the doctrine of St. Thomas, that the argument drawn from authority is weak. Then to that multitude of doctors we oppose another multitude.

Thirdly, we object to the contrary the efficacy of reasons, which are more excellent than any authority.

"Some of them reckon two hundred fathers; others, as Bandellus, almost three hundred; Cajetan fifteen, but those, as he says, irrefragable. But as a wise shepherd said, Pauperis est numerare pecus. Some of those, whom they produce, are of an exolete authority, and scarce worthy of memory.

66

Lastly, Against this objected multitude we answer with the word of God, *Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou in judgment yield to the sentence of many to depart from the truth.' For when the Donatists gloried in the multitude of their authors, St. Augustine answered, It was a sign of a cause destitute of truth, to rely only upon the authority of many men, who may err.

66

It falls out sometimes also, that from some one doctor, especially if he be famous, proceeds a multitude of followers of his opinion; and some, taken with an humble and pious fear, choose rather to follow the opinion of another against their mind, than to bring out of their own wit any thing new, lest they should so bring any new thing into the church. Whose humility, as it is to be praised, so the confidence of others is not to be condemned, who for the love of truth fear not to bring in better things.

* Exod. xxiii. 2.

Thus St. Je

rome, in his sermon of the assumption (if it be his) fears to affirm, that the Virgin Mary is assumed into heaven, and thinks it rather to be piously desired, than rashly defined. But St. Augustine* more happily dared to affirm it, and settle it with many arguments, by which adventure the church hath gained this, that persuaded by his reasons she hath believed it, and celebrates it in her worship.

"But they fetch their arguments from the antiquity of the doctors, to which always greater honour was given than to novelties. But I answer, old men are praisers of ancient times, but we affirm, the younger the doctors are, the more perspicuous. Moreover we say, that although they were ancient, yet they were men, and themselves held under the darkness cf original sin, and might err. But go to, who are these ancients? are they apostles, are they Ambrose, or Jerome, or Augustine? But none of them discussed this controversy on purpose.

"Chrysostom is opposed in his commentary on St. Matthew, where he saith, though Christ were not a sinner, yet he has human nature from a sinner.' Understand (says Salmeron) from her, who, of herself, and according to the condition of nature, was a sinner. Thomas says that Chrysostom speaks exorbitantly, for he constitutes the Virgin under actual sin; or, that the commentaries, which go up and down under his name, are not his; or, that these passages are adjectitious; or, if they be indeed his, with the

In the margin here he says, "The doctrine of St. Augustine alone hath brought into the church the worship of the blessed Virgin's assumption."

good leave and favour of so great a man, they are to be rejected. Neither ought any man to marvel, that he, and Bernard, and Thomas, and Bonaventure, and Alexander of Ales, and Albert, and Durand, and Egidius, and, lastly, the greater part followed that opinion; both because they were men, and because in progress of time new mysteries are revealed, which before were unknown. For as holiness of life purgeth no man from sin, so it frees no man from danger of error. Every age finds out some verities proper to itself, which the former ages were ignorant of." And there in the margin, "Every age hath its peculiar Divine revelations."

Thus far Salmeron: by whom we may see, that protestants are not the only men, who say, that the fathers may err; but that Roman catholics too can and dare valiantly break through and tread under their feet, (though perhaps with cap in hand, and some show of reverence) and even ride over whole bands of fathers, when they stand in their way.

Another great Achilles for the same opinion is one Joannes Baptista Porta, a Jesuit, and professor of divinity at Complutum. He, in the fourth book of his Elucidarium Deiparæ, pleads very earnestly to have it defined, and labours very lustily to remove all exceptions to the contrary, but, above all, those many ones; That there is no tradition for it; that the stream of ancient tradition is against, and therefore well and worthily may it be condemned for a heresy; but, to be canonized among the articles of faith, it can with no reason expect.

To the second exception he brings two answers,

which Salmeron, it seems, forgot, in the prosecution whereof he hath many excellent passages, which I have thought good to cull out of him, to evidence the wonderful reverence and constant regard of the present church of Rome to the tradition of the ancients.

The first, That it is possible, the writings of the fathers, out of which these testimonies against the immaculate conception are taken, may be corrupted. But to shew it probable they are so in these places, he speaks not one word of sense, nor so much as any colourable reason, unless this may pass for one (as perhaps it may where reasons are scarce)-No proposition which contradicts the common judgment of the fathers, can be probable : *but it is de fide, that our opinion is probable; for the council of Trent hath made it so, by giving liberty to all who hold it: therefore without doubt we must hold, that it is not (whatsoever it seems) against the common judgment of the fathers. This argument, saith he, doth most illustriously convince the followers of the contrary opinion, that they ought not to dare affirm hereafter, that their opinion flows from the common judgment and writings of the ancient doctors.

His second answer is, That whereas Bandillus, and Cajetan, &c. produce general sayings of Irenæus, Origen, Athanasius, Theophilus Alexandrinus, Greg. Nyssen, Basil, Greg. Naz. Cyprian, Jerome, Fulgentius, and in a manner of all the ancient fathers, exempting Christ alone from, and consequently concluding the Virgin Mary un

* I should rather subsume-but this does so; therefore not probable,

der, original sin, which argument must needs conclude, if the Virgin Mary be not Christ: his answer, I say, is, These testimonies have little or no strength; for did they conclude, we must then (let us in God's name) say, that the Virgin Mary committed also many venial sins: for the Scriptures, fathers, and councils set forth in propositions as universal, that there is no man, but Christ, who is not often defiled, at least with smaller sins, and who may not justly say that petition of our Lord's Prayer, Dimitte nobis debita nostra.

An answer, I confess, as fit as a napkin, to stop the mouths of his domestic adversaries, though no way fit to satisfy their reason. But this man little thought there were protestants in the world, as well as Dominicans, who will not be much troubled, by thieves falling out, to recover more of their goods than they expected, and to see a prevaricating Jesuit, instead of stopping one breach in their ruinous cause, to make two. For whereas this man argues from the destruction of the consequent to the destruction of the antecedent, thus: If these testimonies were good and concluding, then the Virgin Mary should have been guilty, not only of original, but also of actual, sin: but the consequent is false and blasphemous; therefore the antecedent is not true: they on the other side argue, and sure with much more reason, and much more conformity to the ancient tradition, from the assertion of the antecedent to the assertion of the consequent, thus: If these testimonies be good and concluding, then the blessed Virgin was guilty both of original sin and actual: but the testimonies are good and concluding; therefore she was guilty even of actual sins, and therefore much more of original.