufficient to choose 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 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 shows their probability to be clearly absurd: and I could answer, why may not Nature sometimes be deceived, as Anaxagoras would persuade us, when he maintained 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 eternal bliss belongs to the next world; and the mysteries we dispute, are such as the Son of God only has seen and brought us tidings of. But, what will you say to the second sort of disputers, who equal 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 considerable reflection; that certainly, to prove any position, those wild capricious Brains cannot find weaker places for their arguments, than a mute, ambiguous, dead writing, not quickened with reason and discourse: which yet, is the boasted ground of all that renounce the infallibility of the Church, in matters of supernatural 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 erred in framing the question, let them correct it, with these two conditions, that they propose it so, as to leave themselves a religion, and different from ours: for unless both these subsist, the quarrel betwixt us is at an end. But if I have rightly expressed the point in controversy, 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 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 persuade themselves they find the second, we will 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 whole means or adequat cause of it, which is the point to be maintained, if they will prove the Scripture sufficient; else all Faith, Sacraments, good works, preaching, etc. 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 named 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 selus in that opinion; for you have only the kill 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. Therefore 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 falsehood, so perverses are you. This is our saviour's discourse: 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 selus, 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 showing some good affection to their Preacher St. John: Lastly, the mute words of Scripture. And as for St. John, our Saviour expressly says he citys him, in condescendence to them, that they might be the rather moved to embrace the truth, by that esteem they had already entertained of their Preacher. Whereas 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 convinced by the palpable demonstration of his Miracles (the easiest and surest way) nor rest upon the preaching of his Precursor, whom themselves 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 declared that the end of St. John's writing the Gospel was not to make a complete History either of our saviour's Acts or doctrine; but only to specify such particulars as prove that Christ was the true consubstantial Son of God: to keep them out of the Heresy then beginning to rise, that they might continue true believers in the Church of God, live according to its Rules and be saved by so living, that is, by being true Christians or Jesuits; which is certainly the sense of these words, in his name, or, in the name of Jesus, as to be baptised in the name of Jesus, signifies to be enroled among the company known to be his.  
Now from this Text we may clearly collect that St. John's Gospel was not written by the author's intention for any such end as the argument urges: Nor, that it gives life, more than 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 inferred that life cannot be had without this Article; but not that this alone is able to give life, or that it cannot be believed without St. John's Gospel, or that St. John's Gospel of itself is sufficient to give life without the concurrence of Tradition. So that there is no appearance from this proposition that life either can be attained by Scripture alone, or cannot be had without it.  
The third Text is out of 2 Tim. chap. 3. That the Scriptures are able to make him wise to salvation through the faith of Jesus Christ. The paraphrase of the place, as I understand it, is, O Timothy! be constant in the doctrine I have taught thee; and this for two reasons; One common to all converted by me, because thou knowest who I am that delivered 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 versed 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 becoming a Christian, but his becoming a through furnished (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 virtue of the Scriptures being profitable to teach and reprove; as also from this consideration that the sequel, Be constant to my words or doctrine, because the Scripture can teach thee the truth of Christ's doctrine, is not very exact, but rather opposite to the former, and plainly inducing the contrary; as if one should argue, fellow not my doctrine, because mine, but because the Scripture teaches thee it: which directly contradicts the intention of the Apostle, as appears in the verse immediately precedent, Be steadfast in those things thou hast learned, knowing by whom thou wert instructed; whereas this other discourse is perfectly consequential, Stand to my doctrine 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 there's an equivocation in those words, through, or by the faith of Jesus Christ: which may be referred to those, (to make thee understanding) Either so, that the sense be, The Scriptures (in which thou hast been versed since thy infancy) will contribute to thy salvation, so that thou understand them according to the Faith of Jesus Christ which I have orally delivered to thee; and this is, in direct terms, the Catholic Rule, that the interpretation of Scripture is to be governed by Tradition or by the faith and doctrine so received, and formally depends from the first words, Remain constant to my doctrine: Or, by another explication, which is more material and flat and most incredible, That the old Scripture (for of that only the Apostle speaks, no other being written while Timothy was a child) should be able, without relation to the knowledge 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. Peter's 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 itself, an incredible proposition. But give it the greatest force the words can, by any art, be heightened to, they come nothing near 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 choose his Religion.  
The words immediately 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 furnished to every good work. The paraphrase, according to my skill is thus, The holy Writ I spoke of, is any Book inspired from God, and profitable to teach things unknown, reprehend what is amiss, to set strait what is crooked, to instruct in good life; that the Church of God, or any member thereof, may become perfect, being, by instructions and reprehensions applied 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 clear case, the Apostle speaks of the benefit of Scripture, when explicated and applied 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 required in a Preacher, namely to make him do all those good works which are expected of him; as teaching, reprehending, etc. so that one way or other, still the Scripture is applied to furnish him with Precepts, Arguments, Examples, and such like instruments of persuasion: but of giving the first Catechism, or binding one's self Apprentice to the Bible, to learn the first rudiments of Christian profession, there'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 supposed in Timothy, by St. Paul's institutions viva voce, before any exhortation to this use of Scripture. So that, here is no question concerning the first choice 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 spoke in derogation of the Law, and brought in a new doctrine to the disturbance of the people; made only this answer, that he preached nothing but what the Prophets had foretold. His words are these: The Jews for this (teaching Christ's doctrine) finding me in the Temple, would have killed me: But I having obtained succonr from God until this very day have persisted testifying (or protesting) to great and little, that I spoke nothing but what the Prophets and Moses had foretold should come to pass; as, that Christ was to suffer, that he was to be the first should rise from death to life, and preach light both to Jews and gentiles. 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 etc. 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 spoke; 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 discourse is imperfect, running thus, I preached indeed many other things, yet nothing but what was in Moses and the Prophets, to wit, that Christ was to suffer, etc. His meaning therefore is, that since he was in hold, his perpetual endeavours had been, to show that these things he was accused to have preached against the law, were the very marrow of the Law and foretold by Moses and the Prophets: and that, whereas the Jews expected Christ to be a temporal King, who by force of Arms should restore the house of Israel, to a great and flourishing estate, the truth was quite contrary; for, according to the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, He was to be a passable 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 Catholic doctrine, much less come within kenning of our Controversy, is beyond my reach: This I know, that, to say all points of Catholic doctrine can be sufficiently proved out of Moses and the Prophets, is an assertion I believe our Adversaries themselves will deny; as being both ridiculous in itself 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 themselves 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 allege for their opinion: Deut. 4. 2. Josh. 1. and others to the same effect.  
My first answer is; suppose these places imported all the force our adversaries pretend, we are not in the least degree concerned: 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 than 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 Jew 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 answered, that Protestants deny not such Books: Neither do we accuse them of it; only we conceive we may safely say, they contradict themselves, in pressing these places to that effect of one side, and admitting the Books on the other.  
My fourth Answer is, that the Law itself enjoins in certain cases, other precepts to be added; remitting the people upon any doubt, first to judges, and afterwards to the High Priest, and commanding their declarations to be obeyed, and under greatest penalties punctually observed: So that, the consequence drawn out of these places, is both weak in itself and prejudicial to them that use it.  
Nor is the inference our adversaries wrist out of the last Chapter of the apocalypse less unreasonable than the former: where, he that adds or detracts any thing from that Prophecy is accursed: whence pleasant discoursers will needs conclude; that Christian doctrine 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 proved out of nothing but the apocalypse: 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 famed ginger Mr. lily, had obtained a Protection from the State, that none should presume to abuse his Prognostications, by foisting 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 judge such cases as came before them, only out of lily's almanac: with this sole difference, that the arguer here unjustly cogs in the whole Scripture, instead of the single Book of the apocalypse, which makes his consequence far weaker and more unexcusable than 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 paralleled that Preface of St. Luke, so strongly urged by some. The words, as I understand them, are these. Seeing many have endeavoured to compile ae history of the things in great abundance acted among us; according as they who were from the beginning eye-witnesses and instruments of the Gospel, have delivered to us: I also have thought fit (excellent Theophilus) since I was present at all, things almost from the beginning, to set them down to thee in order, that thou mayest know the certainty of the Reports which thou hast been taught. This is the Text, though others interpret it otherwise; who (if they will urge any thing out of their own explication) must first justify it against this. But out of this, First St. Luke pretends no more than to tell our saviour's life, like a good Historian; however some of his excellent say cannot be denied their place in his life, as is testified by the same St. Luke, in the first of the Acts: and therefore we ought not expect to know more from him, than was fit for an Historian to report; that is, the eminent deeds and say of our Saviour. Now, the end expressed in the Text for the writing of this History may be understood two ways: One, that Theophilus might know which reports were true, which falls: The other, that Theophilus out of the recital of Christ's miracles and heroical actions might understand the greatness of his person, and by consequence the certainty of his holy doctrine, 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 doctrine, which must be our Adversaries meaning.  
There are yet two passages I must not omit, because our Adversaries make great account of them: one is the fourth Chapter of the first to the Corinthians, That you may learn in us, not to be wise beyond what is written. To understand this place, you must know there grew some emulations betwixt the disciples of the Apostles, (if I may guests) 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, choosing rather to put the case, as if it had passed betwixt himself and Apollo: and first uses this argument, that Paul and Apollo are but Ministers of Christ: thereupon after some diversion, he comes to tell them, how all that any man has, is from God and for the people; and concludes, to have all esteemed as the Ministers of Christ and dispensators of his Mysteries: And after he has expressed how little he concerns himself, whether he be well 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 alleged, which I may venture to paraphrase thus. I have disguised my discourse concerning the esteem you ought to have of your Preachers, under the names of Apollo and myself; 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 ordained for you Ministers of Christ and dispensers of his Mysteries; to the end one of you do not swell with pride or choler against another in any man's behalf, and so breed Schisms and contentions among yourselves.  
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 discourse. And here we are unwillingly constrained to observe the desperate shifts of many of our adversaries, into which either the rashness of their passions or necessity of their cause engages them: for so, in the Text we now treat, they presently snapped 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 immediately precedent line, These I have disguized into Apollo and myself 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 declared itself, and stumbled the Reader, who could not but presently have checked at the inconsequence. And the verse following would be likewise incongruous to these, that you be not swelled one against another for any man: For, what connexion can either the words precedent, or subsequent have, with this, that, You are to learn your Faith out of the Scripture? and yet I have translated the Latin Sapere or Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, against the true sense, for the objectours advantage; whereas the true meaning is not to esteem them higher, or bear themselves, as if their Masters were higher: and thus the very English Translation yields it.  
The latter place is out of the first to the Galathians, where he warns them, that whoever comes to preach any doctrine, besides that which He had taught them, they should refuse him communion, or account him execrable. This passage I have always esteemed 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 perceived it might perhaps be thus, St. Paul (said they) preached nothing but what was written, as he testify's to Agrippa; so then, all he preached was Scripture: But he commands them to receive no other doctrine, but what he delivered them: therefore, he enjoined them to make Scripture the Rule of their Faith. This is (as far as I can find) the full epitome of their discourse upon this Text.  
But, considering that what is in Scripture may be delivered by preaching, without any mention of Scripture; I thinks though all St. Paul taught the Galathians had been written, yet it follows not He commanded the Galathians to hold the doctrine from Scripture; For those two words, what we evangelized to you, and what you have received, signify so plainly preaching, that I can collect nothing from this place, but that they were to hold their Faith because He had preached 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 received his doctrine from man nor by the entermise of man, but immediately by revelation from Christ: and afterwards, (upbraiding the Galathians for their inconstancy) asks them, whether they had received their Christianity by the works of the Law, or ex auditu fidei, by hearing of the Gospel? So that, in effect, his command is to the Galathians, to stand to his preaching, that is, to Tradition for their Faith: and this not only against all men but even Angels, should they come down from Heaven to preach any thing contrary. For, that the word praeter may signify contrary, is too well known to be insisted on; But, that it signifies 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, whereas they had begun in spirit, they ended in flesh, and the like: wherefore it is plain, he spoke of doctrine contrary to what he had preached. 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 sound it is proved that St. Paul taught nothing but what was written, is before examined; which yet if admitted true, were nothing to the purpose. For, 'tis not the Catholic position, that all its doctrines are not contained 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 dreamed 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: whereas Scripture is continually alleged 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 preferable 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 mere 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 father's 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 falls, most commonly strained, and always such pigmy bulrushes, that they merit no admission into a grave discourse: but chief, because, considering largely the Antecedents and consequents to the Texts alleged, 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 potgun.  
And I dare (had I good conditions) maintain that, in all the differences betwixt Protestants and us Catholics, they cannot produce one place of Scripture, in which the words can bear a sense that comes home to the state of the question. I know many urge those of the Decalogue against Images: To which I answer, with words analogical to those of St. Paul, Who (speaking to the Galathians) protested that whoever circumcised▪ 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 delivered it to them, for them he made and delivered all the rest, as one entire body of law to be observed by them. He therefore 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 virtue of that, but these two we cannot. Wherefore, whoever holds, The Sabbath day is commanded by God, either does so because he finds it in the old Law: and to him I protest he ought (in consequence to this judgement) submit to all that law and become a Jew: or else, 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 Catholic Faith: therefore, every rigorous observer of the Sabbath, is bound in common sense, either to be a Jew or a Catholic.  
To make an end, I know our adversaries allege many sentences of Fathers to prove the sufficiency of Scripture: whereof 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 find myself, not concerned 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 imagined 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 imagined more vain and fruitless then for me to lose my labour in striving to show that Protestants have no colour from Antiquity, to expect this al-deciding power in Scripture, whilst themselves aver the whole multitude of Fathers is not capable of giving a sufficient testimony for their reliance on Scripture: since therefore there is nothing like a ground in Scripture, and they scorn all ground except Scripture, I must leave them to the freedom of doing it without ground.  
FINIS.    

DAILLÈS ARTS discovered: OR, His RIGHT USE, proved A downright ABUSE Of the FATHERS.  
By THO. WHITE, Gent.  EZECH. 13. 12. Ecce cecidit Paries: nunquid non dicetur vobis, Vbi est litura quam linistis? 
Printed in the year 1654.   

DAILLè's Arts discovered.  

THE FIRST SURVEY. Of the nature and subject of Daille's Book.  
HAving closed the precedent Treatise which this consideration, that, since Protestants disavow to be determined by the authority of Fathers, I had just title to decline any farther search into those reverend Witnesses of our ancient Faith; being a task that would require some labour of me to do, and yield no profit to them, when done.  
Yet, I easily observed, that, as my excuse (to indifferent Persons) will defend me from the imputation of being troubled with the Writing-Itch: so, it seems to engage my clearing myself of a far more important charge, which otherwise might occasion some passionate or captious spirits, to fix this scandal upon me, that I acknowledge not the judgement of Antiquity; an injurious aspersion, which the French Daillè has actually endeavoured to cast upon the whole Catholic Church, in his abusive Treatise, of the right use of the Fathers.  
And because that Monsieur's Book is denizoned among us, by the adoption of those two great Secretaries (whose names forced me into this employment) and raised to the esteem of being the source whence their streams took their current; I cannot but give my Reader a hint concerning it: for no other reason, but only to make him understand, what Great men are subject to, when the luxuriousness of their wits carries them beyond the bounds of those professions they are skilled in.  
With this Note therefore we will begin our discourse; that, Many great and nimble wits, both ancient and modern, have (merely for their recretation) undertaken to plead the cause of natural defects, and striven to set them above the opposite perfections: like Aesop's wolf, who, having lost his tail, would persuade other Wolus to cut off theirs too, as unnecessary burdens. But, nature contradicting this Art, and by a perpetual current of impressions, forcing us to the contrary belief; such acquaint discourses gain no more credit then Prismatical glasses, in which we are pleased to know our selus delightfully cozened. Now, what in these men, is only a Caprich of wit and gayness of humour, were it applied to a business of high concern, and which could not be judged by our senses, but required a deep penetration to distinguish right from wrong, would certainly be a most pernicious and insufferable wickedness: a trap to ensnare and ruin all the weak and unlearned, whom either the cunning of logic can deceive, or sweetness of rhetoric inveigle.  
But, being arrived already within sight of my designed Port, I beg my Reader to believe me of that discretion, as not easily to launch forth again into the main Ocean of a new bottomless controversy: and therefore I shall only essay to decipher the quality of the Treatise in common; leaving its strict perusal to them that are more at leisure, and have their Noses better armed for raking in a dunghill.  
To make then a nearer approach to the work, I shall begin with the Author's intention, which aims at no less than this bold and desperate attempt, To disable the Fathers from being Judges in the Controversies of this present Age. Let us inquire the true and genuine sense of this proposition.  
And first, who are signified by the word Fathers? For this he assigns us three Ages: from Christ to Constantine; from Constantine to Gregory the great; and from Him to Vs. Now, this last part, (though it contains a thousand years,) he cuts off from the score of Fathers, and much more, pulls them out of the B●nch of Judges: the middle division he grumbles at, as not being worthy of, or, at most hardly admittable to that appellation: the first Age alone he freely acknowledges.  
By what Criticism he does this, I am not able to understand: For, when I learned Latin, Pater signified the immediate progenitor of the Son; and St. Paul was of that opinion, telling his Converts, They had no Father but himself, because he had in person, begotten them by the Gospel: and though, by ampliation, this word has included also the Parents of our Fathers, and upwards even to Adam; yet how it comes so to signify the most remote, as to exclude the nearest, is beyond my skill in Grammar. Pray, let this good Definitor reflect upon himself: if the first remembered of his race had died without Issue, how could he have been one of his Forefathers? no more, had there been no Preachers after the first three hundred years till our time, should we have accounted those Primitive Ones our Fathers. That they are Fathers, then, is because they begot Preachers, who continued the propagation of the same doctrine to our days: which we profess they did among us; and that therefore we are their Spiritual offspring, they our Fathers.  
But Daillè and his Consorts fault is not, that they contract the compass of the Fathers; but that they acknowledge any. For they are all mushrooms, sprung up as new as the morning, not so much as one from another, if they be true to their tenets: every one of them is bound to say to Calvin, as well as to the Saints, I believe not for thy word, but I have heard it from the Apostles own mouths in the Scripture.  
Though, indeed, I have no reason to quarrel much with Him upon this point: for, if he acknowledges the word Fathers, he denies the Thing or virtue of it in them; since, to be a Father, is to propagate Christ's doctrine to posterity: which quality he must of necessity deny them, whilst he thinks their doctrine not to be that of Christ; and that it ought, by every private man, be brought to the test of the Bible, and so far accepted or refused, as, to the grave judgement of some judicious Blue-apron, seems agreeable to the sense of Scripture.  
This, then, is the pious design of this author, To insinuate a belief, that, since the Apostles days, there has not been a sufficient living witness of what they taught the world, or what Christ taught them. In which there are two notorious propositions enfolded, worthy to be looked into. First, that these good Christians, at one leap free themselves from all the bands of Community and Society of mankind, and from all subjection to the Kingdom of Christ, which they flatly deny. For, Nature teaches us, there can be no Government without Judges; I mean, living Definitors and Deciders of occasional debates: therefore, if Christ has left no Judges upon Earth, he has no kingdom here: such Judges I speak of, as should administer His Law; for he came not to plant temporal Kings, but a spiritual Regiment, wherein, if he has had no Judges since the Apostles decease, his Kingdom expired with them.  
Now then, the whole drift of this Writer is, to establish an absolute Anarchy; where every one indifferently shall be Master without control, in that great and principal Mystery of training up souls to eternal happiness: which by how much more dark and difficult the spiritual conduct to future bliss is, then temporal government to present wealth and security, so much more unreasonable and unnatural must the position be, that dissolus all obedience to Ecclesiastical superiors, and abolishes all Order in the Church: An assertion justly to be abhorred by any, who has the least spark of love to that only great Good, the salvation of his Soul.  
The other Proposition is, that since the Apostles time, there has been no public either true doctrine or good life, in that part of the World which we call Christian. I do not mean, there may not have appeared some virtuous actions in private persons, (though perhaps the consequence might be driven so far;) but that, all visible Companies have had both their Doctrine spotted with foul tenets, and their consequent practices polluted with Superstition and Idolatry: For, as this is one of the main grounds for their rejecting the Fathers; so, the reason à priori (which they allege) being once admitted, evinces the truth of the Conclusion I charge upon them: it being evident, that if because man is fallible, the Fathers are insufficient to propagate truth to their posterity; and, out of the position of insufficiency, must of necessity follow the consequence of defect; certainly then, the following generations had not sufficient instruction, either for belief or actions. And indeed, the Reformers themselves acknowledge as much; since they esteem the father's errors so gross, that it was fit to leave the communion of that Church, wherein they are defended, rather than accept of such abominations. Now if this be not to deny all good life, and the main and universal fruit of Christ's passion, even in those preferred Ages, I have lost my little wits.  
This; therefore, I say, is the aim and project of his Book; to prove, That since Christ's time, there has been no sufficient living testimony of the Truth of Religion, no command or government of Christians, as Christians; and lastly, no holiness or good life, nor any fitting direction among mankind brought in and stated by our kind Saviour and wisest lawgiver Jesus Christ. Now, how great an encouragement and advance this may prove, either towards virtue or study of Religion, I understand not. This I know, if any would purposely seek to draw off our hearts from all hope of heaven and practice of virtue, I cannot imagine a more efficacious argument, then, First, to tell how much pains our Saviour had taken to plant a right Faith and Christian life, in so many years of example and Preaching, closing all with such strange unparallelled sufferings: Nay, that he had sent the Holy Ghost, in so manifest and glorious a manner from heaven, upon his Disciples, to fire their hearts with zeal and empower their hands to Miracles, giving them Commission to publish his new Law over all the World, and solemnly engaging to assist them for ever: And yet afterwards bring in proofs, how, notwithstanding all this, soon as these Apostles were dead, Idolatry and corruption, both of doctrine and manners, began presently to appear, in the greatest and best Members of the Church, even the immediate Disciples of the Apostles; and in short time, so overrun the whole World, that the means of Salvation was generally lost, and the way to heaven obstructed with an universal deluge of vice and superstition. These proofs are the work of our excellent Author: whence I think it no boldness to conclude, this Treatise, of the right use of the Fathers, is the perfectest piece that ever was written, for the utter extermination of Christian doctrine, and absolute ruin of all virtue. For, when I turn o'er the Book, I cannot but acknowledge it full of as good topics, cast into as neat a stile, and qualified with as seeming a fit temper conveniently to betray unwary souls, as any modern I ever read: but I fear not, these few animadversions I have hastily collected, sufficiently demonstrate to the sight of any that will but open their eyes, how dangerous and damnable a a poison lies hidden under that guilded hypocritical cover.   

THE SECOND SURVEY. Of the two first Chapters of his first Book; wherein he urges that the Fathers of the three first ages were few, and their writings wholly unconcerning our Controversies.  
THe intention of the Work being so pious, so conformable to nature and the ways of the Author of nature; you cannot choose but expect the proofs very sound and convincing: And, if you will believe either my Lord of Bristow's judgement or my opinion, we shall easily agree in his Elogium, both of them and their Author, that little material or weighty, can be said on this subject, which his rare and piercing observation has not anticipated.  
To understand his persuasions the better, I entreat you, reflect upon two ways, or rather two parts of one way, ordinarily chosen by such juggling Orators, as we before made mention of; who use to employ their wits in contradicting open verities.  
The first is, to talk much of the common notion, when the question is of a particular. As if one would undertake to dissuade a man from travelling to Rome, because 'tis a long journey; he will plead the inconveniences which accompany long journeys, and immediately talk of Wildernesses, wild Beasts, great Robberies, dangerous Rivers, unpassable Mountains, want of Company, and disfurnishment of all accommodations by the way, & a thousand such frightful narrations which occur in the misfortunes of shipwrecked men, and the desperate voyages of Romance-Lovers: But never descend to consider, whether all these be found in the way to Rome, or what remedies are provided to correct such symptoms; knowing too well, that equivocation is easily couched and ambushed in common propositions, but soon detected, if a descent be made to particulars.  
The other Fallacy is, To assign real inconveniences, but not tell you how far they annoy the Subject, alleging many sad things, but concealing how great they are. As a man may have the Gout or Stone in so slight a measure, that they shall never trouble him: yet a third person, who hears the melancholy relation, may conceit and pity his case as most deplorable; because the Reporter, not expressing the violence of these diseases, leavs an impression in our minds of such a degree of pain and affliction, as we ordinarily commiserate in those that suffer the extremest fury of such vexatious tormentors.  
These two Fallacies run, in a manner, through his whole Book; which he divides into two parts, very methodically. In the former, he pretends to show 'tis an excessive hard, if not impossible, task to know the meaning of the Fathers: In the later, that, supposing their sense were known, it imported little to the dispatch of controversies; they being not infallible, nor without all danger of error: grounding himself on this maxim, that the understanding neither can, nor indeed aught to believe any thing in point of Religion, but what it knows to be certainly true.  
Which, had it come out of a Roman Catholics mouth, would have sounded gloriously, and worthy the dignity of that Faith which God and jesus Christ, being the Author of, have completely furnished with clear and solid principles. He perhaps would have offered you choice, either of Faith or knowledge; produced in order to this, as perfect demonstrations as Aristotle is adored for; and towards that, engaged you in the most evident directors of humane life, and clearly evidenced, by the principles of common sense, that, if you refuse the Authority of the Roman Church, you renounce all the certainties on which you build every serious action of your life; & in a word constrained you to deny or affirm somewhat that yourself, in another case, will confess a mere madness to affirm or deny.  
But, in Monsieur Daille's mouth, who, in his next words, will cast you upon the vanity of a broken breath, which has been a bolting and searsing these hundred years, without any profit in the certainty of its meaning; I cannot pierce farther, then that this glorious principle is assumed, as the readiest means to betray his Auditor into a despair of Christianity, and then leave him in the gulf of Atheism.  
However, let's see the nature of his proofs, which for the first point, he has screwed up to eleven. The three first are, that the father's works, especially in the three first Centuries, were very few, and of matters far different from the present controversies; and besides, many falls writings fathered upon those Saints by unworthy persons; (of which last imputation my third Survey gives you a more exact particular.) Nor can I deny any of this, but I find two exceptions, which I believe would shrewdly trouble the Minister to answer: One, that those of the pretended Reformation, who have so much modesty in them, as not to renounce utterly the authority of the whole Church of Jesus Christ at one blow, strive to shelter their nakedness in these three Centuries: whereof these three arguments make me plainly see the reason, Because by the paucity of Books, the difference of Subject, and pretence of Forgery, they hope nothing can be made evident for those Ages: and so, the purity for which they cry up those days as only worth our conformity, is in that sense the Poet says, purae sunt plateae, that is, there's no body in the streets.  
My other unsatisfaction is, He does not show that even in these ages, and those very works which he acknowledges for the author's home-born Children, and to have descended incorrupted to our days, there is not sufficient to convince all heretics. For, though every particular point peradventure cannot, in so few works and written so accidentally to our purpose, be clearly demonstrated; yet, the generality of the Rule we are to follow in Christian doctrine is so manifestly set down, in those very Fathers he admits, that, were their writings made our judges, no man could possibly be an heretic: since, as the material points the Fathers wrote against were different from ours; so the formal ones, as the deserting the Catholic communion, the renouncing the testimony of Apostolical Seas, and the hiding themselves under the leaves of Scripture, were common to all the ancient as well as modern heretics. But however, if he cannot maintain, that there is not enough left to convince the truth; his proof is deficient, and wholly useless to the end he brings it.  
One observation more I cannot choose but note: He quarrels with some Catholic Doctors, who prefer the second Tricentury before the first, as to the right understanding the sense of the Fathers: Which he says he takes for a confession of the want of testimonies in the former Ages, and doubts not but in equal cleverness, they would prefer the first Tricentury, for point of purity before the latter. But either his own opinion or misunderstanding our Tenets deceived him: For, we do not imagine the former ages more pure than the later, since we admit no errors in either, but make no question that the universality of Fathers in any two ages held the same doctrine; and so, the Faith of the second Tricentury being known, we account that of the former undoubted; especially we all believing the latter Fathers received their doctrine from the former, not by reading their Books, which belonged to few, but by being instructed from their mouths who had received it from them. But he thinks his Reformers very probably maintain that Christian Religion has long been in a dangerous consumption, declining still by little and little, and losing in every Age some certain degree of its Primitive vigour and native complexion; to which purpose he citys the words of Hegesippus out of Eusebius, That this infirmity began as soon as the Apostles were dead.  
This position sounds to me, as if the opinions they cry out against for abominations entered so early into the Church; and have continued in it so long, that they can now reckon fifteen Centuries: nor can I desire either a more ingenuous confession or stronger proof of the truth of those doctrines, which the nature of Christianity has preserved with such exact care, and constant tenderness that in so many ages, not one of them has been forgotten, not one of them ever opposed, by those who, in all generations, have still been accounted the sound party of Christians. Besides, I should expect, that so foul a blemish, as these bold accusers lay upon the Church; viz. that she has been an Idolatrous and abominable Harlot, ever since the death of the Apostles, ought not to be grounded on bare probable conjectures, but evidently convinced; under penalty that, otherwise, the Calumniators should suffer, at least, as heavy a Censure, as they attempt to pass against the Church.  
But, because, for the maintenance of this odious slander, he chief relies on H●gesippus's testimony, let the witness be fairly examined; and that according to the Authors own citation, which runs to this effect, After the Apostles death, the Masters of Seduction began publicly and professedly, to vent their falsely named Science, against the preaching of the truth: which, in plain English signifies no more, than that heretics risen up against the Church: and is so far from arguing the church's corruption, that it strongly concludes her purity, since the doctrine, which falsehood contradicts, must necessarily be itself true. Thus clearly it follows from these words, that the wrong imputed corruption was out of the Church, and soundness of Faith in her Communion.  
But, if we look into the Text exactly, the meaning of that passage is this, After the Apostles death, the consistence of heresy took its beginning, that is, heretics grew into a body, daring to show their heads, where, before they lurked for fear of the Apostles: which expression manifestly proves, They began to make congregations, distinct from the true Church. And, this being evident, we cannot be troubled with those words going before in Higesippus, which say, till then the Church was a virgin and uncorrupted; for it is a phrase natural enough, to call the body corrupted, whose putrified parts are cut off or rotten away, as those degenerate members were from the Church of God: And so this very Daillè could cite (upon another occasion) these selfsame Innovators under the direct notion of heretics, when he thought it might better serve his turn.   

THE THIRD SURVEY. Of his 3d. and 4th. Chapters, wherein he objects forgery and corruption of the father's works.  
AS to the third point, of Forgery, our Monsieur dilates himself exceedingly; but, how much to the purpose, some few notes will discover. First, he objects many counterfeit Books, that are not now extant, nor have been these many Ages: and think you not there must necessarily arise a strange obscurity in our Controversies, from such forgeries? Then, he complains, that Transcribers have put wrong names to books, either for the better selling them, or out of ignorance; and, in some of them, the question is about Authors almost of the same age: all which is likewise little to the point; for, where the Age's opinion, and not the particular credit of the Author's learning is required; the authority of one understanding writer ought generally to weigh as much as another's: and this is the case in controversies; where the sense of the Church, not that of private Doctors, is the subject of our inquiry.  
Neither must I forget his defamation of the ancient Christians, as counterfeiters of the sibyl's prophecies, out of the calumny of the wicked Celsey, which nevertheless we see Lactantius stands upon to the Heathens faces. He omits not, for a notorious piece of forgery, that the Canons of the Council of Sardica are cited as of the Council of Nice: wherein nothing is more certain, then that the Canons were true, though not admitted by the Greeks, who, being called, would not come to the Council. So the question stands merely upon this, whether they ought to be called the Canons of Nice, being made by a Council gathered afterwards to confirm the former? which the Latins defend, and the Greeks dislike. Doubtless a main forgery, to be urged by this temperate man, whose charity, no question, would have winked at small faults.  
Yet because no ordinary satisfaction will content him, though those Popes were all both commended by the Ages in which they lived, and reputed Saints by the ensuing Church, and One of them that great Saint Leo, whose Oracles were so highly esteemed in the Council of Chalcedon: I will briefly set down the case. The Arian Emperor Constantius (though yet, for fear not declared such) summoned a General Council of the Eastern and Western Churches, to a Town called Sardica. There assembled betwixt 3 and 4 hundred Bishops. The Arians, seeing themselves like to come to the worst, by the number of the Orthodox party, upon sought pretences, went to another place, called Philippopolis; where, making an assembly of their own, they termed it, from the Emperor's Summons, the Council of Sardica: And, partly by their diligence and sending circular Letters thorough Christendom, partly by joining with a great faction of Donatists, but chief (as it may be justly believed) by the power of the Emperor's Officers, made the name of the Council of Sardica pass for the denomination of their Conventicle, both in the East, and thorough such remote parts as had not special intelligence of what passed in Sardica. Hence, any Canons pretended to be ordered at Sardica, were blasted before known: whereupon it fell out, that the small party which knew the truth, was forced, in their collections of Canons, to place these next to the Council of Nice (as their order required) without a name, and as an Appendix of the Council. In this posture these Popes found them about an hundred years after: and, whether it was that they were not sufficiently acquainted with the Accident, or whether they thought the action legitimate, and the ground of it sufficient, they urged them as Canons of Nice; and, after the matter was examined, bore the Cause, in force of them, and continued on to posterity still the same denomination.  
This is that solemn Forgery he decries with so loud a clamour; and concludes his vehemency with so notorious a falsehood, that every threepenny Controvertist can spit in his face. For he says, that even now a great part of Christendom holds, and 'tis generally urged by all, that the Pope's Authority in Appeals was first given him by the Council of Nice: whereas, the most ordinary opinion is, that 'tis jure divino; and those that look on jus positivum, are so cunning, as to distinguish the Council of Nice from that of Sardica; and in that of Nice, seek only a Testimony of what was in use before the Council, not a gift of this Authority.  
His next accusation concerns certain writings that both the Catholics and pretenders to Reformation agree to be Counterfeit: which, how little it imports our controversy, since neither party grounds any doctrine upon them, needs not be expressed.  
Another sort he counts for Forgery, when catholics, among themselves, question certain pieces of ancient Authors; in which case, he still joins himself to that part of Catholics that refuses to admit such passages for legitimate, and then immediately charges all the rest who receive them, with downright forgery: which is the same as to call all men Knaves, that are not of his side; as if no real and just doubt could be made of Authors by sober and virtuous persons, but all must be imputed to malice; so that, this exception is plainly a peevish and shallow cavil: and besides, no ways available to his purpose; since, that which is in real doubt among Catholics, can be no argument against heretics.  
He that has patience enough to take notice of these qualities in his Chapter of Forgery, and see that, besides this, he has nothing in it but airy discourses, in common, how writings may be corrupted, cannot choose but say — Movet Cornicula risum, Furtivis nudata coloribus.  
And yet suppose all he endeavours were true, in abstracto, there remains still the application; wherein if he miscarry, instead of pulling down the Fathers, he lays himself in the dust: for, after never so many Books never so much disabled, if we can find a Library full of unsuspected and universally acknowledged Authors, we sufficiently discover the impertinency and deceitfulness of this manner of proceeding.  
Therefore, to prevent this inconvenience, our acquaint Discourser raises two suspicions against the confessed works of Fathers: One of Corruption, the other of Obscurity. The former he gins from the escapes of Transcribers; which, as we cannot deny to have some force, if spoken in common, so, applied to particulars, we shall find little important to our purpose: For, if the question were of some two or three Sentences spoken by the by, such perhaps might be suspected, though not justly, without better ground than a bare surmise; because, where the error of the Transcriber has its amplitude to happen in one of ten thousand lines, to say it lights just here, is a very weak conjecture, unless there be more particular causes of jealousy alleged, (which may apply it to that place,) then follow from this common course: But, when there are formal and set discourses, or frequent and express passages, to the same effect and purpose; then this suspicion has no weight at all: and such is the case betwixt Catholics, and the Pretenders to Reformation.  
At the next turn, he would persuade us, that St. Jerome, Ruffinus, and others, who abridged certain Greek works in their translation, did thereby falsify the Authors; afterward, that the collections of Canons made either by Greeks or Latins are corruptions, because they omitted such as they disliked or had no use of: not understanding or dissembling his knowledge, that such Books are not intended for Histories, to tell us what passed, but Rules for government, and so to be fitted to the particular occasion; taking what conduces to the writer's purpose, and leaving out such passages as are (though in themselves good) yet impertinent to his designs. In the same rank are Liturgies; which being the public prayers, are subject to be enlarged, contracted, or changed, according to the devotion of the people and prudence of the Pastors, as we see daily practised: and so are better testimonies for universality, in their districts, then of antiquity. These, therefore, neither are corruptions, nor make the sense of the Fathers more difficult: for we can use but so much as we find in them, and so far, they are as authentical as any other; whilst what is not there cannot be pressd out of them.  
After these, he produces some debates between the Latins and Greeks, about falsifying certain passages; whose quarrels it concerns not me to take up: only I must note, the brotherly correction he gives the Fathers in these words, thus did they bandy stiffly one against the other; each of them, as it may be easily perceived, having much more appearance of reason and truth in their accusation of their Adversary, then in excusing or defending themselves; which is no less than a plain condemnation of all, how ever disputable the case be in itself. Now, how many of such passages mutually objected, justly deserved that calumniation, and were not, by the fervour of disputation only termed so (being in themselves but mistakes, and wrong informations) is too long a business for the brevity I propose to myself.  
Yet this also I may observe, not without ground, from Daillè himself, that the true controversy concerning such abuses has been indeed between Catholics and heretics, but not Latins and Greeks in common; for the Catholic Greeks still accused their heretics of great corruption. And this is reasonable, because Catholics having always stood for, and relied on Antiquity, always upbraided and condemned heretics, as guilty of novelty; it necessarily follows, they were without question fully persuaded their opinion was the same with the Fathers, and had a real and true evidence of it: whereas heretics, not esteeming Antiquity for itself, but only for fear of scandalising the generality of Christians, who are still brought up in a high reverence of it, were bound to seek those ways that might satisfy as well as deceive the people, without any inward and hearty respect to the Fathers themselves: a charge this very Author justifies not to be uncharitably applied to such Innovators; whilst his own chief endeavours strive to make us think the Fathers are like Epicurus' Gods, Fine things in themselves, but hung so high, their sound cannot reach us mortals here below upon Earth. Neither indeed is the case of Ambition much unlike that of heresy: for, those who encroach upon public practices of former Ages, are forced to use their utmost skill in falsifying all they can, to obscure the evidence of what passed in the days of their Ancestors.  
One other particular will challenge me, if I go on without taking at least some little notice of it: and 'tis the Grecians objection about adding this word Filioque to the Creed of Nicaea: which having insisted on more largely in another place, I shall pacify with this short answer; Since, 'tis confessed by both parties, that the main Creed was made in that Council, and received this addition, from another, freely and openly avowed for such by the Roman Church: the question could not be of corruption, (which seems to imply a secret design of imposing on the world) but of the lawfulness of the Addition.  
Now, let us pass to his accusation of later times; where, he complains there is far more falls play. His first instance is, against certain varieties in the ancient Fathers; that some manuscripts or Impressions agree not with others: as if every one that sets out a Book must have seen all Manuscripts, or else he corrupts the Ancient Copy. But, that which anger's him is, the words omitted or added are against his tenets; whence he gathers it was no casual escape, but a deliberate plot of voluntary corruption: but he that will lose so much time as to take notice how weak and inconsiderable the passages are, even in his own citations, will easily see this chief proof consists merely in a bold assertion.  
I shall therefore rely on my Readers ingenuity, and only cite two or three examples for a pattern of the rest: As, that the word Petra is changed into Petrus, in that famous sentence of St. Cyprian, Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata; That, in St. Amhrose, some books are separated, which in other Copies are joined together; that, in St. Peter's life, is omitted a certain Exhortation, advising his Successors to abstain from secular cares: Pretences so slight in themselves, so impertinent to the main cause; that, none but a petty politician would have stooped to such trivial corruptions, nor any but a wrangling Sophister pretended such childish exceptions.  
But, not content with what has been done, he presses us with what would have been done, if I know not whose counsel had been followed: which is nothing but the wild chimaeras of a sick brain. Next he is offended that Heretical books have been forbidden and abolished: as if any could think it reasonable, seditious Pamphlets against Kings and States should pass unreprehended in their dominions; exhortations to Idolatry be permitted among the Jews; or such blasphemies as pretend to prove Christ an Impostor should be tolerated among Christians. I wonder calumnies so shallow, so impudent, and of so desperate a consequence can find patience enough in any person of understanding to read them; & yet I see great wits strangely applaud them.  
The actions, therefore, called by him corruptions, consisting only in such, to the very end of his fourth Chapter, you will easily perceive that this so well bodied Chapter also (if the impertinencies with which he lards it were substracted) would prove as lean and starved as Pharao's Oxen. Besides, if we seek to direct his arrow towards the intended scope, this last concerns not the ancient Fathers; since now, Expurgations are only for Moderns, as anciently they were only against heretics. The other objections reach no way to disable this safe and principal answer, That, notwithstanding all his cavils, there may still remain a sufficient number of the father's writings, pure and incorrupted, to convince the doctrine of the Catholic Church.   

THE FOURTH SURVEY. Of the fifth Chapter; wherein he objects the father's Eloquence; and that, on set purpose, they spoke obscurely.  
I Shall pass now to the next Flourish, rather than Argument: where, this bold unwary man (offering to prove the Fathers are hard to be understood) assigns those very reasons, that make all other Authors more easily understandable. For first, what Languages more copious, more regular, and wherein scholars are more versed, than Latin and Greek, which are the father's idioms? Yes, says he, but few arrive to that perfection in them, as is truly requisite for the exact managing of Controversies. Be it so: But then, let no others meddle with this part of Controversies, like Masters, but they; let such on both sides try the quarrel, whilst others for this part rely on them.  
But again he renews his first complaint: how small a number are they that are fitly qualified to enter the lists in so difficult a combat? I do not fear, if this Author were asked of France, Holland, and Germany, he would readily undertake to find twenty of his own side completely furnished for such a skirmish; and, since our Party is both more extended, enjoys better commodity for studying, and clearly, by its numerous works, shows itself far more laborious, He may well allow us at least as many as he promises to produce of his own: If then, betwixt both, may be found at the same time, forty sufficiently trained for the encounter, what need we ask any more? there will not want enough besides, capable to prosit themselves out of their Labours.  
He proceeds to help himself upon St. Hieroms speech against nimium diserti, and some faults of weak interpreters: And presumes, the places he brings clear: though my sight is not quick enough to perceive it of any, but one of St. Austin Count. Adimant. which he clears himself, by adding to the father's Text cùm signum daret corporis sui, the word only in his interpretation. Then he urges, Men bring obscure places to interpret Scripture: but the unhappiness is, his instances are of his own party.  
He presses, that the Fathers, before the rising of Heresies, spoke ambiguously and doubtfully, and that which seemed to be against their own certain sense and meaning; as he exemplify's out of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, concerning some Fathers before the Arian Heresy. But this Wel-meaner forgets that (at least in his examples) he brings the salve with the stroke: for, confessing 'twas showed to be against the writer's meaning, he implicitly tells us, either there were other precedent or subsequent expressions in the same place, which made the doubtful words plain; or, at least so evident passages of the same Author, in other places, that there could be no doubt of his meaning, in the ambiguous ones. And, truly if we observe this gentle sophister's discourse, we shall easily see, he imagines, that proofs from the Fathers ought to be brought by the popping out of half a Sentence, and never regard either what goes before or follows after; as, by the instances we have already examined, you may perceive is the reformed fashion of citing Scriptures: whereas, the Books of Fathers, being large and ample, allow greater careers to those who run matches in them.  
He adds farther, that the Fathers delivered some things on set purpose, obscurely. If his meaning be, they expressed their thoughts in certain occasions, shortly or not fully; what danger is there in that? We know well all arguments drawn from them must be made out of what they have, not what they might have written: and so, the erudition he spends, in proving this, had been better employed to show the height of those Mysteries the Fathers saw just cause to conceal, then in cavilling at their compendious expressions, which suited best with their circumstances. And certainly 'tis most agreeable to reason, that the mind of such as wrote before the Controversy began, should be judged by those Fathers, who (for the easier defence of truth and fuller confutation of the Innovators) were forced to break the Seal of secrecy: and, who (being their immediate Disciples) without doubt must necessarily best know their minds, and consequently were most able to repeat the lessons they had so lately learned of their Masters.  
He afterwards reckons up certain Grammar weaknesses of some Fathers, and the excellencies of others, and, out of both, draws venom to his comb: So that, whether a Father writ down right natural construction, or (by abilities of explicating himself) polish his stile, all breeds darkness to this great Illuminator (or Calumniator rather) of the Fathers: Nay, the very vices they cry out against in evil Preachers, must be the faults of the Princes of antiquity, by this Interpreters benevolence. But he knocks all on the head, by the example of St. Hierom; who, having related what had passed in him during his sleep, in another place defends it was but a dream: And can you believe, the Objector was awake, when he fumbled out this piece of impertinency? Yet he urges it for a convincing evidence: and, bearing a special good will to St. Hierom, he very kindly persuades himself, that the Stories of Malchus, St. Paul the Eremit, and St. Hillarion, were Romances; the first, because his maligners calumniated it; the other two, (though never questioned) because he showed wit in them.  
It seems too, he would beget in his Reader this dutiful conceit of the Fathers, that they were wont to deliver Romances for Articles of Faith; concluding with this desperate and ungracious demand, Who shall assure us, that they have not made use of these same Arts, in their discourses concerning the Eucharist? and afterwards renews again the like impudent quaere, discovering too openly the profaneness of his heart; as if he suspected the father's might, perhaps, have cozened the people, with some falls glasses, to magnify the power of Prelates.  
Next, he objects, the Fathers often affirm or deny absolutely, what they mean only comparatively: and, if you will not believe him, he produces examples out of St. Hierom, St. Chrysostom, Amphilochius and Asterius. But, St. Hierom is plainly, in the very words comparative: The rest are both explicated to the same sense, by the bordering Ages, who might easily know the practice of their lives in that controversy, and in his very citation, have nothing capable of being urged against that explication; besides, the phrase itself is favourable. What great difficulty is there to pick out the English of this sentence, Praemia pudicitiae nuptiae possidere non possunt, etc. with the rest, too trivial to be repeated?  
He makes a second review of the father's speeches, concerning some Heresy not yet debated, upon another design; to show, that while they speak against one heresy, they seem to fall into the contrary. But there is no new difficulty brought, unless it be of those terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both which this Author abuses by a wrong interpretation: the first he renders, let fall in heat of disputation, instead of giving it the true sense, which Englishes it thus, supposed for disputation's sake (for so 'tis contradistinguished to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to which St. Basil opposes it:) the later he explicates done or said by dispensation, whereas the proper signification is, by discretion; St. Athanasius' meaning being that he delivered what was fittest in that occasion, and for the person to whom, or in whose name he spoke; for his words give us some hints inclining to either of those senses, that He intended only to personate an objection against himself, or else to draw some answer out of another, without engaging to declare his own judgement.  
But 'tis worthy our pains to look into the sweet interpretation he makes, and compare it with the Greek which himself puts in the margin: he reads therefore thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that is, men ought not maliciously to take (or understand) and draw it to be his proper meaning, what one writes or does (as now it's called) ad hominem; for, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies according to the art and understanding to apply every thing to the particular circumstances which offer themselves.  
Lastly, he tells us, the use of words is changed since Antiquity; but specifies so simply, that without question he hoped none but blind men would look into his book: as if the World now thought, that Papa signifies not a spiritual Authority, but a temporal Garbo; that Confessio signifies some outward ceremony; Missa, all the prayers now used, etc.   

THE FIFTH SURVEY. Of the six Chapters following; wherein he objects wilful deceit to the Fathers.  
HItherto our orator has opened those Pleas, which, in a manner, of necessity followed that multitude of books the Fathers have written: and would, if we could believe him, persuade us, Nothing is to be learned or understood out of Books; but every three words will never fail to have some reason or other to make them so obscure, that no light or satisfaction can be derived out of them.  
Nor is all this enough, unless he gives them a touch of wilfulness: which he does upon three Heads. First, from their writing Commentaries: where he notes, that many times they recite others opinions, without naming the parties; whence he would infer that, out of their Commentaries, nothing can be gathered concerning their own judgement, in the point they handle.  
I cannot deny, but such kind of commenting is sometimes used: nor do I understand why it should be reprehensible, to propose to the Reader choice judgements of divers eminent learned Persons, even of heretics sometimes, at least in St. Hieroms days, when there were not so many Catholic writers, that all good explications might be found in them, though this honest man (who, otherwise is no enemy of liberty in Authors, and opinions) be, at present, for his interest, offended with it. But, we can come to no assurance of the author's mind; what then? If we do not see directly what he inclines to, (though ordinarily some liking is showed more to one opinion then another;) yet we may know, he proposes all interpretations for the reader to choose as he pleases; which implys, that he saw no apparent inconvenience in any.  
But, why is this manner of commenting made a calumny against all the rest, being a particular kind and not much used? why brought for a prejudice against such places where only one opinion is mentioned? why is St. Hieroms indefinite doctrine (which imports no more than that such is the nature of some Commentaries) turned to an Universal, as if none should do otherwise? Let him reflect upon Beza's or other of his own parties glosses; and see whether they do not sometimes explicate Scripture in a way equally obnoxious to the same exceptions. I deny not, but St. Hierom, (once surprised by St. Austin in a weak explication upon a passage to the Galathians) excuses himself by a confession, that his memory being confused, he had in that place mingled his own opinion with other men's, without distinction: But, is it not an excellent piece of honesty, out of one only particular defect of one Father, to draw an imputation, not upon him alone, but on the whole Senate of Antiquity? And yet, this thread runs quite thorough this captious Objectors Book; whose labour is, out of a mole in her face, to prove Venus was not fair.  
Then he procesds to tax St. Ambrose and St. Hillary, for borrowing doctrine of Origen, without citing the original: as if Virgil should have still named Homer, in all the places wherein he imitated him; or Torquato Tasso told his reader, which Stanza's were his own invention, which translated out of others.  
His second discontent is, that, when a passage of Holy Scripture is acknowledged by the Fathers to be capable of divers interpretations, yet they will presume to use that sense only which is convenient to their Auditory, omitting the others which, in those circumstances, make nothing to their purpose. The like distaste he takes against them, when speaking of a Mystery that has two parts, they do not still make mention of both: as, since Christ is God and Man, he will by this rule be offended, that a Father should style him God, without expressing in the same breath (though altogether unnecessary to his theme) that he was Man; as if we could not, sometimes upon occasion, omit what we never intent to deny, but were still bound to clog our discourse with all the jealous cautions of a lawyer's Indentures: though indeed, he seems only troubled, when this happens concerning the blessed Sacrament: for then, it utterly disappoints the force of those Arguments he so highly esteems.  
Nor does his peevishness stay at these smaller Peccadillo's; but, to fill up the measure of his anger and farther enforce the accusation he sees himself engaged in, his bold hand trembles not plainly to insinuate, that the Fathers are in plain terms downright cheaters: contriving these omissions and ambiguity's, not by wisdom and pastoral prudence, but by cunning and hypocritical policy, with a malicious intention to delude their auditory. But these are little familiar strokes, and kind expressions of his devotion and respect to the Fathers, and the Church in whose communion they lived, and Him in whose precious death both They and It are founded.  
His last crimination confists merely in a repetition of what we discussed in the former Chapter, about the father's speeches ad hominem: yet, because he has a little changed his temper, we must observe what he says. First, being in a kind humour, he now imputes it only to excess of passion in the good old men, (as if the former had been out of malice) which made them speak they knew not what: whereas, the Ages after them, explicating such passages of their Predecessors, attribute it to deep wisdom and solid learning. Secondly, he shows us, out of St. Hierom, how all Authors use two ways of disputing; one direct and demonstrative or demonstration like, another Topical and tentative: but to what purpose, more than to form an airy apprehension, in the reader's head, of some strange fallacy's and abuses ordinarily practised by those ancient Maintainers of Christianity, I understand not.  
Yet, there remains about two lines of Latin; which his juggling art has obscured into a necessity of a short explication: and they are, that interdum coguntur loqui non quod sentiunt, sed quod necesse est dicant contra ea quae dicunt gentiles, which is as much as to say, they are forced sometimes not to contradict the gentiles propositions, that they may impugn them with better advantage. As when they seem to admit the truth of some Oracles, and apply their discourse only to show how such extraordinary actions might be performed by the Devil: whereas perhaps, in their inward thoughts, they believed there were really none true, or, if any, that they were by Gods interposing his own power, to the gentiles confusion, as he did in the apparition of Samuel to Saul, the Witch not being able to raise up souls by the single force of her charms.  
One new demand he urges, which seems and indeed is strangely impertinent, Whether it be a part of our Faith, to visit the Holy Land: as if those words of St. Hierom, adorâsse ubi steterunt pedes Domini, pars fidei est, signified truly, that to exercise adoration were an Article of Faith; than which, what can be spoken more sencelesly? Whereas, the true meaning is plain and obvious, that 'tis a duty of Faith, or an action proceeding from Faith, or conformable to Faith; in which sense, 'tis impossible to make any rational opposition against it.  
I must not end without taking notice of a goodly piece of wit in mis-translating a passage of St. Hierom; wh entreats his reader to judge his meaning out of his whole discourse, and non in uno atque eodem libro criminari, me diversas sententias protulisse, not to accuse me, that I am of divers minds in the selfsame Book, which this good natured Interpreter explicates, and not presently to accuse any Author of blockishness, for having delivered in one and the same Book two contrary opinions. Nevertheless, himself has been, I will not say, so blockish, (for of that there's too little cause to suspect him) but so slight and precipitate, as to put the very Latin words in the Margin, which is, as near as can be, to contradict himself in the same breath.  
In four ensuing Chapters he delivers us certain notes; which are in substance true, but bring not much obscurity or other disablement to the way of proving Religion by the writings of Fathers: and if they did, he and his new party remembering they wholly refuse the judgement of their Ancestors, need not trouble themselves; but stand upon their exceptions, and leave the Catholics to make their arguments sound and free from all legitimate repuls. For this is the law of logic and reasoning, that the Actor should have liberty to frame his opposition (so it be according to the rules of discourse) as himself thinks best.  
With this caveat I might justly omit these four Chapters; were it not that in his eighth he has a note of remark out of Tertullian, as requiring only that the Rule of Faith continue in its proper form and order, Caeterùm, manente formâ ejus in suo ordine, quantum libet quaeras & tracts, & omnem libidinem curiositatis effundas: to which he adds Ruffinus his Apology for Origen, as of the same opinion; and seems to take it for the practice of the present Church: And truly, I think with great reason.  
For, as far as I understand Religion, Nothing makes an heretic, but to recede from the known doctrine of the present Church, which she practices as derived from Christ, and whereof she knows no other beginning: He that is not conscious to himself of this, is no heretic before God; and he that carries that guilt in his breast is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatever seeming reasons he has for himself: and whoever teaches any point contrary to this tradition, not knowing such contrariety, teaches indeed heresy, but is no heretic: Let them agree in this chief Principle or Rule of Faith, and the rest will be only material errors in them. But, the cause they perversely defend is inconsistent with any such submission: their own Consciences and the evidence of the fact stigmatising their unlawful breach from the universal doctrine of the Church, from which they rebelliously separated themselves.  
As to the father's opinion, concerning the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants, he must give us leave to think the Council of Trent was better informed than he; as is, in the precedent apology briefly discussed. That, St. Ignatius calls him a murderer of Christ who fasts Saturdays, signifies no more than that he does an action which of its nature testifies our Saviour died twice, that is, upon Saturday as well as Friday: though this man of truth in his first chapter vouchsafes not to admit any writings of St. Ignatius for true. The aspersion laid upon St. Hierom, St. Ambrose, and Tertullian, as using Tragical expressions, without occasion, is but a gap to Libertinage and vilifying of virtue; their sayings being true, though this Reformer dislike them.  
His urging, that the modern points of controversy are not resolved in former Creeds or Councils, is of little importance: for every one knows subsequent Councils have always been so far from thinking it unlawful to add to the former, that such additions are the very business and end of their assembling: and yet (as the seventh Council testified) they confirmed all that was either in Scripture or Tradition, by binding us to these two pillars of truth.  
He is farther troubled, that divers Provinces should out of St. Hierom's authority, esteem the commands they find have been in use among their forefathers, to be institutions derived from the Apostles: as if either the Apostles might not have left divers customs, in divers places, for some practices of less concernment; or that, in St. Hieroms time, it was so hard to know when a custom of importance started, if it began since the Apostles, which could be scarce three hundred years.  
In the last Chapter of his first Book he thinks it impossible to know the belief of the ancient Church, either universal or particular, touching any point of controversies now debated among us. And truly, as he understands the question, he seems to have some reason: for, he professes that all the positive evidence out of Antiquity comes short of satisfying him, unless we can make good that no one did in those days secretly hold the contrary; a proof that certainly none but a mad man would either expect of another, or himself attempt.  
Nevertheless, this he exacts of us, and therefore citys St. Hierom for the equality of Priests and Bishops: though he writes expressly against it, and the place he citys clearly speaks of the confusion of the names of Presbyter and Episcopus. Likewise, when St. Hierom testify's some Bishops held with Vigilantius, he thinks that sufficient to make St. Hieroms side not universal: as if Bishops could not be heretics. He adds, St. Hierom, by his passionate speeches against Vigilantius, derogats from the authority of his testimony. I believe him, if he speaks of his own party, who are easily persuaded to diminish the credit of Fathers: but not, if he mean among Catholics, who think the modern heretics no better than Vigilantius and his followers.  
Thus have we briefly passed over his first Book.   

THE SIXTH SURVEY. How the Authority of Fathers is infallible.  
Yet these last five Chapters and the whole next Book will put us to the pains of explicating what Authority catholics give the Fathers, towards decision of controversies; and how they are to argue out of them, if they intent to conclude any opposite opinion an Heresy.  
To be as short and clear in this point as I can; I shall begin with some propositions wherein I believe, all sides agree. First, that the Fathers, as particular Authors, might err; and no one's single testimony, how eminent soever, is sufficient to make a necessary Verity, upon the sole account of being his judgement. Secondly, that seldom or never, in any controversy, the Fathers, cited for one part, are so many, as to make the doctrine delivered a matter of Faith, out of this precise reason that it is their opinion: For, though their multitude should arrive to the full sum of three hundred, yet it exceeds not the number of heretics, nay, even heretic Bishops, who unanimously conspired to oppose the Catholic Faith. If then, all certainty of things contingent and fallible, in their individuals, depend upon universality; and the number we discourse of, though great, yet considered in its own immediate force, make but a particular: it clearly follows, No question can be evidently convinced by the pure numerosity of produced Fathers. Thus far I conceive both parties are bound to consent.  
My third proposition therefore is, If a certain number of Fathers be sufficient to convince the universality of an opinion in the Church; how little soever that number be, 'tis strong enough to support an Article of Faith: not because it is their opinion, but the Churches; attested by them to be the Faith of the Church, and by the Church to be Christ's. And thus remains declared what Authority catholics attribute to the Fathers in reference to deciding controversies.  
The next point is, about the exercise of this Authority: how a Catholic writer may, by the testimony of Fathers, conclude the general Faith of the Church, and, consequently, the infallibility of the point controverted. For which we must lay these grounds. First, that it has always been the nature of the Catholic Church, to decline communion with those Churches she esteemed erroneons in any material point; as, Idolatry, Superstition, and the like, upon which pretences, our modern presumers for Reformation have separated themselves from the present Catholic Church: wherefore, if there be convincing testimonies, that any one particular Church (so known and considerable that the neighbouring Provinces must needs take notice of its public customs) embraces any doctrine or practice, yet remains still peaceably in communion with the universal; 'tis thereby convinced the whole Catholic Church held the same not to be Idolatrous, Superstitious, etc. If then the point be of such a nature, that one part of the contradiction must necessarily be received, and the other rejected, it avoidable follows, the whole Church in that Age was of the same judgement with the particular one.  
Nor is the evidence of this proposition built upon some scrap of an ancient Writer misinterpreted, as our Adversaries would infer the contrary from three lines of Hegesippus; but upon the essential notion of the Church, which is to be the conserver of Christ's doctrine, upon the whole body of Ecclesiastical History, which contains nothing but either the propagation of the faith or the expulsion of those that would corrupt it; And lastly, upon the universality of Christian writers, whose profession and business it has always been to instruct the Church in the doctrine of Christ and oppose all abuses that offered to insinuate themselves under the name of reformation, or whatever other specious mask Heresy has put on, to cover the ilfavordness of her face.  
And now we may safely proceed to the second ground, that if the testimony of Fathers convince the quiet possession of any doctrine in one age, it concludes the same of all ages that are known to communicate with it: which is, in effect, with all precedent and subsequent Ages whom either that acknowledges, or who acknowledge that for their Teacher and Mistress. This consequence from the former principle is so evident, that I may boldly, yet without presumption infer, if we can prove one Age, we prove all.  
But to make it plainer: let me borrow out of our Adversaries ingenuity, that the same doctrine has endured these thousand years; which restrains our controversy only to the first six hundred: and that common sense cannot say Popery was rank in the sixth Age, but it must have been well grown in the fifth; which will still contract our strife, to the compass of four hundred years: whereof, three were undoubtedly acknowledged Parents and Mistresses of the fourth, and the fourth of two or three following; one of which is confessed, to be universally overrun with Popery. So that, we need no more pains, but only to prove that some one Age of the first six hundred years embraced any doctrine (of a nature substantial and considerable as is above expressed) to convince all the rest of the same belief: else the Adversary must show the latter Age disavowing the faith of their Ancestors, and anathematising it as heretical, and in the same or equivalent terms, as our late Reformers cry out against the Catholic unity, or Catholics against their division. For, if the younger Ages reverence and plead conformity with the ancienter: 'tis impossible they should have changed any doctrine of importance or necessity.  
My third ground is, that when we speak of the Faith of the Church, we intent not to say, No single person may think otherwise or be ignorant of it, and yet live bodily and exteriorly in the communion of that Church: but we speak of the professed and public belief of all, both Clergy and Laity which meet at God's service in such a Church: As all that meet at Charanton are supposed to agree in the Articles, which the King's Edicts permit to be held by the pretenders to Reformation; Yet I believe there are few Englishmen who consent to all, though they resort thither: So that, by this position, it may stand with the general or universal faith of one part of the contradiction, that some few maintain the opposite judgement: By these three grounds, you will find most of his doubts and pretended difficulties, in the five last chapters, taken away, and the possibility of demonstrating a point out of the Fathers rendered very apparent and practicable: wherefore we have now a little leisure to shake out his other bundle of Rags, and see whether we can espy any thing, there, that may entangle a weak Divine.   

THE SEVENTH SURVEY. Of the four first Chapters of his second Book: wherein he pretends, The Fathers gave wrong notions of the Faith of the Church; and that they spoke not like Judges.  
THis Chapter he gins very modestly, and says, the father's testimonies of the church's Faith are not always true: His first example is in that question, Whether our soul comes by creation or from our Parents; in which, St. Hierom brings the verdict of the Churches against Ruffinus: but 'tis evident, this objection fails, because we doubt not some one or few learned men may hold against the tenet of the Church they live in.  
His second exception he citys out of Johannes Thessalon, whom he makes in his translation, say, the Church held Angels had subtle and airy bodies; but in his marginal Greek (a language few understand, and so not many are like to discover his art) there is no such thing: only this, that the Church knows Angels to be intelligent creatures, but not whither they are incorporeal or have subtle bodies.  
His third instance is, where Petavius reprehends St. Epiphanius, for saying, It was an Apostolical Tradition to meet thrice a week to communicate: I doubt wrongfully; For what probability can there be, that some Apostle should not have left such a Custom in some Province, if it were on foot in St. Epiphanius his time? besides, this Petavius is noted for an easy censurer of his betters; nor does the matter deserve any farther inspection.  
The next he borrows from the same author, against Venerable Bede; and 'tis a mere equivocation, upon the ambiguity of this word fides: which may signify an Historical persuasion, or a Traditional certitude; in which last sense Petavius took it, whereas Venerable Bede pronounced it in the former.  
His second Chapter tells us, the Fathers confess they are not to be believed upon thsir own bare words. Where I must entreat my Reader, to observe, that, If the Fathers he brings speak of one or few, we acknowledge they are not to be trusted on their word; and so, have no controversy with him; But, if he would make them speak of the whole Collection, he citys nothing to the purpose; but all he brings, reach no farther than the first sense; and have no opposition with the saying of others, who command us to follow the doctrine and even the words of our Ancestors. He is offended with Sozomen, for saying, None of the Ancients ever affirmed, the Son of God had any beginning of his generation; considering certain passages of theirs, which yet himself has confessed before, that St. Athanasius, Basil, and others have cleared from any such sense.  
He calumniats an excellent place of Vincentius Lyrinensis, explicating what the universality of father's means, and how their sentence is of force. His first quarrel is, that Lyrinensis requirs, they must have lived and died both for doctrine and manners, in the communion of the Catholic Church; which, he says, cannot be known, unless first we are sure their doctrine was sound: Not seeing alas, that their living and dying with reputation of Sanctity, gives them this honourable prejudice, To be esteemed, both for life and doctrine, sincere and unsuspected Catholics, till the contrary be proved.  
His second quarrel is against the number Lyrinensis assigns to be, all or the greatest part: which certainly is meant of Authors then extant, who had written in some age before the controversy arose; whereof, such a number as may make us understand what was the belief of that Age, is sufficient; all the rest being ad abundantiam. For 'tis plain, Lyrinensis held clearly the Catholic opinion, that the Church never perished; and consequently, the Faith of one Age was, with him, the faith of all. But, this good guesser would persuade us no such evidence can be had; and instead of proof, makes this wild conjecture, that for aught he knows the greatest part of the Fathers was of the contrary mind to those we have extant: which is just such an argument, as if one should suppose that were all the Roman Writers extant, perhaps the greatest part would tell us, Pompey overthrew Caesar, and that the Roman Empire was always after governed by a Senate and Tribuni plebis, till the Goths overran it.  
His third Exception is against those conditions, That the Fathers must have said or testified such a truth clearly, often, and constantly; which he thinks impossible to be found: but let him leave that to the Actors. He therefore rather chooses to fide with St. Austin: but what says he? He tells Julian the Pelagian, Puto tibi eam partem or bis sufficere debere, in quâ primum Apostolorum suorum voluit Dominus gloriosissimo Martyrio coronari; this, after he had cited the testimonies of only Latin Fathers: But when he had cited Fathers of both Churches, he argues thus: Si Episcopalis Synodus ex toto orbe congregaretur, mirum si tales possent illic facile tot sedere, quia nec isti uno tempore fuerunt; sed fideles & multis excellentiores, paucos dispensatores suos Deus per diversas aetates, temporum, locorumque distantias, sicut ei placet atque expediri judicat, ipse dispensat. Hos itaque de aliis atque aliis temporibus atque Regionibus ob Oriente & Occidente congregatos vides, etc. In which Discourse St. Austin taking for a principle, that the Writers in any age are ordinarily of the most eminent for learning, and indeed of so high a degree, that we cannot expect many such at the same time, concludes the consent of Fathers, which he had cited, more assured and satisfactory than a General Council: Now, what apprehension he had of a General Council, is well known to any, who has made a little acquaintance with that Saints writings.  
Fain also would this pious man fix the slander, upon Vincentius Lyrinensis, of being a Semi-Pelagian, out of far fetched surmises; which I pardon him, because that Father sits very hard upon his and his brethren-Separatists skirts.  
In the ensuing chapter his pretence is to show the Fathers did not write like Judges sitting upon a Bench to give sentence; a cavil which neither any will dispute with him, nor is to his purpose: But, by the pursuit it appears, he only ranged about for an occasion to vilify the Fathers, by citing or publishing a catalogue of such weakness as he had espied in them. The first he notes, is of Hast they used in their works; the next some mistakes in Chronology or History, whereof one I cannot omit, because he lays it upon them all generally, That Nilus was one of the Rivers mentioned to water Paradise: against which he calls for witness Scaliger and Petavius; the former of whom I cannot blame▪ seeing he was not born to reverence the Fathers; the other in this confirms the censuring humour before spoken of in him: But, for the opinion itself, it is very true, as may appear in the Appendix to Institutiones Peripateticae.  
Afterwards he nibbles at their Philosophy and Grammar; then, accuses their weak memories; lastly, quarrels with their Allegorical explications. Surely, if he had found an exact history of their lives, he would have chid some of them for wanting good voices, or being but indifferent musicians, or not having learned in the French Academies to dance, fence, and compliment a la mode.   

THE EIGHTH SURVEY. Of the two last Chapters of his second Book: wherein he says many Fathers have agreed in the same errors; and objects certain vanities between the Ancient and Modern Church.  
IN his fourth Chapter he proposes, that the Fathers have not only erred singly, but whole Troops of them together: which though it be nothing to the purpose, as not touching the precise point controverted betwixt us, since the father's authority is from their concurrence in attesting an universal Belief as witnesses, and not in delivering their Judgement as Doctors; Yet has our Gallant bestirred himself notably in this point, because his true intention was to take all reverence from the Fathers, though he cunningly with a smooth tongue professes the contrary. But he has another piece of legier-de-main, very proper to abuse an unwary Reader; For he neither distinguishes the quality of errors, whither in Faith, Philosophy, or History, nor their degree, and so makes the good silly people of his Sect conceive, every mistake of any Father an error, and every error a gross one; knowing that, when he mentions the word error in relation to the Fathers, all his Hugonots presently imagine it to be in doctrine, and great enough to condemn and forsake them. Besides, he never thinks of explicating what many signify's in respect to the number of the Fathers, so that, three or four may pass with him for a multitude.  
Another juggling trick he has to cast any shadow of words into such a posture, that they seem clearly convinced of error. As, if a Father say, God governs the World by Angels; he'll make it sound, as if God knew not what was done here below. Then, of his own accord he'll take for granted divers positions, as if they were confessed errors, which are first to be proved such; as, That some souls are kept in Receptacles till the day of judgement, etc. The length of the Chapter and its confusedness in not distinguishing private errors from public, and the multitude of his mistakes, favourable to his own side, deter me from spending my time upon the falls proofs of a confessed, or at least not controverted Conclusion: For truly, if I would take the pains, I doubt not to make appear, the greatest part of them are as weak as malicious, towards the scandalising those great Persons he calumniat's.  
But because St. Hierom is accounted by the Sectaries their special friend, and one that spares not to give them the truth home; this grateful man in counterchange, spends four whole leavs in his commendation, as you may understand by his general judgement upon him: telling us that the course he ordinarily uses in his disputations, is wresting the words of his adversaries quite besides the author's intention; and framing to himself such a sense as is not at all to be found in them: and then fiercly encountering this giant of his own making, mixing withal base abusive Language and biting girds, and the like tart expressions borrowed from profane Authors, in which kind of learning he was indeed very excellent. Of this modest censure he pretends no less than one example for proof, and that far short of justifying his bold imputation. The mischance was that in a certain controversy betwixt St. Austin and him, he mistook at first St. Augustine's meaning, from whence this charitable Interpreter suspects he never dealt any better with others; and after the sentence so impudently pronounced, relies upon this bare suspicion as a sufficient evidence.  
Then he proceeds to another game he plays very much at, called calumny, and charges the same Father first about God's knowing small things: but it is apparent out of the very citation that St. Hieroms intention is not of speculative knowledge, but particular providence, of which St. Paul said▪ nunquid Deo cura est de bobus? His second instance contradicts his former; For it is, that Saints are everywhere; which is spoken of their knowledge, not corporal presence: Christ, by whose company, they are pretended to be everywhere, being so by his sight and knowledge, not by his presence corporally: Which this Friend saw was contrary to the former, yet would not make use of it to reconcile, but aggravate the errors. Thirdly he accuses him to say, that the Souls of the blessed Saints and Angels are subject to sin: but citys not a syllable, except for Angels, which so expressed, is an undeniable truth, being no more than that Angels by envy, became devils.  
But his irreconcilable quarrel is against marriage and what St. Hierom writes of Lady's respects to their families: that they did not marry the second time, he interprets as intended against marriage itself. I confess, as concerning the act of marriage or appetite to it, he says more what is true, then perhaps what is convenient to be spoken before Persons that should not be dehorted from a thing so necessary in divers cases, wherein the temperance, not use is honourable. He goes on and now charges this old severe Father with a scandalous doctrine indeed, an intolerable heresy, wherein all true reformed stomaches are fundamentally concerned; for he accuses him to say in express terms that eating of flesh (a most wholesome custom) was abolished by Jesus Christ; but, citing neither words nor place, and afterward drawing it in by a falls consequence, makes me suspect it is an arrant forgery. Again he accuses him of saying oaths were unlawful: but in truth the words of the very Scripture are harder, than St. Hieroms. The next error is, that he thought the validity of consecration depended on the sanctity of the Priest: but his words are so common they easily receive explication. Again, he is offended with him for denying faintly, that the blessed eat in Heaven.  
Lastly, he accuses him of abusing St. Paul; and first of contradicting him about the inscription of the Athenian Altar: because he says there was more in the inscription, than the Apostle mentioned; Secondly that he said, he understood more than he could explicate. Thirdly that to the Galathians he spoke ordinary discourses, because they were not capable of higher. Of these three the first had no harm in it, since all the Evangelists do not cite the whole title of our saviour's Cross, the two latter Dignify a great commendation of St. Paul among wise men and such as understand there is any other learning besides well speaking.  
I must not pass without one word of Ruffinus too: because our Reformers account of so fundamental a passage of his, in the interpretation of the Canons of the Council of Nice touching the Pope's authority: And this great Patron of theirs calls, him an arrant wooden Statue; A pitiful thing; One that had scarce any reaon in what he said, and yet much less dexterity in defending himself. Must not then what is grounded upon his property and excellency of language, be a perfect foundation for a point of faith? By these you may guests how he has dealt with others, which were too long to examine.  
Approaching to the end of his Chapter, he specify's some errors unanimously held by a just number of the Fathers. First, that of the Chiliasts; an objection already answered in the former part of this discourse. The second is, the reservation of souls from heaven till the day of judgement; which is refuted in a little Treatise entitled, De medio animarum statu: The third concerns rebaptisation of Heteticks; which also is cleared above: only I cannot forget how he would insinuate that St. Basil held it, after the decision of the Council of Nice; but his mincing the matter, by saying in a manner, shows it is only a largess of his good will, and not any evidence he brings. Next he urges fiercly a point of Chronology; and then, the Angels having bodies; and after that, the Angels falling in love with women: three points not very material. Then again, he repeats the necessity of the Eucharist to Infants; but brings in rather testimonies of the practice, which is not in question, then of the necessity, which is: And lastly, that all the Greek Fathers and a great part of the Latins held God's foresight of men's good and bad works to be the cause of predestination; but his authority depending only on modern Writers saying so, whose diligence in examining their meanings is not known, it might as wisely have been omitted.  
In this next Chapter, he intends to prove that some Fathers have strongly maintained, against others, some opinions in matters of very great importance; which is but one half of what follows from, or rather is directly contained in, the conclusion of the former Chapter, and therefore, not denied by us nor useful to him: which was the cause why he would not there add (though the place were very proper) that they defended such opinions against the whole current of others, and of the Church. But to make a seeming new argument, he left out this, and expressed himself generally, like a true deceiver, that some defended against others: and to give his discourse the better relish, he gins his antipast with calumniating Bessarion, making him say that the father's opinions never clash one against another, touching the points of our Religion (for a Person so learned could not be ignorant, that some error might be found in a Father against the common consent of the rest:) But, his meaning was, that not so many could descent, as were able to make a party against the general agreeing judgement of the rest; neither does our Informer seek to prove the contrary.  
In his first instance, if he had put in, that Justin, Irenaeus and Tertullian had held the Millenary Heresy, against the communality of Christians of their Age, he had ruined his own proof; which, nevertheless he might have done out of Justinus, (as is declared) and indeed was obliged to do, if he intended to proceed pertinently. But what should I pain myself in a question not controverted? Only I cannot omit a subtlety he uses against St. Cyril and Theodoret. St. Cyril had said, The Holy Ghost was proper to the Son. Theodoret distinguishes his words, saying, if he means by proper proceeding as well as the Son, or, of the same nature, so he allows the saying: but, if he means that he proceeded from or by the Son only (both which terms were then in use; for this and nothing else can be signified by proper added to from or by) than he condemned St. Cyrils' doctrine. Now our sly Interpreter would make Theodoret condemn this saying, that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son.  
His last reason is one that makes all the rest impertinent; and shows they were dilated only to vilify the Saints and the Church, whose Crown they are, and the Founder of the Church, who glorified himself in Them and Her: 'Tis, that the Church of Rome and Protestants agree in the position he seemed to labour at so hard; what need or occasion had he then to rave into the Fathers about a point wherein there is not the least difference among us?  
Next, he excepts at our Controvertists, for alleging the Fathers against them; since we know they receive not the Fathers. I answer, there is by nature planted in all honest dispositions, such a respect to their Ancestors; that, though the malicious part of their congregation, and this Sophister in chief, cry down Antiquity, as loud as they can, yet shall they never be able wholly to root out of the hearts and consciences of the generality of Christians, that esteem and reverence which they naturally bear in their Breasts towards the Fathers of Christianity; So that our Controvertists cite writings of those ancient and holy Doctors, not in reference to the ensoured and barbarous party of heretics; but for their sakes, who yet retain some spirits of goodness and Christian humanity in them.  
Then he brings divers say of Moderns to prove the Authorities of Fathers are not irresistible, especially in the interpretation of Scripture; among which one something insolent. Afterwards, he reckons the varieties betwixt the ancient and present Church; some in Ceremonies, some in discipline, and some, as he pretends, in Belief: these later we have touched before; the two former, for the most part, we make no difficulty to acknowledge, since the prudential disposure of such discretionary points falls clearly within the verge of the church's jurisdiction.  
But here I particularly invite the Ey of the serious Reader, to observe how maliciously he corrupts the Council of Trent, in two very considerable passages: one, where he says, It anathematizes whoever shall deny that Bishops are a higher Order than Priests: whereas in the Latin (which himself has the boldness to cite truly in the Margin) there's no such word to be found as Order; but only that Bishops are superiores Presbyteris, a phrase implying no necessiy at all of their being several Orders; though in that word consists the whole emphasis of his falls imputation.  
His other abuse is yet more gross and palpable, concerning our Ladies immaculate Conception; for the Council expressly declaring their intention was not to meddle with the Question, he says 'tis impossible so to expound their words that they shall in plain terms give the lie to all the Fathers: and to render this foul play the more plausible among such as look not well to his fingers, he translates in hoc decreto falsely and perversely in this number, as if the Council had positively decreed the Blessed Virgin not to be in the number of those who are born in original sin; when their very words directly tell him they on purpose resolved to prescind from her particular Case, and not determine any thing concerning It in that Decree. Certainly, had this man either face or conscience, an ordinary malice could never have engaged him into such a desperate absurdity, so notorious, that its practice cannot be unknown even to him, though he shut his Eyes against the light; since all disputers upon this point unanimously agree, that the Council intended wholly to abstract from the question, and leave both sides probable: nevertheless this shameless forehead dares, in such broad and unmannerly language, not only slander a grave and venerable Council, but outface the whole Catholic world. What trust can be given to so bold a juggler in matters either of less moment or less evidence; when in a Case so important, as the Decree of a Council, and so palpably manifest, that all that can read may easily discover the cheat, yet he blushes not to venture on't? can any thing be answered in his defence, or any excuse made, why he should not be accounted an impudent lying knave?   

THE NINTH SURVEY. In answer to two Questions, in his last Chapter; One, the father's being rejected, to what judge we ought to recur: The other, what use is to be made of the Fathers?  
ALl this while our new Edifyer of the reformed Temple has used only his Sword-hand to keep off those dangerous enemies the Fathers; now he gins to manage his trowel, and bedaub the face of antiquity with a little fine mortar: Let's see at lest what work he makes; though we have small reason to expect any good building from him that is not able so much as to pull down.  
Thus, then, workmanlike, he enters upon his task; demanding of himself this question, the father's being rejected, where shall we now lay our foundation? to what Rule or Judge must we have recourse? He answers, To the Scripture; and if in any one place it seem obscure, we must then seek out another to clear it. Which first supposes, that for all points necessary, there are some evident and clearing Texts: But I must ask, on what Authority he believes this? doth the Scripture declare it so plainly, that there's no debate about it? He knows the whole Catholic Church denys any such self-evident alsufficiency in Scripture. Did they, who delivered him and his Brethren the Bible, recommend it to them under this qualification? No: for his party went out of the Catholic Church, and received the Scriptures from none but Her, who never taught them any such lesson. Perhaps you'll say, all other Christians testified the verity of that book, and so upon their credit you are the more induced to accept it. But those Christians are such as your selus generally condemn: such as have been cast out, for taking this very proposition, to justify their rebellion against Her, whom you acknowledge, then, to have been the true Owner and mistress of Christ's doctrine. Besides, any one that has but half an ay may see, no Scripture-disputation with heretics was ever finished, without new replies; but the Church has always been forced at last to condemn them, upon the score of Tradition. Thus you borrowed this desperate device, from those who in all ages were thrust out of the same Church, for holding the very same principles.  
But suppose there were some clear Texts in our Controversies (as we think there are in disfavour of you;) may they not be rendered obscure by other places objected against them; which we pretend you endeavour to do. If so, your remedy is worse than the evil; and the comparing of divers places is the very cause that makes all balanceable, indifferent and obscure. Are we not now reduced to a hopeful condition of living hereafter in a perpetual and unavoidable unity of Religion: especially since an hundred year's experience sadly demonstrates what we say to be true?  
Besides, why does not this good Orator spend some time to show us, that his Arguments have not as much force against Scripture, as against the Fathers? I confess, he has hinted it sometimes; like one that saw the objection so obvious, it could not be forgotten: yet was unwilling to wade the Ford, for fear he should find it too deep. To supply therefore his omission, I shall observe one considerable difference betwixt the Scripture and Fathers, as far as concerns these objections. Which consists in this, that the father's works are many and copious; The Scriptures bulk every Maid can tell that carries her mistress' Book to Church. Whence it follows, that, as in a great Ocean there may be many Shelus and Rocks, and Whirlpools, and whatever else is frightful to Sea men, and yet nevertheless a fair and large passage remain, either not at all endamaged by these perilous adventures, or only so, that they are easily avoided by a careful Pilot: whereas in a narrow Channel or Frith, if we meet but half the number, there will be no sailing without manifest danger; So I conceive between the Fathers and the Scripture. Every exception this Caviller alleges (or at least prous) may be true of their works, and yet more than sufficient left to convince heretics: but if Scripture be half as much disabled, it will utterly lose its Protestant, pretended power of deciding controversies.  
A truth I believe Rushworth has abundantly demonstrated. For the variae lectiones are so many that they trench upon every line; the several Translations give some little difference to every sentence; the many Explications leave nothing untouched; the Comparisons of one place to another may be more than there are words in the Text; the places brought by one side and the other, so short that Equivocation has force upon every one; the Languages in which they are written either Hebrew, whose titles breed a difference; or Greek written by strangers and full of Improprieties; the Method and style, the many repetitions and occasionary discourses speak plainly the design of the Apostles far different from intending their writings should contain a full body of Religion, much less to be the sole judge to determine all contentions about faith.  
Yes will he say, but there are more objections against the Fathers then against the Scripture. As that the writings of the Fathers for the first three Ages are few; I confess it: but yet dare affirm, there is more of them then the whole Scripture makes. That the Fathers treat of matters different from our controversies; This is true, but so do the Scriptures. That there are supposititious works of the Fathers: heretics pretend the same against our Scriptures. That the Fathers speak according to others minds; But the like is found in Scripture. And so going on, it will easily appear, the same objections or equivalent, might have been made against Scripture, if Mr. Rushworth had thought them worthy the labour of setting down.  
Now, when these Books are put into a Vulgar language (as is necessary to them, who pretend every one should be judge of their belief out of Scripture, by being first Judge of the sense of it, that is, of what is Scripture, for the dead letter is nothing to the purpose) can it be less than madness, to think of demonstrating a controverted position out of one or two places of Scripture? And yet (as I have before noted) this Patron of Presbytery assures us, that we ought to believe nothing in point of Religion, but what we know to be certainly true; which is evident, in his way, to be nothing at all.  
At last his own good nature has persuaded him to propose one profitable question, What use is to be made of Fathers for deciding Controversies? And his first resolution is (in the design of his Book, conformable to the forelaid grounds) that we ought to read them carefully and heedfully searching their Writings for their opinions, and not for our own. A wonderful wise conclusion; especially considering, he says, the Reader must endeavour diligently to peruse them all. For my part, I should advise my friend rather to take his rest and sleep, then spend so much pains and time to search out what others have written; which, when I have found, little imported what 'twas, or whether I knew it or no: this being the idlest and unworthiest sort of study, to know what such or such books say, without any farther end. Yet generally this is the great learning these Grammatical Divines glory in, not that they are better, even at this, than their Adversaries, but because they have no other: As if they had forgotten there were any solid knowledge to be sought after; but, being blown like a thin empty glass into the windy substance of words, hang in the air, not having weight enough to settle upon firm ground.  
At least to maintain, the Fathers are not altogether vain and useless, he will teach us to argue negatively out of their writings; as that such a position is not found in the Fathers, Ergo not necessary to be believed: and by this to reduce our Faith to that number of Articles, which they unanimonsly deliver. But he has forgot his own arguments: for since we have so few of their works, how can we tell the greater part did not teach somewhat necessary to be believed, which these have omitted? since corruption entered into the Church immediately after the Apostles decease; why may not some considerable point be strangled in its infancy? since the Fathers are so hard to be understood; why may there not be many doctrines of importance, which we find not for want of quickness of sight to discover them? and since they oppose one another in so many things, why may not, at least some one of these be a fundamental Article of Faith?  
I cannot give over this discourse concerning the testimony of the Fathers, without first observing a notorious cheat of our Adversary's, and too great an easiness in our own party: which once discovered and perfectly understood, makes our cause so evident, that in my opinion there will be left no possibility of disputing about Antiquity. The business is this, whereas their breach from the old Religion is so apparent and visible, there's not the least colour to doubt it; we let our selus by their cunning be drawn into dark and petty questions: and so lose the face of Antiquity, by disputing of some nice point. As for example; when the Presbyterian has ruined the whole fabric of the ancient Church by taking away Episcopal Authority; instead of questioning them for so palpable an innovation, we unwarily suffer our selus to be engaged into the discussion of this partieular quaere; Whether Bishops be de jure divino? which cannot be determined by the vast body of Antiquity (as the right and proper question may, to wit, what is the true government of the Church?) but by minute canvasing of private Texts, which is a far more difficult and altogether unnecessary method.  
Just so it happens in almost all controversies. For no doubt but Decision of matters of Faith was anciently performed in Councils, if the scandal grew so high as to force such general meetings: These, heretics absolutely renounce, preferring their private conceits before the judgement of all the Bishops in the world; and then, if you press them with the palpable absurdity of so insolent and destructive a tenet, they presently cast a figure, and, instead of handling the plain duty of obedience to the supreme Ecclesiastical Authority, transform the question into a mere speculative subtlety as, Wherein consists the infallibility of Councils? For the Mass, our Reformers take it quite away, everywhere breaking down the Altars and abolishing the whole Glory of God's service, which is unquestionably ancient; so many liturgies to this day, and the general practice of the Church still continuing: This done, they will dispute of the antiquity of the word Missa or Transubstantiatio. For the Pope's authority, they at one stroke cut a pieces the ligue and common bond of Christianity in the unity of one head, and force us to wrangle, either about his infallibility, or whether his power of Appeals be from Church-Laws or Christ's commands; and the like. They blot out the memories of Martyrs both in their solemn Feasts and Tombs: things undisputable in the glorious flourishing of the Church: and quarrel about what honour is due to their Lives, relics and Pictures. They disclaim the public practice of praying for the dead, everywhere frequented, they deny the universal profession of Purgatory, in all ages avowed, and then turn their exception upon How and When our prayers obtain their effect. They pull down Monasteries and nunneries, and abandon the extraordinary and exemplary way of holy life, which no impudence can deny to have been practised all the time the Church itself has been public; and then dispute, whether St. John Baptist or the Esseni were Religious men or no, or when Vows came first in.  
Hypocrites! if you reverence Antiquity, restore the face of Antiquity. If you truly honour Jesus Christ and his Saints, and virtuous life, and any thing but an Ear-itch to be clawed by the phrase of Scripture, embrace what has been Christian life from the beginning. If not, fill up the measure of your first Reformers till the judgements of God overtake you and make you pay the whole reckoning, for theirs and your own dissembling.  
I fear I have already wearied the patience of my Reader, I am sure I have long since quite tired my own: being unwillingly drawn by the many turns and wind of the subtle Fox I pursue, far beyond the course intended at the beginning. To conclude then at last: I doubt not but he, who has not perused Mr. Daille's Book, will nevertheless, out of what I say, see plainly those Noble Lords, whose eulogies are posted before it, had great reason highly to esteem him. For truly his nimble Wit, his exact Method, his polite Style, his interlarding all with poignant and bitter Jeers, his knowledge in Greek, his cunning in topics (of all which those eminent Wits were perfect Judges, being qualities themselves were excellently endowed with) could not choose but draw extraordinary praises from those eloquent Pens; whose Masters had not the leisure, by tedious turning over Books and deep reflections upon the occasion of the cited places, to ponder the weight of the proofs, or see thorough the malice of the Project, which was of no less perni●lous consequence, then to slander and disparage the most glorious Persons of the World; to blast the credit of all true virtue and Honour, in their chief supports: to disable the sole Mistress of good life here; and so, wholly to obstruct the only way to eternal happiness hereafter.  
FINIS.