Brief Account of One Suggestion of the Romanist, Chapter 3 · Section 4
SECT. IV.
A view of the great Demonstration for the Infalliblenesse of Oral Tradition, first in Mr. Whites, then in S. W's words. What the chief medium. Reduction of the diffused demonstration to a Syllogisme. The weaker proposition of it unproved, taken for a principle by Mr. White, and so by S. W. The falsenesse of it discovered in a first view, as the Church signifies the Church of Rome of the present age. The fallacy of notum per ignotius. His principle denyed by the Romanist. Certainty not of such truth as may enter a demonstration. No such maxim declared. Not alwayes held. Mr. Whites confession at another time. Other Romanists. Pope Clements method of deciding Controversies. Mr. Whites answer considered. The method of the last Pope, and so of this present age. An argument borrowed from Mr. White, Appeal to the Mothers and Catechists, and to Mr. Whites words elsewhere. A second view of the proposition. What 'tis to go on this Maxim. Bare professions. A third view. Difference between delivering as an Opinion, and as a Doctrine of Faith. Mr. Whites defence of Bishop Fishers Doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences. The Greeks opinion of Purgatory in and after the Councel of Florence. Mr. Whites Maxim refuted by that Bishops words. The opinion of the secret Receptacles, among the Ancients, and Pope John 22. unreconcileable with Purgatories being of Ʋniversal Tradition. (Mr. Whites repugnant answers) So Transsubstantiations not being of faith before the Councel of Constance. Theodoret, Scotus, Tunstall, Vasquez. The Cup denyed the Laity. Circumgestation. The unhappinesse of S. W's Demonstration.
1. LEt us therefore now solemnly view those circumstances, which promise, and insure truth to every proposition, which the Romanist Mothers teach their children, and of which is made up that Grand Demonstration, the very Quintessence of Rushworths Dialogues, in which the whole weight of the one self-evident principle, Oral Tradition, the one innerrable rule of faith (the Pope himself being by Mr. White solemnly discarded from his Infallibility, to make room for it) is summed up. And that we lose no least joynt of this controlling, irresistible machine, I shall first set it down in the words of the great artificer himself,*First Encounter, p. 8. the Apologist.
2. The proof, saith he, consists in this, since 'tis confessed the Catholike 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 (viz. th…t no error was ever, or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of Faith) should assigne some age, when they conceive an error crept in, and the maintainers should prove it entred 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 alwayes 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 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, then she willfully belyed her self, and conspired to damn all her posterity, voluntarily taking up this new rule of Faith, and commanding it to be accepted by all the world, as the necessary Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, descended upon the present age by Ʋniversal Tradition from their Ancestors, and for such to be delivered to their children, and all this against the expresse evidence of her own conscience. Thus farre reaches the argument.
3. Now if upon reading, and reading again this confounding argument, and upon an undoubted understanding of every word, and portion of period in it, the Reader do not yet readily discern the immediatenesse of connexion, and so convincingnesse of it, but be ready to ask some innocent quaestion, whether the conclusion be inferred by one, or more Syllogismes, or if by one, in what mode and figure it concludes, or if in more, which is the principal, and commanding medium, and the like, all the relief I can help him to, is to repeat it again in another (i. e. S. W's) mode, and then to hope that (as elsewhere he saith of the Oral repetitions of the same sense in variety of words) this will be so sure a means to plant the inward force of it in his minde, that he cannot choose but discern the demonstrativenesse of it. Hear then the Oracle more vocal and articulate, as he is ecchoed by his foreign. Thus he delivers himself.
4. If it be impossible that all the now fathers of Families in the Catholike Church, dispers'd in so many Nations, should conspire to tell this palpable lie to their children, that twenty years agoe such a thing (visible and practical, as all points of faith are) was held in that Church, if no such thing had been, and that consequently the same impossibility holds in each twenty years upwards till the Apostles, by the same reason, by which it holds in the last twenty, then it follows evidently that what was told us to have been held twenty years agoe, was held ever, in case the Church held nothing but upon this ground, that so she received or had been taught by the immediately foregoing faithfull. For as long as she praetends only to this ground, the difficulty is aequal in each twenty years, i. e. there is an aequal impossibility they should conspire to this palpable lie. Now that they ever held to this ground (i. e. to the having received it from their Ancestors) is manifested by as great an evidence, For since they now hold this ground, if at any time they had taken it up, they must either have counterfeited that they had received it from their Ancestors, or no, The former relapses into the abovesaid impossibility, or rather greater, that they should conspire to tell a lie in the only ground of their faith, and yet hold (as they did) their faith built on that ground to be truth: the latter position must discredit it self in the very terms, which imply a perfect contradiction, for it is as much as to say, nothing is to be held as certainty of faith, but what hath descended to us from our Fore-fathers, and yet the only rule which tells us certainly there is any thing of faith, is newly invented. And thus farre the argument also in S. W's elucidation of it.
5. And here I seriously desire the Reader, as he doth value his own interests (which he is by S. W. so oft assured, do depend upon the opening his heart to the force of this demonstration) and upon pain, that if he comprehend it not in one of these draughts, he must, to compasse it, be fain to surveigh all Rushworths Dialogues, to sit down, and ponderingly revolve either, or both of these Schemes so long, till he be able to assign and determine, which is the Master-medium in this discourse, which hath the chief efficacy in it, to inferre the conclusion, which is agreed between us to be this [that no error was ever or can be embraced by the Church (I must interpose, of Rome:) in quality of a matter of Faith] And if then he finde difficulty in the resolution, he must either professe that he is more dull, than a Sceptick is irresolute, or never heed this Epitomist of those Dialogues more, which referres him thither for as ample satisfaction as Scepticisme can desire, and yet transcribes not so much from so rich a treasury, as may give him the least satisfaction.
6. When the Reader hath a little tired himself in a labyrinth of some perplexednesse, perhaps he will be content to be directed to a clue, and it will be this one advise, not to penetrate too deep, when all that is to be had, flotes on the surface, obvious, and discernible at first sight, in these two propositions. 1. That the Church of Rome hath one Maxim on which it goes, not to teach any thing de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately praeceding, 2. That they which goe by that Maxim, cannot possibly erre in matter of Faith. From conjunction of which, this Syllogisme is regularly constituted,
That Church which goes on this Maxim of not teaching any thing, de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately praeceding, cannot possibly erre in matters of Faith;
But the Church of Rome goes on this Maxim, not to teach any thing, de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately praeceding.
Therefore that Church cannot possibly erre in matters of faith.
Into this one Syllogisme all the force of this commanding engine is contracted, and there being two parts of it, a stronger and a weaker, I shall not yet say, a true, and a false, but one which certainly wants more confirming than the other, it is observable that all the aids which are tendred, or brought in, are strangely partial, come only in favour of the stronger part, the weaker Phalanx having no creature to back it, no reserve to inforce the first impression, but lying at the mercy of the enemy, who if he shall have but courage enough to stand the first onset, and deny the Minor proposition, the unwary Syllogisme is utterly routed, on the fortune of which depends this so (admired, were a poor word, unable to expresse the least part of S. W's kindnesse to it) adored, stupendious demonstration.
7. This is so strange an infirmity, and so little to have been expected from a severe discourser, that I shall not expect to have it believed on my word, till the Readers own eyes accompany me through the Camp, either as Mr. White or as S. W. hath pitched it, and by their own discoveries ascertain them of the truth of it. The weaker part I take to be the Minor, in these words, The Church of Rome goes on this Maxim not to teach any thing de fide, which hath not been delivered or taught by the age immediately praeceding. And in the first words of Mr. Whites description of this argument, this is taken for a thing granted. Since, saith he, 'tis confessed the Catholike Church (or, as after, his style is, the Romane Church) goes on this Maxim, that her Doctrine is received from Christ, and still handed along to the present generation] Here sure 'tis evident, that the truth of the minor is taken as confess'd, and then I am not to have so mean an opinion of the demonstrators skill, that he will impertinently attempt to prove, what he takes for confess'd. And indeed herein he hath observed the rules of his art, he hath not added a word toward the proof of it, but on the contrary, makes use of that, as of a principle for the proving of every thing else, that can be doubted of. So it followes in the next words, They who cavil at this assertion [viz. that no error was ever or can be embraced by the Church in quality of a matter of faith] should assigne some age when they conceive an error crept in, and the maintainer, i. e. the Apologist himself, should prove it entred 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.] Here 'tis evident their holding this Maxim, is the only proof of his grand conclusion, or assertion, and no farther proof is tendred of that; So again in these words, [Lest some might reply, though the present Roman Church stands now upon the proposed Maxim, yet antiently it did not,]—Here the objecter, replyer, adversary, that is foreseen to question the ancient Churches holding this Maxim, is yet still praesumed to acknowledge it without all question, that the present Roman Church stands now upon this Maxim. Once more, in these words [The argument may be thus reiterated, If this principle which now governs the Church, had not alwayes done so—] Here it is again praesumed, that this principle now gov…rns the Church, and from thence to the end of the argument not a syllable toward the proving of it, but all along a taking it for granted, that the Church goes on this Maxim, as on the only undoubted, and self evident principle.
8. So in S. W's Scheme, though it be not so crudely affirmed to be confess'd, that they goe on this Maxim, yet it is visibly supposed, or taken for granted that they doe, in these words, [For as long as she pretends only to this ground, viz. that so she received or had been taught by the immediately foregoing faithfull—] and For since they now hold this ground—] and again, It is as much as to say nothing is to be held for certainty of Faith, but what hath descended to us from our fore-fathers—] still supposing them to hold to that Maxim, to say (as that which they adhaere to) that nothing is to be held, but what thus de…cendeth.
9. Here then will be the speedy end of this controversie, if without any sollicitous search, or nicer examination of the major proposition, we betake our selves wholly to the beholding of his Minor, and examine what could induce him to assume that as a confess'd or yielded principle, which when it is explained, will be found to have very little appearance of truth, certainly nothing of self-evidence in it.
10. All then that is now farther incumbent on us, is by a view, or two, thus to explain, and to secure the Reader of the right understanding of the proposition, there being some phrases a little ambiguous in it, which must be cleared, before it will have any determinate sense in it, whether true or false. As 1. what is meant by the Church of Rome, or, as he styles it, the Catholike Church, Is it the Church of this age, or no? To this he yields me expresse answer, that he means the Church of this age.
11. Here then, ere we advance any farther, it is observable, that he thinks it incumbent on him to prove that other ages of the Church have held this Maxim, and accordingly attempts to inferre it by this medium, the praesent Churches holding it, and yet never thinks fit to tender us any the slightest security, that the praesent Church it self doth hold it, when yet he cannot but guesse, that we are more inclinable to believe it of many former, than of these latter, or this one present age of the Roman Church; and it being not a principle either of natural or Christian Theology, that this age holds it, more than all or any other ages (when yet that all others held it, was not deemed such a principle, and therefore he attempted to prove it) this sure is no method of severe demonstration, but a down right begging the principle, and a proving ignotum per ignotius, that which lesse needs, by that which most needs his arguments to secure the truth of it, and so as mean a piece of Sophistry, as could well have appeared in so venerable a dresse.
12. For 1. that which he praetends to be confess'd, is of all things most constantly, and confess'dly denyed by us; yea and by the soberest of their own Writers; for when*Consult. Art. 7. Cassander makes no scruple to affirm that the present Church non parum in doctrinae sinceritate ab antiquâ, unde orta illa est et derivata, dissidet, doth not a little differ from the ancient, whence it is derived, in sincerity of Doctrine, and again that a veteri Ecclesia deflexit, it hath deflected from the ancient Church, and particularly of the Popes, that they have advanced their authority ultra fines beyond the bounds praescribed by Christ and the Church, no doubt can be made of his denying that the Church of that his age went by this Maxim; And then if this age goes by it, it must, (contrary to S. W's reasoning) take it up anew. 2. If it were indeed confess'd by his adversary, nay more than so, if it were de facto really true, yet if it be but contingently true, i. e. such as might have been otherwise, (as it needs must, if it depend on others wills, as their confessing doth) 'tis not then necessary, and consequently can be no ingredient in a demonstration, which must consist of none but necessaries; what is but contingently true, is but probable, and Mr. White hath taught him what to think of a thousand (and that is somewhat above one) but probable mediums.
13. But then thirdly, if I shall not take the advantage of either of these frailties (which yet are questionlesse the ruine of his whole fabrick) but leave him to repair the present defect by future diligence, and prove hereafter, what yet he hath not attempted to prove, I discern not that he is capable of receiving any the least benefit by this compliance; for although I need not undertake to maintain the negative, in matter of fact (so undiscernible, as it must needs be, what maxims their present Church holds at this time, when 'tis not agreed among themselves, to whom the infallible pronouncing belongs, some being as earnest for the person of the Pope, as Mr. White in his Tab. Suffrag. is against him) yet neither can he with any reason pretend to maintain the affirmative, unlesse either he set up for auguries, undertake to interpret mens mindes without their words, or be able to produce some declaration made by his Church in this matter, which whether it be possible or no to be made, I need not define, when 'tis certain they have not lately so much as met in a Councel to make it.
14. Nay fourthly, to give him over measure, if I may heed the reasonings of S. W. I shall not want motives to resolve the plain negative, that this is not the maxim of their Church at this day. One of his reasonings is from their supposed holding it now, to inferre their holding it ever; which if it be demonstrative, it must then follow in the converse, that if they held it not ever, they do not hold it now; But that they held it not ever, seems apparent to me, by that age, when not only Liberius the Pope, but in a manner their whole Church, and the totus Orbis whole world were become of the Emperors Religion, i. e. haeretical or Arrian, and yet as the age foregoing that, so again the age following under an Orthodox Emperor and Pope was Orthodox, which it could not be, if it proceeded by this maxim, of holding nothing as of faith, but what was delivered to them by the immediate foregoing.
15. The same I shall again prove by my wordish way of Testimonies, from the Apologists own pen (when 'tis his, I hope 'twill be as important as his words) in Dailles arts Discov. p. 224. Every one knowes, saith he, that subsequent Councels have alwayes been so farre from thinking it unlawfull to adde unto the former, that such additions are the very businesse and end of their assembling. These are his expresse words, and by him applyed to the modern points of Controversie, and rendring an account of how little importance Mr. Dailles objection was, that they are not resolved in former Creeds and Councels, for every one knowes, saith he, &c. which if it have truth in it, then subsequent have added to former ages, and that they cannot be imagined to doe, while they stand to this Maxim of believing nothing, but what they received from the former.
16. The same is as evident again by the frequent professions, of Romanist Writers, not only those, that tell us distinctly, when such or such a point became a doctrine of faith, as Scotus, Ante Lateranense Concilium Transsubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei, Before the Lateran Concel that manner of the real praesence in the Sacrament which is called Transsubstantiation, was not a doctrine of Faith, but also those many others, who when the sayings of any of their ancients are brought against them, reply, that this was before the contrary truth was defined, the result of which is, that those things which were not formerly held, were after, somewhat more than barely held, viz. defined.
17. And it may be remembred what answer Mr. White once gave to one argument in this point. The argument was this, A great controversie being risen between the Dominicans and the Jesuites, it was heard before Pope Clement; that Pope in a time, wherein he was more opposed than usually, had reason consequently to be more cautious, than to choose a new way, by which truth was not wont to be found out by the Romanists, on like occasions, and therefore the course he took may passe in reason (for more than an instance, or single example) for a proof of his opinion and judgement at least, what that Churches course was in such decisions. And yet his course was not that of this present maxim, to inquire what the age immediately foregoing said of the point in Controversie, and determining according to that, but he appointed both sides to prove which of them followed St. Austine, intending according to that to give sentence, if he had not been praevailed with to the contrary. Now when Mr. White comes to consider this argument, his dealing is a little remarkable, his words are these,*Apol. p. 59. In Clement the eighths action the main point is to consider on what grounds he sought to establish the definition he went about to make. And, upon the immediate step, we both joyntly stand, to wit, that it was to finde out, whether parties opinion was conformable to St. Austin. But if I mistake not, my adversaries make not the same apprehension of it that I doe, 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 Quaestion of grace, whence it followes that the Doctrine of St. Austin was the Doctrine of all those Catholike Writers, by whose demonstrations and authority the Pelagians were condemned, i. e. it was the faith of the Church in that age, and consequently which the Church continued ever after.]
18. Here 1. it is evident, that the only thing, whereon the weight of the argument lay, [viz. that the Pope determined to define according not to his immediate ancestors, but St. Austines Doctrine] is wholly laid aside by the Apologist, and not a word of answer given to it, but a diversion made to another thing which was no part of the argument, 2. That for the ages between St. Austin and that Pope, there is no word said, much lesse of the age immediately foregoing the age of that Pope, save in the last words [it was the faith of the Church in St. Austins age, and consequently which the Church continued ever after.] Where by a strange Logicke, the Churches holding it ever after, is proved by that ages holding it, in which St. Austine lived, as if I should say, the Arrians Doctrine was the faith of the Church in Constantius's age, therefore it hath been so ever since, or to keep close to the instance of St. Augustine, that holy Father defined the cruciating of Infants in hell fire, who died without Baptisme, and his Doctrine, if we believe Mr White, was the Doctrine of that age, therefore it hath been the Doctrine of all succeeding ages; which beside the evident falsenesse of the Conclusion, is moreover a Regressus, and Circle both, in that learned Gentlemans Logick, one while proving it the faith of former ages, because it is the faith of the present age, and now that it is the faith of the Church ever after, and so at present, because it was the faith in St. Austines, 1200. years agoe. 3. It may be observed also that he saith the Pelagians in St. Austines time were condemned by the demonstrations and authority of the Catholike Writers, whom he there mentions, and explains by [that is the Church in that age] which if it were true, then the definition in St. Austines time was made by the authourities of that age, and that is not of the praecedent age, of which the now praetended Maxim proceeds; Nay 4. he resolves expressely that Pope Clement had great reas…n to endeavour the decision of that quaestion by the authority of St. Austin, which was all that the argument desired, and so the conclusion stands good, that unlesse St. Austines age were the immediate foregoing age to Clement the eighth, the Maxim was not in force with that Clement, to judge by the immediate foregoing.
19. Lastly, this argument, it seems, had more force in it, than the single instance of Clement, one Pope, could give it; for,*Apol. p. 62. Mr. White himself tells us (is on another occasion I formerly shewed) that in the last Popes time when that quaestion was again debated, almost in every Congregation the sentence of St. Austin was judged to be against the Molinists,] by which one may guesse Mr. Whites own sense to be, that the definition ought to have bee… by that standard (how that will he interpreted by them that think the Pope soon after judged on the other side, I shall not foresee) and yet farther, that the Pope in the tenth Congregation taxed them, Quod Scholasticis maximè suis, non Scripturâ, Co…ciliis, Patribus uterentur, that they used the Schoolmen, especially their own, and not the Scripture, Councels, and Fathers) And if the School-men be they that lived in the age immediately foregoing, and if Fathers and Councels and Scriptures are somewhat ancienter, and if these did not agree in the same Doctrin (for if they did they might easily have reformed their Processe at the Popes check, and lost nothing by it) then sure it is not yet the Maxim of this age, or but last seven years (wherein this was done) to decide Controversies, or judge of Doctrines by what was delivered by the ages immediately foregoing (which is S. W's principle) but by Scriptures, Fathers, and Councels, which is the poor preaching Protestants method of probation.
20. One thing more I shall offer to consideration, from Mr. Whites Tabulae suffragiales, where as an asserter of the*Tab. 4. & 22. Churches Infallibility, founded in their proceeding according to this Maxim, he vehemently opposeth the†Tab. 1. expecting of any new Articles of Faith, and as a branch of that, the*Tab. 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. Infallibility of the Pope, the belief of which he resolves to be†Tab. 17.8. improbable, *Tab. 19.haeretical, †Tab. 20.Archihaeretical, and the*Tab. 21. propagating the opinion, a most grievous sin. From hence I suppose I may conclude, that this so improbable, haeretical, Archihaeretical, and most grievously sinfull opinion, was by him considered as opposite to, and unreconcileable with his own Doctrine of the Churches Infallibity, founded in their proceeding by his Maxim; And so most evidently it is opposite, for if the Pope can infallibly define, and so make any new article, then somewhat may be defined, and so taught in any one age of the Church, which had not been taught in the age immediately foregoing, which is the direct contradictory to this Maxim; Which being yielded to Mr. Whites arguments, 'tis yet most certain, that a very great and considerable part of the praesent Church of Rome, doe as earnestly maintain this power and Infallibility of the Pope, as Mr. White opposes it; How then can they be with truth affirmed, (or consequently their praesent Church, of whom these are so great and considerable and flourishing a part) to proceed on this maxim (so contrary to their own resolute opinion) of teaching nothing de fide but what the former age had taught them?
21. To conclude this point, I cannot, I suppose, put it to an issue more to the hearts desire of the demonstrators, than by appealing to his Oral Traditors themselves, whether the flattering Catholike Mothers, or the Catechists; And of them I demand what assurance S. W. hath, that this is one solemn part of their instruction, and familiar Colloquie with their tender Catechumeni, that they teach them nothing but what before their Fathers, or rather Mothers had taught them; that among the first elements of the acquisition of beatitude and maxims of piety, this really is one at least, if not the first and principal, that they teach them not a proposition, but what their Mothers taught them. If my adversaries will not stand to this appeal, the practice of the present Mothers and Catechists in this matter, what can they say in their defense, that by Oral Tradition professe to mean that of the Mothers flattering into their children the elements of happinesse, and would have it believed, and praesume it confess'd, that their Church doth now in their Oral Tradition goe upon this maxim; If they will stand to it, let them direct us to any competent means to discern 1. that any, 2. that not only some, but all Mothers did ever entertain this maxim (not contenting themselves with that other ground of faith, the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in Scripture) 2. that they have all thought it their duty thus (and not any other way) to teach and instill the faith into their children, 3. that they that neglect many other parts of their duty, are certain never to neglect that; I shall leave this profound pair of Tutor and Scholar to chew upon this a while, and discern how easie it will be for them to prove, and till that be some way attempted, how reasonable it is to suppose, and expect it will be granted, that all Catholike mothers thus teach their children, and, what ever else they omit, are sure not to omit this, viz not only to infuse into them every branch of the Roman Catholike faith, and infuse it intelligibly, and so as they cannot probably mistake it in any branch, but withall to every branch particularly to adde, and inculcate, that this they learn'd from their Mothers, and they from theirs (which sure is more than they can know) up to the Apostles. It may here deserve to be remembred, what Mr. White once thought true in his answer to my Lord Falkland, that not only the Clowns, P. 33.but good women (those sure are the Mothers) in Spain and Italie trouble not themselves to seek the ground of their faith] and if so, 'tis shrewdly to be suspected that they do not trouble their children with any account of it; And if indeed it be considered how very little is taught the people at all, and of that little, how much lesse than a little is any more than barely taught them, there will be little room for debate or doubt in this matter. And this may serve for a first view of the Proposition.
22. If we look on it a second time, it will not be amisse to demand, what is meant by going on this maxim] Is the meaning of it, that the Church professes to go by that maxim, or more than so, that it really goes on it, and never swerves from it? These two are very distant in themselves, and that difference must needs have a main influence on the conclusion, which is to be induced by this principle.
23. If he should mean that the Church of Rome doth and hath alwayes acted according to this principle, then he cannot imagine that this will be allowed to passe as a principle without any attempt of proof. 'Tis certain they that charge the Church of Rome with additionals, doe not believe or acknowledge that they have made no additions to the faith, but contend and specifie many particulars wherein they have innovated; And to answer them, that they do, and have alwayes acted according to that maxim, is to prove they have not innovated, because they have not innovated, and that is, I hope, the begging of the quaestion in the deepest tincture. And in this sense to say (as Mr. White doth) 'tis confess'd that their Church goes upon this maxim] would be the suggestion the farthest removed from all appearance of truth; It being visible we do not confesse it. It remains then, that the meaning be no more than this, that their Church professes to proceed on that maxim, which though it be not suggested with truth, as appeared in our first view, yet if it were the most demonstrative truth, it could have no more force in it, than a deceivers profession that he speaks nothing but truth, which being only his testimony of himself, and bringing no miracles to confirm it, is no advantage, but rather praejudice to him, and admonishes us, that they that professe so demurely to innovate nothing, do fear detecting, and endeavour to supply with professions what is wanting in performances. And this, it seems, is the utmost importance of the proposition, for so Mr. White delivers it, the maintainer shall prove the error entred 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. It held] denotes it their Tenet; Their Tenet, if it be not that, by which they really act, is no more than an unsincere profession, and every seducer in the world hath store of them, which passe for arguments with those which have no better. As in our English story he that could not confirm his new Revelations by miracles, endeavoured to do it by strong asseverations, and from thence proceeded to Oaths and execrations against himself, if it were not true which he delivered; And if either he or S. W. can hope this shall goe for demonstrating, [The Church of Rome professes to teach nothing but received truth, therefore it is infallible] he must have a very mean opinion of his Reader, who if he would believe all that is profess'd on that one evidence, because it is profess'd, had never needed his Rushworths Dialogues, to convince him to receive the Roman faith, for before the writing of those, he knew there were such Romanists, that did professe it.
24. Here then a second ambiguity being explicated, he hath leave to take which part of the explication he please, If he take the former, he must be at a new charge to prove that their Church never misses to act according to that maxim, for else I can assure him it shall never be granted upon his importunity; If he take the latter, he hath gained nothing by it, but that their professions and practice are at some distance, which is little for the reputation of them, for whom he thus pleadeth. A man would not think it possible, that so hopefull and promising a demonstration should so soon fall to this destitute state, by a little closer inspection; As it is, it yields us a lively instance, if we needed such, that every thing performs not, what it professes.
25. Let us proceed to a third and last view, and demand, what is meant by not teaching de fide what hath not been delivered or taught—] Is it to be understood of teaching nothing as an article of faith, which was not delivered or taught as an article of faith by the foregoing age? There is a very considerable difference between these two, delivering or teaching a thing as an opinion, and delivering or teaching the same as a doctrine of faith. And if by taught by the age immediately foregoing he mean only, taught as an opinion, then his maxim in plain terms is this, that no age of their Church defines any thing de fide, which was not before held as an opinion; And if that be it, then first he must own it as his confession, that his Church teaches what it hath not been taught by the foregoing age, for it teaches a thing de fide, or necessary to be believed, which the foregoing age taught not as such, 2. It concludes nothing to his advantage, but rather against him, viz. that propable opinions of their former Doctors are converted into matters of Faith by their latter. Thus 'tis evident, that all the Mothers, that instruct their children out of Bellarmins Catechisme, assure them*Christ. Doctr. p. 142. that the Blessed Virgin never had any spot of sinne neither original nor actual, which S. W. if he continue to be Mr. Whites Scholar, will not yield to have been any part of the Faith of the foregoing age. And then 'tis not a much larger step for a meer falsity to be help'd to a fair varnish, and converted into a probable opinion; And he knowes this is the progresse by which we affirm the Romish Additionals to have advanced from groundlesse into probable opinions, and from thence into definitions.
26. But if by taught] he mean taught as an article of faith; then to take this for confess'd, and needing no proof, which is of all things most denyed by us, what an intolerale begging of the quaestion is it?
27. This again were sufficient to evacuate his proposition, which praetends to no truth but from his adversaries largesse, and that will not alwayes be afforded him. But I shall adde a little more on this head, to justifie the reasonablenesse of our non-concession or down right denyall, and it shall be by a few instances; The first in the Doctrine of Purgatory, which is competently known to be not barely an opinion, but a Doctrine of Faith in the present Roman Church, meaning thereby, as it is visible they mean, not that of the conflagration at the day of Judgement, but the purgative pains of Souls, attending their departure out of the body, wherein those souls which shall one day come to heaven, are now detained. Yet of this we have evidence enough, that it hath not been thus delivered down to the praesent Church by the foregoing in this quality of a Doctrine or point of Faith; Instead of many, take the Testimony of†…h…on. l. 8. c. 26. Otho Frisingensis, who wrote above five hundred years since, Esse apud Inferos locum Purgatorium in quo salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt, That there is in the other world a Purgatory, in which they which shall be saved are either punished with darknesse only, or schorch'd with the fire of expiation is asserted by some. Which concludes it at that time but an opinion of some, and not any publike Doctrine, or article of Faith. What Mr. White himselfe hath thought in this quaestion, can be no secret, after the publishing his thoughts de medio animarum statu, where utterly denying any*Non-itaque locum uspiam tartareis oppletum ferculis cogitamus, quibus ab extrinseco tortore lanienam patiantur, Dim. 1. p 3. such Purgatory, as from the Schools is now vulgarly taught, and contenting himself with that of the†Quisquis admittit animas purgari in die judicii per flammas conflagrationis defendit Purgatorium in sensu sanctorum. Dim. VII. p. 26. conflagration at the day of judgement, he yet vindicates himself to be farre from departing from the faith of the ancient Church, adding also (how truly let others inquire) that the contrary is at this day but an opinion and not Doctrine of their Church. Which if it were true, it were a great partiality first, and yet withall a great severity, that when they have liberty to think as they please, we Protestants should be condemned for haereticks (if not for Schismaticks too) for not subscribing to this or the like articles, which in the same manner as this, are taught in the R…man Church. One advantage of weight this point hath above some other, th…t it hath an eminent practice dependent on it, that of Indulgences, as they have been of latter times used in their Church, and if one be not a Doctrine of Faith, 'twere strange that the other, being wholly founded in it, should be allowed so general and solemn a practice in their Church, (as for some time it had) that this author, being by his hypothesis kept from being*Si dicas esse praxim— et tamen non permittis …sse singulorum praxim, sad Ecclesia & Ʋniversalem, tardus accedo, Dim. 27. p. 120. willing to yield it the practice of the Church and Ʋniversal, yet freely confesses,†Si dicas passi… exerceri, si a multis, a plerisque, omnia fateor— Ibid. passim exerceri, that 'tis every where exercised. Accordingly the Doctrin it self, which he rejects, he yet owns as the vulgar opinion though not of the Church, yet of the Homines Ecclesiae, persons of which the Church hath consisted since the time of the Schools. The importance of this distinction of his may be worth observing, It is this, as farre I can deduce from what himself declares,Dim. 28. that what they believe or acknowledge as*Tot homines et persona. so many persons, not as so many believers, or parts of the Church, belongs not to the Faith, any more than an opinion in Philosophy or History, but what they believe as a Church or company of Believers, that belongs to them as to those that have accepted the Doctrine of Christ, and conserved it to this very day, which, saith he, can have no place in this opinion, which†Cum Ecclesia sit congregatio fidelium, hoc est credentium, hoc est eorum qui Christi doctrinam acceptaverunt, et usque in hodiernum diem conservaverunt. p. 126. 'tis clear that it began from the times of Gregory the Great, *Hanc autem sententiam clarum sit incepisse—Ibid.was not th…ught of in Austins time, and not very famous before the age of the School, and either not proposed, or rejected by the Eastern Church, and therefore whatsoever sort of perswasion may be praetended for it, in respect of the men of the Church, yet it hath no praetension to them, †In eos ut Ecclesia sunt, hoc est ut credentes, hoc est ut super perpetua traditione fundati, nullum praetextum habet. Ibid.as they are a Church, i. e. as believers, i. e. as founded upon perpetual Tradition. Thus he, and from thence I should hope it conclusible to others, aas well as to this particular, that whatsoever is in the present Roman Church most generally believed, if it be not founded in perpetual tradition, but appear to have a later beginning, or no Ʋniversal reception in other parts of the Church, shall not passe for a point of faith, And this will be a competent praejudice to the Oral way which saith S. W. from its being held now, concludes it was ever held.
28. But I shall lead the Reader to another view of this authors sense of this matter, when a year after the publishing the Tract de med. An. Statu, he comes, on another ingagement, to consider this point of Purgatory. In my Lord of Falklands *P. 109.Reply to an Answer of his to his Lordships discourse of Infallibility. the words of Bishop Fisher were produced, that there are many things of which there was no inquiry in the Primitive Church, which yet upon doubts arising are now become perspicuous by the diligence of after times. And his instance being of Purgatory and Indulgences is express'd in such words, as evidently shew (what that Lord observed) that he speaks not of matters of bare opinion, but of points of faith, No Orthodox man, †P. 496.saith that Bishop, doubts whether there be a Purgatory, of which yet among the ancients there is*Apud priscos nulla, vel quam …arissima fiebat mentio sed Gracis adhunc usque diem non creditur Purgatorium esse. R…ff. cont. artic. 19. Luth. no mention, or exceeding rarely, it is not believed by the Greeks to this day, neither did the Latines conceive this truth but by little and little, and again, Purgatory was a good while unknown, after, partly by Revelations, pa…tly by Scripture it came by little and little to be believed by some, and so at last the belief of it was generally received by the Catholike Churches. And for Indulgences, who, saith he, can wonder, that in the Primitive Church there was no use of them, which began after men had trembled a while at the torments of Purgatory. To this Mr. Whites answer is, that he†Apol. p. 59. conceives there is a great aequivocation through want of care and warinesse in distinguishing (here then we are like to have an essay, how ambiguous the plainest testimony may be rendred, when wits, as S. W. told us, have to deal with it) For, saith he, let us take the Councel of Florence or Trent, in which we have the Churches sense concerning both Purgatory and Indulgences, and see whether the holy Bishop sayes any of the points those Councels defined, are …ither denyed by the Greeks, or brought in by private Revelations, or new Interpretations of Scripture. For how could he be ignorant that the Greek had agreed to the Latine Church about the definition of Purgatory in the Councel of Fl…rence, or forget himself so farre as not to r…member a publike practice, Indulgences in all the ancient Church for remission of poenal injunctions laid upon sinners? Besides he saith that the Latines 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 Councel, but that 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 praecise su…ject of the C…unc…ls definition, 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 Indulgences not separating what the Church hath alwayes 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 useth these words, No Orthod…x man now d…ubts, for that is 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 Catholike belief: besides he expresses himself that this generally extends no farther than that there is a Purgatory. Thus farre are the words of his answer, which I have set down at large, that I might not maim by abbreviating them, and that the Reader may with ease accompany me in a distinct view of them.
29. With his first proposal then I shall comply so farre, as to take the Councel of Florence or Trent, and discern what advantage these will help him to, toward the avoiding the force of the Bishops Testimony. For though that Bishop dyed almost thirty years before the drawing up the Decree de Purgatorio in the Councel of Trent, and so can have no relation to that, yet this shall not cause any difference between us. The decree of Florence and of Trent are very consonant in the matter of Purgatory; That of Trent, *Concil. Trid. Sess. XXV.Esse Purgatorium— that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithfull, but especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the Altar. That of Florence, †foreign. t. 8. p. 853.that if those that are truely penitent, die in the love of God, before they have by meet fruits of Repentance satisfied for their commissions and omissions, their souls after death are purged by Purgatory pains, but so as that for their relief from those pains the helps of faithfull men living are profitable to them, viz. the holy Sacrifices and Prayers and Alms and other works of piety, which are wont to be performed by the other faithfull, according to the praecepts of the Church.
30 Now that the Bishop spake not of this thus defined by the Councels, he supposes himself to have proved demonstratively by this only argument, because the Greeks had agreed to the Latine Church about this definition in the Councel of Florence. But herein the Sessions of that Councel will sufficiently inform us. In the fifteenth Session we read that four Metropolitanes consented to this determination, foreign,Ibid. p. 858. that the middle souls are in a placa of torment, and whether it be fire, or mist and tempest or any thing else they contend not. When therefore the article in the same Session was drawn up into this form,P. 840. that they which had sinn'd and confess'd, and were in the number of penitents, and had not performed works of satisfaction, should goe into Purgatory fire, and being there purged should be placed in the number of those who behold Gods essence immediately, the Greeks answer then is, that they had no power from their Emperor to answer any thing, but as friends privately they answered that they receive that which they said of Purgatory, and they truely admitted that the Souls see the essence of God, and being press'd to receive their writing, having no mandate of the Emperors, P. 842.they received it not. So again when the Patriarch of Constantinople was dead, an Epistle of his is produced wherein of Purgatory he saith, foreign, that the division or separation was not on that account, neither was it necessary. Then the Emperor called all the Praelates of the whole Church, and in summe the whole Oriental Synod, and the determination was concerning Purgatory and one other particular, foreign, that they should not at all speak of them, Ib.foreign, not knowing, as I think, the true determination of the matter. Then the Latines resisted the Emperor, and told him, that 'tis impossible for the Church to be united, unlesse these two controversies be added; But the Emperor foreign, would not be perswaded, Then the Latines press'd foreign, that there should be no more put in the decree but only the mention of Purgatory. Then after a while, the occasions of departing pressing the Emperor, he tells them,*foreign. p. 844. he hath no more to say, but that he can stay no longer. Then Cardinal Julian doth what he can foreign to mollifie the Emperor, and again, all going to his house foreign, We earnestly constrained him, telling him the only question was that the souls of poenitent sinners are purged by prayers, and therefore they†foreign. Ibid. piously entertaining the Emperor, constrained him to finish the work, but he would not. After that the Emperor called to him the proxies of the three Patriarchs, Gregory the proxy of the Patriarch of Alexandria, and Marcus Metropolitan of E…hesus, pr…xy both of the Patriarch of Antioch and Jerusalem. But this produced nothing in favour of the decree, but on the contrary Marcus and Scholarius disputed largely against it, as in the Synod is set down, and to conclude, the Greek Bishops returned home, and told their fellows what had pass'd and they disliked and would not stand to the agreement, l. VI. p. 407.so saith Laonicus Chalcochondylas, Graeci domum reversi non amplius his quae convenerant in Italia stare voluerunt, verum apprehendentes sententiam diversam, noluerunt amplius in Religionis neg…tio adhaerere Romanis. The Greeks returning home would not stand to the Italian concord, but taking up a contrary opinion, would not adhaere to the Romans in the businesse of Religion. On this the Pope sent learned men to Constantinople to dispute it, but, saith he, the Greeks received not the Concord, and ubi ad colloquium & disputationem ventum est, Romani nihil efficere potuerunt, verum re infecta domum reversi sunt, when they came to discourse and debate, the Romans could prevail nothing, but returned home without doing ought.
31. For the farther clearing of the Greeks sense, I referre the Reader to their Apologetick Tract written (as now we have it annex'd to Nilus and Barlaam) but a year before the Councel of Florence, and designed particularly and accordingly presented to the Latines in the Councel of Basil, to give them assurance of their Doctrine in this point▪*Edit. Hanov. p. 119. For Purgatory, say they, and temporary punishment by fire, foreign, We have not received it from our Doctors, nor do we know that the Eastern Church is of that minde, and†P. 123. again, foreign— We have not received it from any of the Doctors, and we are afraid, lest if we should define this temporary punitive Purgatory, foreign, We should do mischief to the whole body of the Church, rendring their reason, because God having pronounced that the wicked shall goe into everlasting fire, and all believers ears being acquainted with this from their youth, and dreading it above all things, and guiding their words and actions accordingly, foreign, if they shall now of new come with this style of temporary fire, 'tis to be feared, that Christians will believe all fire to be such as this, and so that all shall have an end, as Origen thought, and by this means bring in great store of fewel for the eternal fire, From which and other ill consequences their resolution is expresse, foreign, that they never till that day had said any such thing, nor ever would. *P. 124.Again they affirm, that never any of the Doctors of their Church made any mention of this, insisting on St. Chrysostoms testimony to the contrary on that Text of 1 Cor. 3. and asserting his skill, and the assurance of Gods Spirit in interpreting those Epistles, against whatever could be pretended by the Latines from any of their Doctors. And so on, vindicating their assertion, that never any of their Doctors had mentioned any such matter, and†P. 147. 1. charging on the Latines a citation of theirs out of Theodoret, which was*foreign— no where to be found in his writings.
32. I shall conclude this with the expresse and full suffrage of the Greeks inhabiting at Venice, in their answer to the quaestions of the Cardinal of Guise, translated and publish'd at Basil by Leunclavius, where to the question of their sense of Purgatory, their*Ad Qu. 9. Nequaquam post mortem restare Purgatorium quemnam ignem credimus. return is, we by no means believe that there remains any Purgatory fire after death, and to the same sense more at large, in the answer to the tenth question.
33 Here then 1. appears the unseasonablenesse of Mr. Whites quaestion, how the Holy Bishop could be ignorant, that the Greeks agreed to the Latines about the definition of Purgatory in the Councel of Florence? The Bishop, I doubt not, knew the very truth which hath here been shewed, and judged not the Greeks to have ever admitted that Doctrine, which only some few Bishops of theirs in the Councel yielded to, for the gaining advantage by an union, but others from the beginning resisted, and all their whole Church uniformly upon their return to their Countrey, disclaimed and finally rejected. And then what shew or colour of truth is there in this whole answer, whose one fundamental proof hath thus failed him, and instead whereof, the argument is of full force against him, the Purgatory defined in the Councel of Florence, is that which the Greek Church believed not, but uniformly rejected after the Councel, and that Purgagatory which the Greeks thus rejected is it which Bishop Fisher speaks of, therefore in his assertion, the Purgatory defined by the Councel of Florence was never mentioned by the Ancients, or very rarely, and so was no matter of faith among them, neither did the Latines receive it at once (and so 'twas no part of the foreign, the faith at once delivered, Jud. 3.) but by little and iittle, it was a good while unknown—which was the thing induced from that Testimony.
34. M…ny other infirmities there are in the remaining parts of that answer, as 1. that he interprets those words [No Orthodox man now doubts] of conclusions Theological and generally received in the Schools, but not arrived to the pitch of making a point of Catholike belief] whereas 'tis evident, and from his following words necessarily inferr'd, that the Bishop by that phrase means matter of faith. For 1. these are his words, No orthodox man now doubts whether there be a Purgatory, not speaking of the circumstances, but the very being of a Purgatory, and that sure is a matter of Faith with the Romanist. 2. He farther expresseth his sense in these plain words, at last the belief of it was generally received by the Catholike Churches] What can more punctually expresse a point of Catholike belief? 2. That he interprets the Indulgences here mentioned of those in the ancient Church for remission of poenal injunctions laid on sinners, when by the dependence of Indulgences on Purgatory, 'tis necess…ry the Bishop must mean the Indulgences by which men are freed from Purgatory flames, and not from the censures here in this life, of which only the Ancients spake. 3. That from the Bishops mention of the Latines receiving Purgatory by little and little, he concludes it evident that he means not only so much as is established by the Councel whether of Trent or Florence] when no such thing can be evidenced from that mention, but on the contrary, that the very substance of Purgatory being never or very rarely mentioned by the Ancients, some Texts of Scripture were yet thought applicable first to the conflagration at the end of the world, then, in processe of time, to temporary punishments, commencing at the end of this life, to those who dyed without performance of works of satisfaction; and this certainly was the thing which came into belief from Revelations of private persons, and interpretations of Scriptures, and consequently the Purgatory defined in the Councel in the words quibus detentae, &c. and not only the circumstances which are not defined there. So 4. when from the Bishops saying, that Indulgences began when men had trembled a while at the pains of Purgatory] he concludes again, that it is plain he contented not himself with the praecise subject of the Councels definition] whereas 'tis most evident he might and must mean the Doctrine of his Church in his time to be, that by Indulgences men were freed from the pains of Purgatory, and that was the Councels definition of it. And so still it is most evident, that that Bishop is not mistaken by us, but rightly believed to suppose that new articles of the Faith may be brought into the Church.
35. And I discern not how this could be so incredible to Mr. White, who, as 'twas cited from him, afirms, in general, that such*Apol. p. 224. additions are the very businesse and end of such assembling of Councels, and, in application to this particular, will never be able to make good (I may from his Tract de med. animae sta. conclude, he will never attempt to shew) that that very Purgatory, in which saith the Councel, animae fidelium detentae the souls of believe…s are detai…ed (and cannot be interpreted of the conflagration, which begins not till the day of Judgement) that foreign, state of temporary tormenting punishments, relievable by the prayers, and sacrifice, and almes, i. e. the merits of the living, against which he expressely, and strongly argues, p. 68. (omitting all other circumstances and dressings, and taking it barely, as it was taught by the Councel) was ever to be found as an article of Faith in the Primitive Church. Thus much for that one testimony of Bishop Fishers, which is not peculiar to him, Alfonsus de Castro adv. haer. l. 8. under the title of Indulgences, makes the same observation, and Polydor Virgil repeats Bishop Fishers words verbatim, de invent. rer. l. 8. c 1. and this, if we wanted other store, alone evinces, that their Church in one age hath taught some things as of faith, which have not been taught as such in former ages, and so that it cannot be yielded to have gone on his pretended maxim, of never doing so.
36. In accordance with this, I shall proceed to another instance; It is competently known, that many of the ancientest Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church did maintain, that the Souls of just men departed, injoying not the vision of God, were kept in certain hidden receptacles (whether in, or) without the body of the Heavens, enjoying ease and rest from their labours, the sight of Christs humane nature, the frequent visits of Angels, and with joy expecting the resurrection of their bodies, and with that, the consummation of their blisse. Of this opinion Pope J…hn XXII. is acknowledged to have been, and the prayer of the*In Can. Missa. Roman Church for the dead, under the style of [Qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei, & dormiunt in somno paci…, Who have gone before us with the sign of the Faith, and sleep in the sleep of peace] and again, Omnibus in Christo quiescentibus, all that rest in Christ] is an argument for it so convincing, that†Dial. par. 2. Tract. 2. c. 3. Occam, that produceth it as an objection of the Joannites (as he calls them) and presseth it so, that it cannot be understood of the Souls in Purgatory under pain and affliction, whereas these are said to sleep in the sleep of peace, and to be at rest, gives it one answer, which wants but little of granting all that is demanded, viz. that that prayer of the Church is for the holy souls in heaven, that they which sleep the sleep of peace may resume their bodies and come to the place and state of their ultimate felicity.
37. Now of this opinion thus profess'd in the Church several uses might be made to our purpose, concerning the uninterrupted handing down of all Traditions praetended by S. W. The only use of it, which I design at this time, is in relation to the former Doctrine of Purgatory flames, with which that sl ep of peace is sufficiently unreconcileable, and that belonging to the very same subject (not the Souls of Martyrs, and some such special eminent persons, but) just or holy men indefinitely, quite contrary to the Doctrine of Purgatory, which placeth those very souls in the condition of horrible torments.
38. Of the truth of this Doctrine my argument requires me not to speak; The whole force of it, as farre as I now design it, shall be given S. W. from the pen of one of his own friends,*Pamel. Edit. Tertull. p. 31. G. Pamelius, in his antidote to the ninth Paradoxe of Tertullian, where speaking of this, as of an error, he saith, it was yet no praejudice to the learning and piety of those so illustrious writers, whilest the Church had not determined any thing to be certainly believed in that article, but, saith he, since the Ʋniversal Councel of Florence which hath made a definition in this matter, aliter sentire non licet, it is not lawfull to think otherwise than the Councel hath defined. From whence sure it will be no insolence to conclude, that that which since the Councel of Florence hath commenced such, was no article of Faith before that Councel.
39. This opinion of the hidden and quiet receptacles was by my Lord of Falkland †P. 59. 83. 114.several times mentioned to Mr. White, in his Reply about Infallibility, twice as a proof that some things were now received as Doctrines, without any such continued line of Tradition, by name that of the Saints injoying the beatifical vision before the day of judgement, and once as a visible praejudice to Invocation of Saints departed, which the Romanist founds upon the supposition of their being already admitted to the Beatifical vision; And 'tis not unworthy a slight reflexion, to observe what returns that Apologist hath made to these inferences.
40. To the former he*Mr. Whites Apol. for Tradit. p. 56. answers expressely, the Beatifical vision of the Saints before the day of judgement is not yet held a matter of faith, but only a Theological conclusion. Not yet held (he must mean by the Roman…sts) a matter of Faith; To which I might reply, that then it seems definitions of General Councels amount nor among them to the constituting matters of Faith, for 'tis certain the Councel of Florence defined this against the Armenians; But I shall rather expect his own verdict, in another place, where he speaks†P. 103. again of this matter, and then, that he may, as he saith, utterly destroy the objection fetch'd from hence against Invocation, his words are as expresse, 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, i. e. are admitted to the sight of God before the day of Judgement. Here the Reader must remember, even now, it was not held a matter of Faith, and yet now they have learn'd it by Tradition.
41. Here then I demand first, who they are that say they learn by Tradition these two Articles? The Romanists, I must suppose. And then my second question must be, whether Mr. White be such,P. 56. and whether he be not the very same Apologist that said before, that one of these is not yet held a matter of Faith? The least that the Reader can inferre from hence, is the most that our cause demands, that all the Articles which the Romanists have learn'd by Tradition (yea and defined in their reputed General Councels) are not yet held matters of Faith; for I must not imagine that this miracle of wit should thus fail in point of memory, when he thus wrote.
42. The wonder is lesse, that in that other †De med. Anim. statu.Book published a year afore he should let fall some passages which agree not with either of these. For whereas in the former of these, he saith, the beatifical vision of Saints before the day of Judgement is not yet held a matter of Faith, he there saith,*Neque articulus est quem materiei ratione vel ab utilitate ad pietatem vel a necessitate fidei liberare liceat, Dim. 4. p. 13. it is not lawfull in respect of the matter to free it either from utility to piety, or from necessity of faith; And whereas in the latter of these he explains the Saints going to heaven, by their admission to the sight of God, before the day of judgement, and makes both of them Tradition, he there acknowledges that*Verum est complures hoc serio negavisse sanctos in coelis esse, Ib. very many of the Antients †P. 15.(Irenaeus, Justine, Tertullian, Clemens Romanus, Lactantius, Origen, Victorinus, Prudentius, Chrysostome, Theodoret, Aretas, Oecumenius, by name) did seriously deny that the Saints were in heaven, yet that none (but St. Bernard and John XXII) ever spake*Vel dubitanter. so much as doubtingly of the article of their seeing God— But this by the way.
43. Other miscarriages, I think, there are very discernible in this Apologists answer to this argument against Invocation; as when supposing the Souls of Saints are not received into heaven, he asks, may they not neverthelesse pray for us? when he knowes that is not the question, but whether we are to pray to them, which certainly depends on their coming to some knowledge of our prayers, and that again on their injoying the beatifical vision, as the Romanist himself confesses, and as was express'd in the objection, but not at all taken notice of by that irrefutable Apologist; But this and the other parts of the answer, just of the same batch, I omit, because the former is only pertinent to our present matter.
44. Adde to these the Doctrine of Transsubstantiation, as now it is taught, in the Roman Church, to be the conversion of the substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ, and yet is confess'd by the Romanists themselves not to have been any Doctrine of Faith before the definition of Innocent III. in the Councel of Lateran.
45. Whether the ancient Church had that apprehension of the meaning of the words of Christ, is not the question (though if it were, we should have no difficulty to evidence it against the Romanists by arguments of that nature, which most of those, if not S. W. acknowledge to have force with them in other things) but only whether it were till this late date, any article of Faith.
46. That it was not, is known to be the affirmation of†In 4. dist. 11. q. 3. Scotus, as even now was touched, who is rebuked for it by*De Euchar. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine, though acknowledged to say true by Peru… as renowned and learned a Cardinal. But he is not alone in that confession. All they that excuse Theodoret, foreign. Theod. Dial. 2.for saying that the Sacramental Symbols do not depart from their own nature after the consecration, but remain in their former essence, and shape and forme] because at that time the Church had not defined in that matter, are evidently of Scotus's minde. Thus doth the author of the Praeface before that Fathers Dialogues in the Roman Impression 1547. Theodoret, saith he, may perhaps be worthy some pardon, that at that time de ea re ab Ecclesiâ nondum fuisset aliquid promulgatum, nothing was promulgate of that matter by the Church. Many the like testimonies of the Romanists, in relation to him, and*Esse non definit substantia vel natura panis et vini. Contr. Eurych. & Nestor de Du…b. Nat. in Christ. Gelasius, the Reader shall finde together in the most learned Bishop of Edinburge his consideration de Eucharistia, p. 401. from Ruardus Tapperus, Harding, Fisher, all to this sense, that before the definition made by the Church (i. e. at Laterane) 'twas not repugnant to the sincerity of the Faith, either to be ignorant or to doubt of the truth of that Doctrine.
47. The like passages there are among those who give the more moderate censures of Bertram (and are not so praecipitously bent, with Bellarmine, to give him up for an haereticke) confessing that he was ignorant how the accidents could subsist without any subject, &c.†Censor. Belg. in Indic. Expurg. de Bertr. in fine. quae subtilissimè & verissimè posterior aetas per sacras Scripturas addiderit, which the later age hath by holy Scriptures most subtilely and most truely added. The like say many others, in their defense of Scotus's words. Let our Bishop Tunstall, and Vasquez serve for the many more that might be (and by the Bishop of Edinburge are)*P. 405. &c. enumerated on this Theme.
48. The†Tunstal. de ver. Corp. Chr. in Euchar. p. 46. former in these words, Ante Innocentium tertium— Before Innocent the third, Bishop of Rome, who praesided in the Councel of Laterane, they that examined the businesse more exactly thought it might be done after three manners, but Innocent rejected the two former, and pitch'd upon the third, though he cannot but expresse his opinion, that the miracles are multiplyed in Innocents way, and ask, if it had not been better to have imposed silence on those who would be searching the manner, or to have left it (undetermined) to each mans conjecture, sicut liberum fuit ante illud Concilium, as it was free before that Councel, yet concluding it his opinion that now 'tis defined, the judgement of the Church was to remain firm, by which as he expresses his submission to the Decree, and so approves himself a Romanist and so a competent witnesse in this matter, so he professes 'twas free to all to believe as they pleased for the manner (wherein alone Transsubstantiation is concern'd) before that Councel.
49. As for Vasquez, his expressions are very well fitted for S. W's turn, who will not believe any change to have been introduced into the faith, whose effects have not been visible in practice. For so saith this learned Schoolman it was on this point,*In 3 par. D. Th. Distr. 18. c. 1. Audito nomine Transsubstantiationis tanta inter recentiores aliquos Scholasticos exorta fuit controversia, ut quo magis ab ea extricare conati fuerint, eo majoribus difficultatibus seipsos implicaverint, As soon as the name of Transsubstantion was heard of, there rose so great a controversie among some later Schoolmen that the more they endeavoured to extricate, the more they involved themselves in difficulties, concluding that there is nothing to be invented, which in that way can explain the difficulty.
50. Here then, without examining the truth of this decree, or inquiring what trust is to be given to the Romanists relations of the Acts and Canons of that Councel, the matter is again clear, as before in the point of Purgatory, that what is now a matter of Faith with the Romanist, was not as such delivered down from the Apostles times, or from the age immediately praecedent to the Councel of Lateran.
51. And what shall we say of those two other points of Romish Doctrine, and practice in this Sacrament, the denying the Cup to the Laity, and the carrying the Host about the streets in pomp, to be shew'd to the people? For the former of these, was it ever thought necessary, and enacted under pain of†Nullus Preshyter sub poenâ excommunicationis communicet populum sub utraque specie. Concil. Tom. VII. p. 1042. E. excommunication, till the thirteenth Session of the Councel of Constance, An. Dom. 1415. and hath not that very Councel that decreed it, done it with an express non obstante to*Licet Christus post coenam stituerit, & suis Discipulis administraverit sub utraque specie, tamen hoc non obstante— Ib. B. Christs institution, and the†Licet in Primativâ Ecclesiâ reciperetur a fidelibus sub ut…aque specie, Ibid. c. practice of the Primitive Church? And doth not Cassander, as learned a man, and as much valued, as any of his age, confess that*Satis compertum est universalem Christi Ecclesiam in huncusque diem, Occidentalem verò seu Romanam mille amplius a Christo annis, in solemni praesertim & ordinaria hujus Sacramenti dispensatione utramque panis & vini speciem omnibus Ecclesiae Christi membris exhibuisse— Consult. Art. 22. all the ancient Church, both the East to that very day, and the West for above a thousand years after Christ, especially in the solemn and ordinary administration of the Sacrament gave it in both kindes to all the faithfull? offering, if need were, innumerable witnesses of this truth. And shall we still believe it a certain Maxim, that the Romanists of this or that age proceeded by, never to deliver any thing to others, which was not delivered to them continually by succession from the Apostles?
52. So likewise for the circumgestation that learned*Ibid. Sect. de Circumgest. Romanists judgement is expresse, that it seems praeter veterum morem & mentem, haud ita longo tempore inducta, of no long standing in the Church, introduced beside the manner and minde of the Ancients, and although he saith but [videtur, seems] and [praeter, beside] it is evident by the proof he addes, that he means it really is contrary to it.] For, saith he, they, i. e. the Ancients have had this Sacrament in so much religion and veneration, that they admitted not any but the faithfull, such as they thought worthy to partake of it, either to receive or look upon it, and therefore before the consecration, the Catechumeni, Energumeni, poenitents (unabsolved) and non-communicants were commanded by voice of the Deacon to depart, and the Door keepers looked to the performance: adding from Albertus Crantzius, that Christ instituted the Sacrament for use and not for ostentation or shewing, which if he did, then surely the modern Roman practice, and Doctrine, wherein that is founded, was not, according to direction of this Maxim, received from them, that by any series of succession conveighed it from Christ; And if in a matter of practice, that may have gotten reception, which is so contrary to the minde of Christ, why may not the same be imagined in point of Faith? when, as Tertullian asks on one side, (de Cor.) Annon putas omnì fideli— Do you not think 'tis lawfull to any faithfull person to conceive and appoint what agrees to God, conduces to discipline, and the eighth Oecumenical Councel professeth to obsorve and keep the lawes delivered not only from the Apostles and Orthodox Synods Oecumenical and Topical, but even*Act X. Can. 1. Concil. To. VII. par. 1. p. 977 B. foreign, by any divine-speaking Father, a Doctor of the Church, so 'tis as evident on the other side, that the Doctrine of the Chiliasts, from the infusions but of one Doctor, and he none of the profoundest, Papias, took root, and spread very farre, and prevailed to the leading away Justine and Irenaeus, and other great, and ancient lights of the Church.
53. To these Instances I shall adde the Canon of Scripture as it is defined in the†Sess. IV. decr. 1. Trent Decree, following as it is praetended, the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, but farre removed from being delivered down from the Apostles by a continued uninterrupted Tradition through all ages. For the truth of which I need not enter the contestation, being able with so much more ease, to referre him to the late exact Scholastick history of Dr. Cousins, through every age of the Church, deducing the doctrine of the Church of England in this point, in opposition to the Tridentine definition.
54. Thus much for the third view of his Proposition, and in every shape of it, it hath had the commendation of some constancy (though not altogether such as was taken notice of in Alcibiades, to have the utmost beauty of each age, yet) such as is well nigh as admirable, that in whatsoever sense of it, it might be usefull to our demonstrator, in that sense it is either certainly false, or utterly unproved, and improbable, and in whatsoever sense it hath any kinde of but probable truth in it, it is wholly unserviceable to the undertaker. And with these viewes of a rarity having abundantly satiated my curiosity, I am very well content to give over the farther pursuit, though to him that were delighted with chases, there is behinde in each Scheme variety of quarry to spend many waste hours upon; Let it suffice that I have thus farre attended him, and driven his admired Demonstration to its non u…ra, and sufficiently shewed, how farre that medium is from demonstrating, which having no attempt of proof to secure the truth of it, is as much denyed (which sure doth not signifie confess'd) as the conclusion.