Governed by Apostolical Men when we cannot reasonably suspect any Deviation from the Primitive Practice and this is the Rule which the Church of England owns in such matters and by which she rejects and confutes both the Innovations and corruptions of the Church of Rome and the wild pretences of Phanaticism So that we do in the most proper sense own the Belief and Practice of the Primitive Church to be the best means for Expounding Scripture We do not leave every man to Expound Scripture by a private Spirit as our Adversaries of the Church of Rome reproach us we adhere to the ancient Catholick Church which the Church of Rome on one side and the Phanaticks on the other have forsaken And though we reject the new invention of an infallible Judge yet we are no Friends at all to Scepticism but can give a more Rational account of our Faith then the Church of Rome can Had we no other way of understanding the sense of Scripture but by Propriety of the Language and the Grammatical construction of the Words and the scope and design of the Texts their connexion and Dependence on what goes before and what follows and such like means as we use for the understanding any other Books of humane composition I doubt not but honest and diligent Inquirers might discover the true meaning of Scripture in all the great Articles of our Faith but yet this alone is a more uncertain way and lyable to the Abuses of Hereticks and Impostors The Socinians are a famous Example what Wit and Criticism will do to pervert the plainst Text and some other Sectaries are as plain a demonstration what wâ—rk Dullness and Stupidity and Enthusiasm will make with Scripture but when we have the practice of the Catholick Church and an ancient and venerable summary of the Christian Faith which has been the common Faith of Christians in all Ages to be our Rule in Expounding Scripture though we may after all mistake the sense of some particular Texts yet we cannot be guilty of any great and dangerous mistakes This use the Church of England makes of the Catholick Church in Expounding Scripture that she Religiously maintains the ancient Catholick Faith and will not suffer any man to Expound Scriptures in opposition to the ancient Faith and Practice of the Catholick Church But though the Belief and Practice of the Catholick Church be the best means of understanding the true sense of Scripture yet we cannot affirm this of any particular Church or of the Church of any particular Age excepting the Apostolick Age or those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles Notwithstanding this the Church of Rome may be no good Expositor of Scripture for the Church of Rome though she usurp the name of the Catholick Church as presuming her self to be the Head and Fountain of catholick Unity yet she is but a part of the catholick Church as the Church of England and the Churches of France aind Holland are and has no more right to impose her Expositions of Scripture upon other Churches then they have to impose upon her If there happen any controversie between them it is not the Authority of either Church can decide it but this must be done by an appeal to Scripture and the sense of the Catholick Church in the first and purest Ages of it For when we say that the belief and Practice of the Catholick Church is the best means to find out the true sense of Scripture we do not mean that the Church is the Soveraign and absolute Judge of the sense of Scripture but the meaning is that those Churches which were founded by the Apostles and received the Faith immediately from them and were afterwards sor some Ages governed by Apostolical men or those who were taught by them and convers'd with them are the best Witnesses what the Doctrine of the Apostles was and therefore as far as we can be certain what the Faith of these Primitive Churches was they are the best Guides for the Expounding Scripture So that the Authority of the Church in Expounding Scripture being only the Authority of Witnesses it can reach no farther then those Ages which may reasonably be presumed to be Authentick and credible Witnesses of the Doctrines of the Apostles and therefore if we extend it to the four first general councils it is as far as we can do it with any pretence of Reason and thus far the Church of England owns the Authority of the Church and commands her Ministers to Expound the Scriptures according to the Catholick Faith owned and profess'd in those days but as for the later Ages of the church which were removed too far from the Apostles dayes to be Witnesses of their Doctrine they have no more Authority in this matter then we have at this day nor has one church any more Authority then another 3. And therefore if by the church being the means of knowing the sense and meaning of the Holy Scriptures be understood the Judgment and Sentence and Decree of the church that we must seek no farther for the reason of our Faith then the infallible Authority of the church in Expounding Scripture this also is absolutely false and absurd This is more then Christ and his Apostles assumed to themselves while they were on Earth they were indeed infallible Interpreters of Scripture but yet they never bore down their Hearers meerly with their Authority but Expounded the Scriptures and applied ancient Prophesies to their Events and took the vail off of Moses's Face and shewed them the Gospel state concealed under those Types and Figures they confirmed their Expositions of Scripture by the force of Reason and appealed to the Judgments and consciences of their Hearers whither these things were not so Christ commands the Jews nor meerly to take his own word and to rely on his Authority for the truth of what he said but to study the Scriptures themselves and the Bereans are commended for this generous temper of mind that they were more noble then those of Thessalonica for they daily search'd the Scriptures to see whither the Doctrine the Apostles preach'd were to be found there or not Now I think no Church can pretend to be more infallible then Christ and his Apostles and therefore certainly ought not to assume more to themselves then they did and if the Church of Rome or any other Church will convince us of the truth of their Expositions of Scripture as Christ and his Apostles convinc'd their Hearers that is by enlightning our Understandings and convincing our Judgments by proper Arguments we will gladly learn of them This course the Primitive Christians took as is evident in all the Writings of the ancient Fathers against Jews and Hereticks they argue from the Scriptures themselves to prove what the sense of Scripture iâ— they appeal indeed sometimes to the sense of the Catholick Church not as an infallible Judge of Scripture but as the best Witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrine Thus
Tertulliâ—â— argues against Hereticks in his Book De Praescriplionibus â—â—t when they reason about the sense of Scripture they never direct us to any infallible Judge but use such Arguments as they think proper to convince Gain-sayers Nay this is the way which was observed in all the Ancient Councils the Bishops of the church met together for common counsel and advice and in matters of Discipline and Government which were subject to their Authority they considered what was ' most for the publick benefit of the church and determined them by their Authority not as infallible Judges but as Supreme Governours of the church In the disputes of Faith they reason from Scripture and the sense of the catholick church not from their own Authority and what upon a serious debate and inquiry they found to be most agreeable to the sense of Scripture and the Doctrine of the church of former Ages that they determined and decreed to be received in all churches as the catholick Faith That this is so is evident from all the Histories of the most Ancient and celebrated councils which any man may consult who pleases Now I would ask some few Questions about this matter 1. Whither-these councils took a sure and safe way to find out Truth If they did not what reason have we to believe that they determined right If they did then we may use the same way which they did for that which is a good way in one Age is so in another and then there is no necessity of an Infallible Judge to find out the sense of Scripture because we have other certain wayes of doing this the same which all the ancient Councils observed 2. I would know whither it be not sufficient for every Christian to receive the Decrees and Determinations of these councils upon the same Reason and Authority which moved the Fathers assembled in council to make these Decrees Whither for instance we must not believe the Eternal God-head of Christ and that he is of the same substance with his Fatherâ— for the same Reasons for which the Nicene Fathers believed this and required all christians to believe it If we must then Scripture and the sense of the catholick church not the Authority of a general council or any Infallible Judge is the Reason of our Faith For the Nicene Fathers who were the first that met in a General council could not believe this upon the Authority of any other General council much less upon their own Authority unless we will say that they first Decreed this then believed it because they themselves Decreed it If Scripture and the sense of the Catholick Church antecedently to the determinations of a General council or any other pretended Infallible Judge be not a sufficient foundation for our Faith then the whole christian World before the council of Nice which was the first general council had no sufficient Foundation for their Faith for there was no particular Bishop or church in those dayes which pretended to be the Infallible Interpreter of Scriptures We Protestants have the same way to understand the Scriptures have the same Reason and Foundation of our Faith which the Nicene Fathers themselves had or which any christan could have before there was any general council and if the church of Rome do not think this enough we cannot help that we are abundantly satisfied with it The Authority of a general council in those dayes was deservedly sacred and venerable not as an infallible Judge which they never pretended to but as the most certain means they could possibly have to understand what was and in all Ages had been the received Doctrine of the catholick church They met together not to make new Articles of Faith which no council in the World ever had any Authority to do but to declare what was the truly ancient and. Apostolick Faith and to put it into such words as might plainly express the catholick sense and meet with the distempers of that Age. For this end Grave and Reverend Bishops assembled from all parts of the christian World not meerly to give their private Opinions of things but to Declare what was the received Doctrine oâ— those churches over which they presided and I know no better Argument of an Apostolick Tradition then the consent of all churches as remote from each other as East and West which were planted by several Apostles and differed very much from each other in some External Rites and Usages but yet all agreed in the same Faith And this is the true Authority of those ancient councils that they were most likely to understand the true sense of Scripture and of the Catholick Church This is the Protestant Resolution of Faith and the Nicene Fathers themselves had no other way nor pretended to any other Nay the church of Rome her self as much as she talks of Infallibility makes very little use of it She has never given us an infallible comment on Scripture but suffers her Doctors to write as fallible comments and in many things as contrary to each other as any Protestant Divines do And I cannot imagine what good Infallibility does if an infallible Church has no better means of understanding Scripture then the comments of fallible men that is no better means then every fallible Church has for no man can understand the Scripture ever the better for the Churches being infallible unless this infallible Church improve this glorious Talent of Infallibility in Expounding Scripture which she has not done to this day and I believe never will Indeed it is apparent that infallibility as it is pretended to by the church of Rome can be of no use either in the Refolution of Faith or in confuting Hereticks who deny this Infallibility and then I cannot imagine what it is good for but to multiply Disputes instead of ending them As for the Resolution of Faith suppose I ask a Papist why he believes such Articles as the Divinity of Christ or the Resurrection of the dead to be contained in Scripture If he answer as he must do Because he is taught so by the church which is infallible my next Question is How he knows the Church to be infallible If he says he learns this from Scripture I ask him how he comes to understand the Scripture and how he knows that this is the sense of it If he know this by the infallible interpretation of the church then he runs round in a circle and knows the Scripture by the church and the church by the Scripture as I observed before if he can find out the Churches infallibility by the Scripture without the help of an infallible Judge then it seems the Scripture is to be understood without the infallible interpretation of the Church and if men can find out infallibility in Scripture without the Church I am confident they may find out any thing else in Scripture as well without the Churches infallibility For there iâ— no Article of our creed so hard to be
Saints mentioned by St. Jude is not intirely delivered in the Scripture but we must seek for the rest in the Traditions of the Church Which Traditions say they are to be received as a part of the Rule of Faith with the same Religious Reverence that we do the Holy Scripture Now though this is not really the bottom of their heart as will appear before I have done but they finally rest for their satisfaction in matters of Faith somewhere else yet this being plausibly pretended by them in their own Justification that they follow Tradition and in their Accusations of us that we foresake Tradition I shall briefly let all our People see who are not willing to be deceived what they are to judge and say in this business of Tradition About which a great noise is made as if we durst not stand to it and as if they of the Roman Church stedfastly kept it without any variation neither of which is true I shall plainly shew in this short Discourse The meaning of the Word Which for clearness sake shall begin with the meaning of the word TRADITION which in English is no more than delivering unto another and by a Figure signifies the matter which is delivered and among Christians the Doctrine of our Religion delivered to us And there being two wayes of delivering Doctrines to us either by writing or by word of mouth it signifies either of them indifferently the Scriptures as you shall see presently being Traditions But custom hath determined this word to the last of these wayes and distinguished Tradition from Scriptures or writings at least from the Holy Writings and made it signifie that which is not delivered in the Holy Scriptures or Writings For though the Scripture be Tradition also and the very first Tradition and the Fountain of all true and legitimate Antiquity yet in common Language Traditions now are such ancient Doctrines as are conveyed to us some other way whither by word of mouth as some will have it from one Generation to another or by humane Writings which are not of the same authority with the Holy Scriptures How to judge of them Now there is no better way to judge aright of such Traditions then by considering these four things First The Authors of them whence they come Secondly the matter of them Thirdly Their Authority Fourthly The means by which we come to know they derive themselves from such Authors as they pretend unto and consequently have any authority to demand admission into our belief 1. For the first of these every body knows and confesses that all Traditions suppose some Author from whom they originally come and who is the diliverer of those Doctrines to Christian people who being told by the present Church or any person in it that such and such Doctrines are to be received though not contained in the Holy Scriptures because they are Traditions ought in Conscience to inquire from whom those Traditions come or who first delivered them By which means they will be able to judge what credit is to be given to them when it is once cleared to them from what Authors they really come Now whatsoever is delivered to us in Christianity comes either from Christ or from his Apostles or from the Church either in General or in part or from private Doctors in the Church There is nothing now called a Tradition in the Christian World but proceeds from one or from all of these four Originals 2. And the mater which they deliver to us which is next to be considered is either concerning that Faith and godly life which is necessary to Salvation or concerning Opinions Rites Ceremonies Customs and things belonging to Order Both which as I said may be conveyed either by writing or without writing by the Divine Writings or by Humane Writings though these two wayes are not alike certain 3. Now it is evident to every understanding that things of both sorts which are delivered to us have their Authority from the credit of the Author from whence they first come If that be Divine their Authority is Divine if it be onely Humane their Authority can be no more And among Humane Authors if their Credit be great the Authority of what they deliver it great if it be little its Authority is little and accordingly must be accepted with greater or lesser Reverence Upon which score whatsoever can be made appear to come from Christ it hath the highest authority and ought to be received with absolute submission to it because he is the Son of God And likewise whatsoever appears to have been delivered by the Apostles in his Name hath the same Authority they being his Ministers sent by Him as He was by God the Father and indued with a Divine Power which attested unto them In like manner whatsoever is delivered by the Church hath the same Authority which the Church hath which though it be not equal to the foregoing the Church having no such Divine Power nor infallible Judgement as the Apostles had yet is of such weight and moment that it ought to be reverenced next to theirs I mean the sense of the whole Church which must be acknowledged also to be of greater or lesser Authority as it was nearer or farther off from the times of the Apostles What was delivered by their immediate Followers ought to weigh so much with us as to have the greatest Humane Authority and to be looked upon as little less then Divine The Universal consent of the next Generation is an Authority approaching as near to the former As the Ages do one to another But what is delivered in latter times hath less humane Authority though pretending to come but without proof from more early dayes and hath no Authority at all if it contradict the sense of the Church when it was capable to be better acquainted with the mind of Christ and of his Apostles As for particular Churches their Authority ought to be reverenced by every Member of them when they profess to deliver sincerely the sense of the Church Universal and when they determine as they have power to do Controversies of Faith or decree Rites and Ceremonies not contrary to GOD's Word in which every one ought to acquiesce But we cannot say the same of that which comes from any private Doctor in the Church Modern or Ancient which can have no greater Authority than he himself was of but is more or less credible according as he was more or less diligent knowing and strictly religious 4. But to all this it is necessary that it do sufficiently appear that such Doctrines do really come from those Authours whose Traditions they pretend to be This is the great and the only thing about which there is any question among sober and judicious persons How to be sufficiently assured that any thing which is not delivered unto us in the Scriptures doth certainly come for instance from CHRIST or his holy Apostles For in this all Christians are
agreed that whatsoever was delivered by CHRIST from GOD the Father or by the Apostles from CHRIST is to be embraced and firmly retained whither it be written or not written that makes no difference at all if we can be certain it came from Him or them For what is contained in the Holy Scripture hath not its Authority because it is written but because it came from GOD. If CHRIST said a thing it is enough we ought to submit unto it But we must first know that he said it and let the means of knowing it be what they will if we can certainly know He said it we yield to it But how we can be certain at this distance of time from his being in the World that any thing now pretending to it was said by CHRIST which is not recorded in the Holy Scriptures there is the business And it is a matter of such importance that it cannot be expected any man should be satisfied without very good evidence of it but he may very reasonably question whither many things be not falsely ascribed unto Him and unto his Apostles which never came from them Nay whither those things which are affirmed to be the Doctrines of the Primitive Church and of the whole Church be not of some later Original and of some particular Church or private Doctors in the Church unto whose Authority that Reverence is not due which ought to be paid and which we willingly give unto the former Now according to this state of the matter any good Christian among us who is desirous to know the Truth and to preserve himself from Errour may easily discern what Traditions ought to be received and held fast and what we are not bound unto without any alteration and what are not to be received at all but to be rejected and how far those things are from being credible which the Roman Church now would obtrude upon us under the name of Apostolical or ancient Traditions without any Authority from the Holy Scriptures or in truth any Authority but their own and some private Doctors whose Opinions cannot challenge an absolute submission to them But to give every one that would be rightly informed fuller satisfaction in this business I shall not content my self with this General Discourse but shall particularly and distinctly shew what Traditions we own and heartily receive and then what Traditions we cannot own but with good reason reâ—use These shall be the two Parts of this short Treatise wherein I shall endeavour that our people may be instructed not merely to reject Errours but also to affirm the Truth PART I. What Traditions we receive 1 AND in the first place we acknowledge that what is now Holy Scripture was once only Tradition properly so called that is Doctrine by word of mouth In this we all agree I say that the whole Gospel or Doctrine of CHRIST which is now upon record in those Books we call the Scriptures was once unwritten when it was first preached by our blessed Saviour and his Apostles Which must be noted to remove that small Objection with which they of the Roman Church are wont to trouble some peoples minds merely from the Name of Traditions which St. Paul in his Epistles requires those to whom he writes carefully to observe particularly in that famous place 1. Thess 2. 15. Where we find this Exhortation Therefore Brethren stand fast and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whither by word or our Epistle Behold say they here are things not written but delivered by word of mouth which the Thessalonians are commanded to hold Very true should the people of our Church say to those that insist upon this but behold also we beseech you what the Traditions are of which the Apostle here writes and mark also when it was that theâ— were partly unwritten For the fiâ—st of these it is manifest that he means by Traditions the Doctrines which we now read in the holy Scriptures For the very first word therefore is an indication that this verse is an inference from what he had said in the foregoing Now the things he before treated of are the grand Doctrines of the Gospel or the way of Salvation revealed unto us by Christ Jesus from God the Father who hath from the begining saith he v. 13 14. chosen you to Salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth whereunto he hath called you c. This is the sum of the Gospell and whatsoever he had delivered unto them about these matters of their Sanctification or of their Faith or of their Salvation by obtaining the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ to which they were chosen and called through their Sanctification and Faith this he exhorts them to hold fast whither it was contained in this Epistle or in his former preaching for he had not occasion now to write all that he had formerly delivered by word of mouth Which afterward was put in writing for mark which is the second thing the time when some things remained unwritten which was When this Epistle was sent to the Thessalonians Then some things concerning their salvatâ—on were not contained in this Letter but as yet delivered only by word of mouth unto this Church I say to this Church for it doth not follow that all Churches whatsoever were at the time of the writing of this Epistle without the Doctrine of the Gospel compleatly written because among the Thessalonians some Traditious or Doctrines were as yet unwritten Which can in reason be extended no farther then to themselves and to this Epistle which did contain all the Evangelical Doctrine though other writings which it is possible were then extant in some other Churches did And I say as yet unwritten in that Church because the Thessalonians no doubt had afterward more communicated to them in writing besides this Epistle or the former either viz. all the Gospels and the Acts of Apostles and other Apostolical Epistles which we now enjâ—y Which Writings we may be confident contain the Traditions which the Apostle had delivered to the Thessalonians by Word concerning the Incarnation Birth Life Miracles Death Resurrection and Ascension of our blessed Saviour and concerning the coming of the holy Ghost and the mission of the Apostles and all the rest which is there recorded for our everlasting instruction And therefore it is in vain to argue from this place that there are still at this day some unwriten Traditions which we are to follow unless the Apostle had said Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught by word which shall never be written And it is in vain for us to inquire after any such Traditions or rely upon them when they are offered unto us unless we were sure that there was something necessary to our Salvation delivered in their Sermons which was never to be delivered in writting and unless we know where to find it as certainly as we do that which they have committed to writing And
Faith of Christ they shall not teach nor any thing at all whereby the unskilful multitude may be inflaâ—ed either to the study of Novelty or to Contention VI. But though nothing may be taught as a piece of Religion which hath not the forenamed Original yet I must add that those things which have been universally believed and not contrary to Scripture though not written at all there nor to be proved from thence we do receive as pious Opinions For instance the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of GOD our Saviour which is so likely a thing and so universally received that I do not see why we should not look upon it as a genuine Apostolical Tradition VII I have but one thing more to adde which is that we allow also the Traditions of the Church about matters of Order Rites and Ceremonies Only we do not take them to be parts of GOD's worship and if they be not appointed in the holy Scriptures we believe they may be altered by the same or the like authority with that which ordained them So our Church hath excellently and fully resolved us concerning such matters in the XXXIV Article of Religion where there are three things asserted concerning such Traditions as these First It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies they are the very first words of the Article be in all places one or utterly alike for at all times they have been divers and may be changed according to the diversities of countries times and mens manners so that nothing be ordained against God's Word But then to prevent all disorders and confusions that men might make in the Church by following their own private fancies and humours the next thing which is decreed is this Secondly That whosoever through his own private judgment willingly and purposelie doth openlie break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the Word of GOD and be ordained and approved by common authority ought to be rebuked openlie that others may fear to do the like as he that offendeth against the common Order of the church and hurteth the Authority of the Magistrate and woundeth the consciences of the weak Brethren Lastlie It is there declared That every particular or National church hath authority to ordain change and abolish ceremonies or Rites of the church ordained only by man's authority so that all things be done to edifying This is sufficient to shew what we believe concerning Traditions about matters of Order and Decency VIII As for what is delivered in matters of Doctrine or Order by any private Doctor in the church or by any particular church it appears by what hath been said that it cannot be taken to be more then the private Opinion of that man or the particular Decree of that church and can have no more authority then they have that is cannot oblidge all christians unless it be contained in the holy Scripture Now such are the Traditions which the Roman church would impose upon us and impose upon us after a strange fashion as you shall see in the Second Part of this Discourse unto which I shall proceed presently when I have left with you this brief Reflection on what hath been said in this First Part. Our people may hereby be admonished not to suffer themselves to be deceived and abused by words and empty names without their sense and meaning Nothing is more common then this especially in the business of Traditions About which a great stir is raised and it is commonly given out that we refuse all Traditions Then which nothing is more false for we refuse none truly so called that is Doctrines delivered by Christ or his Apostles No we refuse nothing at all because it is unwritten but merely because we are not sure it is delivered by that Authority to which we ought to submit Whatsoever is delivered to us by our LORD and his Apostles we receive as the very word of God which we think is sufficiently declared in the holy Scriptures But if any can certainly prove by any Authority equal to that which brings the Scriptures to us that there is any thing else delivered by them we receive that also The Controversie will soon be at an end For we are ready to embrace it when any such thing can be produced Nay we have that reverence for those who succeeded the Apostles that what they have unanimously delivered to us as the sense of any doubtful place we receive it and seek no farther There is no dispute whither or no we should entertain it To the Decrees of the Church also we submit in matters of Decency and Order yea and acquiesce in its authority when it determines doubtful Opinions But we cannot receive that as a Doctrine of Christ which we know is but the Tradition of man nor keep the Ordinances of the ancient Church in matters of Decency so unalterably as never to vary from them because they themselves did not intend them to be of everlasting obligation As appears by the changes that have been made in several times and places even in some things which are mentioned in the holy Scriptures being but Customs suted to those Ages and Countries In short Traditions we do receive but not all that are called by that name Those which have sufficient Authority but not those which are imposed upon us by the sole authority of one particular Church assuming a power oâ—er all the rest And so I come to the Second Part. PART II. What Traditions we do not receive AND in the first place we do not believe that there is any Tradition which contains another Word of God which is not in the Scripture or cannot be proved from thence In this consists the main difference between us and them of the Romish Perswasion who affirm that Divine Truth which we are all bound to receive to be partly written partly delivered by word of mouth without writting Which is not only the affirmation of the Council of Trent but delivered in more express tâ—rms in the Bresace to the Roman Catechism drawn up by their order where we finde these words towards the conclusion of it The whole Doctrine to be delivered to the faithfull is contained in the Word of GOD which Word of GOD is distributed into Scripture and Tradition This is a full and plain declaration of their mind with which we can by no means agree for divers unanswerable reasons 1. Not only because the Scriptures testifie to their own perfection which they assirm to be so great as to be able to compleat the divinest men in the Church of CHRIST in all points of heavenly wisdom 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. but 2. Because the constant Tradition of the Church even of the Roman Church anciently is that in the Scriptures we may find all that is necessary to be known and believed to salvation I must not fill up this Paper with Authorities to this purpose but we avow this unto the people of
from what hath been now said That there being so little credit to be given to the Roman Church onely we cannot receive those Doctrines of Truth which that Church now presses upon our belief upon the account of Tradition For instance That the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistriss of all other Churches That the Pope of Rome is the Monarch or Head of the universal visible Church That all Scriptures must be expounded according to the sense of this Church That there are truly and properly seven Sacraments neither more nor less instituted by our blessed Lord himself in the New Testament That there is a proper and propiciatory Sacrifice offered in the Mass for the quick and dead the same that Christ offered on the Cross In short the half communion and all the rest of the Articles of their New Faith in the Creed published by Pope Pius IV. which are Traditions of the Roman Church alone not of the Universal and rely solely upon their own Authority And therefore we refuse them and in our Disputes about Traditions we mean these things which we reject because they have no foundation either in the holy Scripture or in universal Tradition but depend as I said upon the sole Authority of that Church which witnesses in its own behalf For whatsoever is pretended to make the better shew all resolves at last into that as I intimated in the beginning of this Discourse Scripture and Tradition can do nothing at all for them without their Churches definition Though their whole infallible Rule of Faith seem to be made up of those three yet in truth the last of these alone the Churches definition is the whole Rule and the very bottom upon which their Faith stands For what is Tradition is no more apparent then what is Scripture according to their Principles without the Authority of their church which pretends an unlimited power to supply the defect even of Tradition it self In short as Tradition among them is taken in to supply the defect of Scripture so the Authority of their Church is taken in to supply the defect of Tradition But this Authority undermines them both because neither Scripture nor Tradition signifie any thing without their Churches Authority Which therefore is the Rule of their Faith that is they believe themselves To which absurdity they are driven because it is made evident by us that there have been great diversities of Traditions and many changes and alterations made even in things called Apostolical c. And therefore they have no other way but to fly to the judgment of the present Church to determine what are Traditions Apostolical and what are not by which Judgment all mankind must be governed that is we must believe them and they believe themselves which they would have done well to have said in one word without putting us to the trouble of seeking for Traditions in Books and in other Churches But they would willingly colour their pretences by as many fair words as possible and so make mention of Scripture Tradition Antiquity which when we have examined they will not stand to them but take fanctuary in their own Authority saying They are the sole Judges what is Scripture and what Tradition and what Antiquity nay have a power to declare any new point of Faith which the Church never heard of before This is the Doctrine of Salmeron and others of his fellows That the Doctrine of Faith admits of additions in essential things For all things were not taught by the Apostles but such as were then necessary and fit for the Salvation of Believers By which means we can never know when the Christian Religion will be perfected but their Church may bring in Traditions by its sole Authority without end Nay some among them have been contented to resolve all their Faith into the sole Authority of the present Roman Bishop according to that famous saying of Cornelius Mussus promoted by Paul the Third to a Bishoprick upon the fourteenth Chapter to the Romans To confess the truth ingenuously I would give greater credit to one Pope in those things which touch the mysteries of Faith then to a thousand Hierom's Austin's Gregory's to say nothing of Richard's Scotus's c. For I believe and know that the Pope cannot erre in matters of Faith Which contemptuous Speech he would never have uttered to the discredit of those greatmen whom they pretend to reverence if he had not known more certainly that the Tradition which runs among the ancient Fathers is against them then he could know the Pope to be infallible There is no Tradition I am sure for that nor for abundance of other things which rest merely upon their own credit as is fairly acknowledged in two great Articles of their present Creed by our Countrey-man Bishop Fisher with whose words I conclude this particular Many perhaps have the less confidence in Indulgences because their use seems to have been newer in the Church and very lately found among Christians To whom I answer that it doth not appear certainly by whom they began to be first delivered For the Ancients make no mention or very rare of Purgatory and the Greeks to this very day do not believe it nor was the belief either of Purgatory or of Indulgences so necessary in the Primitive Church as it is new And as long as there was no care about Purgatory no body sought for Indulgences for all their esteem depends upon that If you take away Purgatory to what purpose are Indulgences Since therefore Purgatory was so lately known and received in the Catholick Church who can wonder that there was no use of Indulgences in the beginning of our Religion Which is a full Confession what kind of Traditions that Church commends unto us things lately invented their own private Opinions of which the ancient Christians knew nothing In one word their Tradition is no Tradition in that sense wherein the Church alwayes understood it IV. And what hath been said of them must be applied to other particular Churches though some have been more sincere then they None of them hath any Authority to commend any thing as an Article of Faith unto Posterity which hath not been commended to them by all foregoing Ages derived from the Apostles For Vincentius his Rule is to guide us all in this That is Catholick and consequently to be received which hath been held by all and in all churches and at all times V. Which puts me in mind of another thing to be briefly touched that the Ecclesiastical Tradition contained in the Confessions or Registers of particular Churches in these days wherein we live is not received by us nor allowed to have the same Authority which such Tradition had at the time of the Nicene Council for the conviction of Heresie The joynt consent I mean of so many Bishops as were there assembled and the unanimous Confessions of so many several Churches of several Provinces as were there delivered hath not
pretends to be a part of GOD's Word were delivered to us by as universal uncontroulled Tradition as the Scripture is we should receive it as we do the Scripture But it appears plainly that such things were at first but private Opinions which now are become the Doctrines of that particular Church who would impose her Decrees upon us under the Venerable Name of Apostolical Universal Tradition which I have shewn you hath been an ancient Cheat and that we ought not to be so easie as to be deceived by it But to be very wary and afraid of trusting the Traditions of such a Church as hath not only perverted some abolished others and pretended them where there hath been none but been a very unfaithful preserver of them and that in matters of great moment where there were some and lastly warrants those which it pretends to have kept by nothing but its own infallibility For which there is no Tradition but much against it even in the Orignal Tradition the holy Scriptures which plainly suppose the Roman Church may not only erre but utterly fall and be cut off from the Body of Christ as they that please may read who will consult the Eleventh Chapter to the Romans v. 20 21 22. Of which they are in the greater danger because they proudly claim so high a Prerogative as that now mentioned directly contrary to the Apostolical Admonition in that place Be not high minded but fear CONCLUSION I Shall end this Discourse with a brief Admonition relating to our Christian Practice And what is there more proper or more seasonable then this While we reject all spurious Traditions let us be sure to keep close to the genuine and true Let us hold them fast and not let them go Let us not not dispute our selves out of all Religion while we condemn that which is false nor break all Christian Discipline and Order because we cannot submit to all humane Impositions In plain words let us not throw off Episcopacy together with the Papal Tyranny We ought to be the more careful in observing the Divine Tradition delivered to us in the Scripture and according to the Scripture because we are not bound to other While we contend against the half Communion let us make a conscience to receive the whole frequently It looks like Faction rather then Religion to be earnest for that which we mean not to use In like manner while we look upon additions to the Scripture as vain let us not neglect to read and ponder those holy Writtings When we reject Purgatory as a Fable let us really dread Hell-fire And while we do not tye our selves to all usages that have been in the Church let us be carful to observe first all the substantial Duties of Righteousness Charity Sobriety and Godliness which are unquestionably delivered to us by our LORD himself and his holy Apostles and secondlie all the Ordinances of the Church wherein we live which are not contrary to the Word of GOD. For so hath the same Divine Authority delivered that the people should obey those that are their Guides and Governours submitting themselves to their authority and avoiding all contention with them as most undecent in it self and pernicious to Religion which suffers extreamly when neither Ecclesiastical Authority nor Ecclesiastical Custom can end disputes about Rites and Ceremonies Read 1 Thess 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 16. and read such places as you ought to do all the other Scriptures till your hearts be deeply affected with them For be admonished in the last place of this which is of general use and must never be forgotten because we shall lose the benefit of that Coelestial Doctrine which is delivered unto us if we do not strictly observe itâ— That as this Evangelical Doctrine is delivered down to us so we must be delivered up to it Thus St. Paul teaches us to speak in 6. Rom. 17. where he thanks GOD that they who formerly had been servants of sin did now obey from the heart that form of Doctrine unto which they were delivered So the words run in the Greek as the Margin of our Bibles inform you cis bon paredothnie This is the Tradition which we must be sure to retain and hold fast above all other as that without which all our belief will be ineffectual This is the very end for which all Divine Truth is delivered unto us that we may be delivered and make a surrender of our selves unto it Observe the force of the Apostles words which tell us first that there was a certain form of Christian Doctrine which the Apostles taught compared here to a mould so the word Typos form may be translated into which Mettal or such-like matter is cast that it may receive the figure and shape of that mould 2. Now he compares the Roman Christians to such ductile pliable matter they being so delivered or cast into this form or mould of Christian Doctrine that they were intirely framed and fashioned according to it and had all the lineaments as I may say of it expressed upon their souls 3. And having so received it they were obedient to it for without this all the impressions which by knowledge of Faith were made upon their souls were but an imperfect draught of what was intended in the Christian Tradition 4. And it was hearty obedience sincere compliance with the Divine Will such obedience as became those who understood their Religion to be a great deliverance and liberty from the slavery of sin before spoken of into the happy freedom of the service of God 5. All which lastly he ascribes to the grace of God which had both delivered to them that Doctrine and drawn them to deliver up themselves to it made their hearts soft and ductile to be cast into that mould and quickned them to Christian Obedience and given them a willing mind to obey chearfully All this was from God's grace and not their merits and therefore the thanks was to be ascribed to him who succeeds and blesses all pious endeavours Now according to this pattern let us frame our selves who blessed be God have a form of Doctrine delivered to us in this Church exactly agreeable to the holy Scriptures which lie open before us and we are exhorted not onely to look into them but we feel that grace which hath brought them to us clearly demonstrating that we ought to be formed according to the holy Doctrine therein delivered by the delivery of our selves to it By the delivery of our mind that is to think of God and our selves and of our duty in every point just as this instructs us And by the delivery of our wils and affections to be governed and regulated according to its directions And when we have consented to this we find the Divine grace representing to us the necessity of an hearty obedience to what we know and believe and have embraced as the very Truth of God To this we are continually drawn
Testament expresly told what this Idolatry is which supposes that we must learn what it is from some antecedent Laws and there were no such Laws in being but the Laws of Moses The only thing that can be said in this case is that the Apostle refers them not to any written Law but to the natural notions of Idolatry but with what reason this is said will soon appear if we consider to whom the Apostle writes and they were but Jewish and Heathen Converts As for the Heathens they had corrupted all their natural notions of Idolatry and had no sense at all of this sin till they were converted to Christianity and therefore they were not likely to understand the true notion of Idolatry without being taught it and it is not probable the Apostles would leave them to guess what Idolatry is As for the Jews God would not from the beginning trust to their natural notions but gave them express Laws about Idolatry which though they are the same Laws which natural reason dictates to us as most agreeable to the nature and worship of God yet since the experience of the world which was over-run by Idolatrous worship sufficiently prove that all men do not use their reason aright in these matters God would not trust to the use of their reason in the weighty concernments of his own worship and glory but gives them an express positive Law about it and Christ and his Apostles having done nothing to repeal this Law they leave them under the authority of it and when they warn them against Idols and Idolatry without giving them any new Laws about it must in all reason be presumed to refer them to those Laws which they already had SECT V. 4. AS a farther proof of this I observe that Christ and his Apostles did not abrogate but only complete and perfect the Mosaical Laws Our Saviour with great zeal and earnestness disowns any such intention or design Think not that I am come to destroy the Law and the Prophets I am not come to destroy but to fulfil plerosai to fill it up by fulfilling the types and prophecies 5. Mat. 17. of it by exchanging a ceremonial for a real righteousness or by perfecting its moral precepts with new instances and degrees of vertue And therefore he adds For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law till all be fulfilled And St. Paul who was lookt on by the believing Jews as a great enemy to the Law of Moses does renounce all such pretences Do we then make void the Acts 21. 21. 22. Rom 3. 31. Law through Faith God forbid yea we establish the Law Indeed had Christ or his Apostles attempted to have given any new Laws contrary to the Laws of Moses it had justified the Jews in their unbelief for God by his Prophet Isaiah had given this express rule to examine all new Doctrines by To the law and the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them and that Isai 8. 20. Christ himself is not excepted from this rule appears in this that this is joyned with the prophecie of the Messias both before and after as you may see in Isai 8 13. 14. and Ch. 9. 6. 7. and therefore Christ his Apostles alwayes make their appeals to the writings of the Old Testament and St. Paul in all his disputes with the Jews urges them with no other authority but the Scriptures and thö the Miracles which were wrought by the Apostles did move the Jews to hearken to them and greatly dispose them to believe their Doctrine yet it was the authority of the Scriptures whereon their Faith was founded As S. Peter tels those to whom he wrote that though they preach'd nothing to them concerning the coming of Christ but what they were eye-witnesses of and though God had given testimony to him by a voice from Heaven which they heard when they were with him in the holy Mount yet he adds We have also a more sure word of prophecie whereunto ye do well that ye take heed as to a light Pet. 1. 16. 7. 18. 19. that shineth in a dark place untill the day dawn and the day-star arise in your hearts That is the Scriptures of the Old Testament and therefore the Jews of Berea are greatly commended for their diligence in searching the Scriptures and examining St. Pauls Doctrine by them and this is assigned Acts 17. 10. 11. as the reasons why many of them believed To apply this then to our present purpose I observe 1. That if Christ did not make any new Laws in contradiction to the Law of Moses then he could make no alteration in the object of Religious Worship He could not introduce the worship of Saints and Angels without contradicting that Law which commands us to worship no other Beeing but the one Supreme God For the worship of Saints and Angels together with the Supreme God is a direct contradiction to that Law which commands us to worship God alone though we should suppose that in the nature of the thing the worship of Saints and Angels were consistent with the worship of the Supreme God yet it is not consistent with that Law which commands us to worship none but God So that let this be a natural or positive Law or whatever men please to call it it is a very plain and express Law and Christ never did contradict any express Law of God It is true that Typical and Ceremonial Worship which God commanded the Jews to observe is now out of date under the Gospel and does no longer oblidge Christians but the reason of that is because it has received its accomplishment and perfection in Christ Christ has perfected the Jewish Sacrifices and put an end to them by offering a more perfect and meritorious sacrifice even the sacrifice of himself The Circumcision washings Purifications of the Law are perfected by the Laws of internal purity The external Ceremonies of the Law cease but they are perfected by an Evangelical righteousness But this I say that Christ never repealed any Mosaical Law but by fulfilling and perfecting it He came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil Now methinks I need not prove that the worship of Sainâ—s and Angels is not a fulfilling but a destroying that Law which commands us to worship none but God And it is not enough to say that these are positive Laws given to the Jews though that be said without any reason for let them shew me any positive Law relating to the worship of GOD which Christ has wholly abrogated without fulfilling it 2. Yet as a farther proof that Christ has made no alteration in the object of our worship that he has not introduced the worship of Saints or Angels or Images into the Christian Church which was so expresly forbid by the Jewish Law I observe
prohibite the worship of all those Gods which were then worshipped in the world will any one in theirs wits hence conclude that if the folly and superstition of men should set up a new race and generation of Gods in after ages that the worship of these new Gods is not as well forbidden by this general Law as the worship of those gods which were worship'd at that time when this Law was given If this were true possibly Pagan Rome it self was not guilty of Idolatry for most if not all of their Gods might be of a later date then the giving the Law 3. Now since no such distinctions as these appear in Scripture it is impossible they should justifie the worship of Saints and Angels which is so expresly forbidden by the Law if we will acknowledge them to be distinct Beeings from the Supreme God for if they are not the Supreme GOD we must not worship them for we must worship none but God No distinctions can justifie us in this case but such as GOD himself makes for otherwise it were easie to distinguish away any Law of God Humane Laws will admit of no distinctions but such as they make themselves for a distinction does either confine and streighten or enlarge the Law and he who has power to distinguish upon a Law has so far power to make it If the Law says that we shall worship no other Beeing besides God and we have power if we have but wit enough to invent some new distinctions between the worship of good and bad spirits between Supreme and Subordinate absolute and relative worship this makes a new Law of it for it is one thing to say thou shalt worship GOD only and quite contrary to say thou shalt worship God only and good Spirits God with a supreme and absolute good Spirits with a subordinate and relative worship This I think is sufficient to shew that we must admit of no distinctions upon a Divine Law but what the Scripture it self owns and therefore since those distinctions with which the Church of Rome justifies her worship of Saints and Angels are no where to be found in Scripture they have no authority against an express Law 3. The next course the Papists take to justifie their Creature-worship in contradiction to that Law which expresly commands us to worship none but God is an appeal to such authorities as they think sufficient to decide this matter Now I shall not say much to this for I believe all Mankind will acknowledge that no Authority less then Divine can repeal a Divine Law and therefore unless God himself or such persons as act by a Divine Authority have repealed this Law no other Authority can do it That Christ and his Apostles have not repealed this Law I have already proved that the whole Church in after Ages had any Authority to repeal this Law I desire them to prove For the authority of the Church as to the essentials of Faith and Worship is not the authority of Law-givers but of Witnesses The Church never pretended in former Ages to make or to repeal any Divine Laws but to declare and testifie what the belief and practice of the Primitive and Apostolick Churches was and it is unreasonable to think that they should have any such Authority for then Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospel to little purpose if it were in the power of the Church to make a new Gospel of it when they pleased But indeed could it appear that the Apostles did teach the Christians of that Age and the Church in those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles did practise the worship of Saints and Angels we should have reason to suspect that we and not they are mistaken in the sense of that Law which commands us to worship none but God But then none can be admitted as competent witnesses of this matter but those who did immediately succeed the Apostles or conversed with Apostolical men and Churches And thanks be to God there is no appearance of creature-worship in those Ages we dare appeal to the testimony of Fathers and Councils for above three hundred years and those who come after come a little too late to be witnesses of what was done in the Apostolick Churches especially when all the intermediate Ages knew nothing of it I shall not fill up this discourse with particular â—itations which learned men know where to find since the Roman Doctors can find nothing in the Writings of the first Fathers to justifie the worship of Saints and Angels and the Protestant Writeâ—s find a great deal in those Ages against it Indeed at the latter end of the fourth Century some of the Fathers used some Rhetorical Apostrophes to the Saints and Martyrs in in their Orations which the Church of Rome interprets to be Prayers to them but though other See Bishops Ushers Answer to the Jesuits Challenge Learned men have vindicated those passages so far as to shew the vast difference between them and solemn and formal Invocation which is not my business at this time yet there are several things very well worth our observation towards the true stating of this matter As 1. That these Fathers came too late to be witnesses of the Apostolical practice which they could know no otherwise then we might know it if there had been any such thing viz. by the testimony and practice of the Church from the Apostles till that time This was no where pretended by them that the Invocation of Saints had been the practice of the Catholick Church in all ages and they could have no proof of this unless they had better Records of former times then we have at this day and such as contradicted all the Records which we now have of the Apostolick and Primitive Churches and I believe few men will be so hardy as to assert this and me thinks there should be as few who are so credulous as to believe it and I am sure there is no man living who is able to prove it 2. Nay the particular sayings of these Fathers by which the Romanists prove the Invocation of Saints do not prove that it was the Judgement and practice of the Church of that age They no where say that it was and it does not appear to be so by any other Records Let them shew me any Council before or in those times when these Fathers lived that is in the fourth Century which decreed the worship of Saints and Angels Let them produce any publick offices of Religion in in those dayes which allows this worship and if no such thing appears those men must be very well prepared to believe this who will without any other evidence judge of the practice of the Church only from some extravagant slights of Poets and Orators and if even in those dayes the worship of Saints was not received into the publick offices of the Church methinks we may as well live without it still and they must either grant
that these Fathers whose authority they alledge mean'd no such thing by these Rhetorical flourishes as they extract out of them or else that they introduced a new and unknown worship into the Christian Church and then let them prove that some few Fathers of the fourth Century without the publick authority of the Church had authority enough of their own to change the object of worship contrary as the Church in former Ages believed to an express Divine Law which commands us to worship none but God 3. Nay I farther observe that these Fathers whose authority is urged for the invocation of Saints by the Church of Rome do no where dogmatically and positively assert the lawfulness of Praying to Saints and Angels and many Fathers of the same Age do positively deny the lawfulness of it which is a plain argument that it was not the judgement and practice of the Church of that Age and a good reasonable presumption that these Fathers never intended any such thing in what they said how liable soever their words may be to be expounded to such a sense Gregâ—ry Nazianzen indeed in this Book against Julian the Apostate speaks to the Soul of Constantius in this manner Hear O thou Soul of great Constantius if thou hast any sense of these things c. But will you call this a Prayer to Constantius does this Father any where assert in plain terms that it is lawful to pray to Saints departed a hundred such sayings as these which are no Prayers to Saints cannot prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints against the Doctrine of the Fathers of that Age. Thus is his Funeral Oration for his Sister Gorgonia he bespeaks her to this purpose that if she knew what he was now a doing and if holy Souls Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. in Gorg. did receive this favour from God to know such matters as these that then she would kindly accept that Oration which he made in her praise insteed of other Funeral Ocsequâ—es Is this a Prayer to Gorgonia to intercede for him with God by no means He only desires if she heard what he said of her which he was not sure she did that she would take it kindly Whereas in that very Age the Fathers asserted that we must pray only to God and therefore they define Prayer by its relation to God That Prayer is a request of some good things made Basil Orat in Julit Martyr Greg. Naz. Orat 1. de Oratione Chrys in Genes Homil. 30. Aug. De clvit Dei l 22 cap. 10. by devout Souls to God that it is a conference with God that it is a request offered with supplication to God Which is a very imperfect definition of Prayer were it lawful to pray to any other Being besides God St. Austin tells us that when the names of the Martyrs were rehearsed in their publick Liturgies it was not to invoke them or pray to them but only for an honourable remembrance nay he expresly tells us that the worship of dead men must be no part of our Religion for if they were pious men they do not desire this kind of honour but would have us worship Idâ—â— de vera Religione cap. â—5 GOD honorandi ergo sunt propter imitationem non adorandi propter Religionem they are to be honoured for imitation not to be adored as an act of Religion The Council of Laodicea condemned the Worship of Angels and so does Theodoret Oecumenius and others of that Age. It is notoriously known that the Arrians were condemned as guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ whom they would not own to be the true GOD though they owned him to be far exalted above all Saints and Angels and to be as like to GOD as it is for any creature to be and those who upon these Principles condemned the worship of the most perfect and excellent Creature could never allow the worship of Saints and Angels So that through the worship of Saints and Angels did begin abouâ— this time to creep into the Church yet it was opposed by these pious and learned Fathers and condemned in the first smallest appearances of it which shews that this was no Catholick Doctrine and Practice in that Age much less that it had been so from the Apostles and I think after this time there was no authority in the Church to alter the object of worship nor to justifie such an Innovation as the worship of Saints and Angels in opposition to the express law of God The sum of this Argument is this Since there is an express Law against the worship of any other Beeing besides the supreme God the Lord Jehovah which never was expresly repealed whatever plausible reasons â—ay be urged for the worship of Saints and Angels they cannot justifie us in acting contrary to an express Law of God THE END A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE CELEBRATION OF Divine Service IN AN UNKNOWN TONGUE UPon this Argument the Church of England doth fully declare it self in these words It is a Article 24. thing plainly repugnant to the Word of God and the Custome of the Primitive Church to have publick Prayers in the church or to minister the Sacraments in a Tongue not understood of the people But if we consult the Doctors of the Church of Rome about it we shall find them as in most other Comment in Eccles 5. 1. points differing extremely amongst themselves Mercer a very learned person and Professor of Hebrew at Paris is so free as to say Temere fecerunt c. They amongst us have done rashly that brought in the Custome of praying in an Vnknown Tongue which very often neither they themselves nor our people understand And Cardinal Cajetan saith Melius est c. It is better for our Church that the publick Prayers in the Congregation be said in a Tongue common to the In 1. Ep. Corinth c. 14. Priests and People and not in Latine Others of them are of another Mind and say that the having Divine Service in a Tongue known to the people is new and prophane and the Doctrine requiring it Diaboli calliditatem sâ—pit smells of the craft of the Devil And that the Church in making use of the Latine Tongue therein received it by inspiration from the Holy Ghost as a late Author saith Stapleton Quaest quodl Quaest 2. Sixtus Senens biblioth l. 6. â—nnot 263. Portraiture of the church of Jesus Christ c 14. With what consistence soever the former sort may speak to Truth and Reason yet I am sure the later speak with consistence enough to the Opinion Declarations and Practice of their church as is evident from the Council of Treâ—t the present Standard of the Doctrine of the church of Rome which I find thus Englished to my Hands by a noted person of their Cone Trid. Sess 22. c. 8. S. c. Answ to Dr. Pierce c. 15. church Though the Mass contain great instruction for GODS faithful people yet it seemed
to be conformed to the Image of his Son and â—hom he did predestinate them he called and whom he called them he Justified and whom he Justified them he Glorified The Apâ—stle having said in the verse before verse 28 We know that all things work together for good unto them that love GOD to them who are called according to his purpose adds as a proof of what he had said whom he did foreknow would be persons of Great and noble minds and so fit for the work them he did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of his Son them he did decree to suffer for his sake and by sufferings to be made conformed to his Son who was made perfect through sufferings and whom he did predestinate them he also called them in due time he actually called forth to suffer for his name and whom he called them he justified them he approved of as Faithfull Servants as Loyal Souldiers as Invincible Champions of Truth and Righteousness and whom he Justified he Glorified them he Crowned with Honour and Renown here and with immortal Glory hereafter This was the Testimony God bore to the Apostles and first Bishops of the Church to the Authority they had received to the Doctrine they taught and for which they died this was the Honour the Primitive Christians deservedly shewed to their Victorious Martyrs they did not Invocate them but Loved their Memories Commemorated their Vertues and Blessed God for their example they performed to them not any part of Religious Worship that was Cultus officiâ—sus dilectionis soâ—ietatis specialis observantia S. Aust contr Faust l. 20. 21. ou latreutikâ—s alla schetikos kai ti metikâ—s Cyril l. o. contr Jul. due to God only but as they called it an officious Worship a Worship of Love and society a special and particular observance a respect convenient and proper and which they could not but think was due to them on the account of the great service they had done to the the cause of Christ and the more then ordinary worth and excellency that shined in them But afterwards in succeeding Ages when through the good providence of God and favour of Constantine the great the church had rest and ease and Prosperity began to dawn upon it the Devil finding he coulde not prevail over the Christian Faith by fiery trials and temptations betook himself to other more secret it may be but equally dangerous stratagems and by working on the strong inclinations and affections of Men to ease and softness he too successfully attempted to deprave and corrupt it by loose and superstitious Doctrines most Men are for some kind of Religion whither the Devil will or no which because he canâ—ot hinder he labours what he can it may be such that whilst it pretends fair may do them but little good and Men are forâ—ard enough to close with that which offers at carrying them to Heaven on the easiest terms The Church being now out of Persecution and Riches and Honours attending that profession for which such multitudes had lost all and endured the flames the people began to be more loose and vain in their conversations then when they still expected martyrdom now they began to place their Religion in shews and pretences more then in a sincere and substantial Piety and whereas before they were wont to frequent the Tombs of the Martyrs that at the sight of the place their affections might be raised their Devotions enlivened and their Faith and Charity receive farther degrees of warmth and heat from their burning and shining examples now they placed all their Religion in the bare outward observance of that Solemnity and took more care to Honour the Saints by their lofty Praises and commendations of them then to become Saints themselves by imitating their Graces and Vertues and that what was wanting in the one they might make up in the other they now began to fall into many Superstitious Conceits and Opinions concerning them to break out into too lavish and indeed extravagant expressions of their worth and to fly too high in their Panegyricks and Laudatory Orations Now they began To attribute the miracles done at the Martyrs Tombs to the Martyrs own Power or at least mediation with God the common People observing that many Cures were wrought upon those that at those monuments applied themselves to God were led by degrees to look upon them as so many Testimonies of the Martyrs great interest in the Court of Heaven and instead of begging relief of God to speak directly to the Martyrs themselves To fancy that the Souls of Martyrs were alwayes hovering about their Tombs and Ashes and so joyned their Intercessions with the Prayers of Christians that were put up to God in those places so 't was objected by Vigilantius to St. Hierom To wish that the Martyrs would Pray for them Oret pro nobis Flavianus so they cried out in the Council of Chalcedon Let Flavianus Pray for us and in Theodoret's History of the Lives of the Fathers we find in the close of most of them though some think them not to be his words but Additions and Insertions afterwards I wish and desire that by their Intercession I may obtâ—in Divine help To commend themselves to the Martyrs intercessions Commendare nos orationi St. Aust to beg to be heard for their sakes to be helpt by their prayers to be vouchsaf't the effects of the Prayers that were made by them in behalf of the Church below To pray to them upon supposition if they heard or knew what was done here below Hear oh thou soul Nazian Orat. 2. in Jultan ei de iis soi kai ton hemeteron esti logos Orat. â—nd in Gorgon of great Constantius sayes St. Gregory Nazianzen if thou hast any understanding of these things the like he hath in his Funeral Oration which he made upon his sister Gorgonia If thou hast any care of things done by us and Holy souls receive this Honour from God that they have any feeling of such things as these receive this Oration of ours By such steps and degrees as these the frequenting the places where the Martyrs were enshrined and Honouring their Names and Memories was turned into Superstitious Devotion and that soon ended in solemn and downright Invocation To all this we may add what a Learned Author of our own has ingeniously guest that the great compliance Dr. Tenison and yielding of the Roman Christians in this particular to those Northern Nations the Goths and Vandals when they invaded and overun the Empire did not a little contribute to raise and propagate this Saint-Worship and Invocation in the Church of all the Heathen Nations none were more Zealously Devoted to the Worship of Daemons then those were whereof he gives many Testimonies now it 's not improbable that the Christians to mollify their fierce natures and to induce them the more readily to embrace Christianity might indulge them still that
they saw them were deceived then there might be no Miracles wrought and consequently it may justly be doubted whither that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Christian Religion would be strong enough to prove it supposing Transubstantiation to be a part of it Because every man hath as great evidence that Transubstantiation is false as he hath that the Christian Religion is true Suppose then Transubstantiation to be part of the Christian Doctrine it must have the same confirmation with the whole and that is Miracles But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it the very same assurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falsehood of the Doctrine that is the clear evidence of his senses For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Christ there is only the evidence of sense and there is the very same evidence to prove that what he sees in the Sacrament is not the Body of Christ but bread So that here would arise a new Controversie whither a man should rather believe his senses giving testimony against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or bearing witness to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine there being the very same evidence against the truth of the Doctrine which there is for the truth of the Miracle And then the Argument for Transubstantiation and 〈◊〉 Objection against it would just balance one another and consequeâ—â—ly Transubstantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle because thâ— would be to prove to a man by some thing that he sees that he dâ— not see what he sees And if there were no other evidence that Trâ—â—substantiation is no part of the Christian Doctrine this would â—â— sufficient that what proves the one doth as much overthâ—â—â— the other and that Miracles which are certainly the best and higâ—â— external proof of Christianity are the worst proof in the world of Trâ—â—substantiation unless a man can renounce his senses at the same tâ—â— that he relies upon them For a man cannot believe a Miracle withoâ—â— relying upon sense nor Transubstantiation without renouncing it Sâ— that never were any two things so ill coupled together as the Doctriâ—â— of Christianity and that of Transubstantiation because they draw sâ—veral ways and are ready to strangle one another because thâ— main evidence of the Christian Doctrine which is Miracles is resâ—â—ved into the certainty of sense but this evidence is clear and poiâ—â— blank against Transubstantiation 4. And Lastly I would ask what we are to think of the Argumeâ—â— which our Saviour used to convince his Disciples after his Resurrectâ—on that his Body was really risen and that they were not deluded by â— Ghost or Apparition Is it a necessary and conclusive Argâ—ment or not * Luke 24. 3â— 39. And he said unto them why are yâ—â— troubled and why do thoughts arise in your heartsâ— Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self â—â—â— a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me hâ—â— But now if we suppose with the Church of Rome the Doctrine oâ— Transubstantiation to be true and that he had instructed his Disâ—ciples in it just before his death strange thoughts might justly havâ— risen in their hearts and they might have said to him Lord it iâ— but a few dayes ago since thou didst teach us not to believe our senses but directly contrary to what we saw viz. That the bread whicâ— thou gavest us in the Sacrament though we saw it and handled iâ— and tasted it to be bread yet was not bread but thine own natural body and now thou appealest to our senses to prove that thiâ— is thy body which we now see If seeing and handling be an unquestionable evidence that things are what they appear to ouâ— senses then we were deceived before in the Sacrament and if they be not then we are not sure now that this is thy body which we now see and handle but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of flesh and bones just as in the Sacrament that which we saw and handled and tasted to be bread was thy flesh and bones under the form and appearance of bread Now upon this supposition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughâ—â— â—f the Disciples For if the Argument which our Saviour used did â—â—rtainly prove to them that what they saw and handled was his â—â—dy his very natural flesh and bones 〈◊〉 because they saw and â—andled them which it were impious to deny is would as strongâ—â— prove that what they saw and received before in the Sacrament was â—ot the natural body and bloud of Christ but real bread and wine â—nd consequently that according to our Saviours arguing after his â—esurrection they had no reason to believe Transubstantiation before â—or that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his â—ody after his Resurrection doth as strongly prove the reality of bread â—nd wine after consecration But our Saviours Argument was most â—â—fallibly good and true and therefore the Doctrine of Transubstanâ—â—ation is undoubtedly false Upon the whole matter I shall only say this that some other â—oints between us and the Church of Rome are managed with some â—ind of witâ— and subtilty but this of Transubstantiation is carâ—ied out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Manâ—ind And of this the more discerning persons of that Church are of â—ate grown so sensible that they would now be glad to be rid of this â—odious and ridiculous Doctrine But the Council of Trent hath fastâ—ned it to their Religion and made it a necessary and essential Point of their Belief and they cannot now part with it if they would it is like a Mill-stone hung about the neck of Popery which will sink it at the last And though some of their greatest Wits as Cardinal Perron and of late Monsieur Arnauld have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes yet it is an absurdity of that monstrous and massy weight that no humane authority or witâ— are able to support it It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack and requires more Volumes to make it good then would fill the Vatican And now I would apply my self to the poor deluded People of that Church if they were either permitted by their Priests or durst venture without their leave to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it Consider and shew your selves men Do not suffer your selves any longer to be led blindfold and by an implicit Faith in your Priests into the belief of nonsense and contradiction Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques but let not the Authority of any Priest or Church perswade you out of your senses
te vivere te illi semper dulce sapere Rythmus St. Thom. ad Eucharist in Missal Sacrament which is before them Prayers they call them to the Eucharist f Laus sacratissimo Sacramento and 't is become a common form of Doxology amongst them instead of saying Praise be given to God to say Praise be given to the most holy Sacrament g Ad Sacram Eucharistiam Rithmus Rom. breviar as 't is in one of their Authors instead of ye shall pray to God ye shall pray to the Body of Christ i e. To the Sacrament h Orlandinus hist Sanders in his Book of the Supper of the Lord i Corpore sangiâ—â— Christi sub speciebus panis vini omnis honor Laus Gratiarum actio in secula seculerum Sanderus de caena Dom. instead of Glory be to the Father Son and Holy Ghost turns it thus To the Body and Blood of our Saviour under the species of Bread and Wine be all Honour and Praise and Thanksgiving for evermore as if it were another Person of the blessed God-head This Adoration is not only in the time of Communion when it is properly the Lords Supper and Sacrament but at other times out of it when ever it is set upon the Altar with the Candles burning and the Incense smoaking before it or hung up in its rich Shrine and Tabernacle with a Canopy of State over it And not only in the Church which is sanctified they say by this Sacrament as by the presence of God himself k Bellarm. de sanct c. 5. but when it is carried through the Streets in a solemn and pompous Procession as it is before the Pope when he goes abroad just as the Persian fire was before the Emperor l Curt. l 3. S. 3. meerly by way of state or for a superstitious end that he may be the better Guarded and Defended by the company of his God m Ad capit is illius sacri custodiam praesidialem patronalem perron de Euch. l. 3. c. 19. In all these times it is to be worshipped and adored by all persons as it passeth by as if it were the Glory of God which passed by They are like Moses to make hast and bow their heads to the Earth and worship n Exod. 34. â— but above all upon that high day which they have dedicated to this Sacrament as if it were some new Deity the Festum Dei as they call it the Feast of God or the Festum Corporis Christi the Feast of the Body of Christ for to call the Sacrament God is a general Expression among them as when they have received the Sacrament to say I have received my Maker to day and the Person who in great Churches is â—o carry the Sacrament to the numerous Communicants is called Bajulus Dei the Porter or Carrier of GOD and they alwayes account and so alwayes reverence it as Boileau falsly sayes o Eucharistiam pro praesente numine â—emper habuisse Veteres the Ancients did as a present Numen and Deity This Feast was appointed by Pope Vrban the 4th about the middle of the twelfth Century and again by â—lement the fifth in the begining of the 13th as is owned by themselves upon the occasion of a Vision to one Juliana who saw a crack in the Moon that signified it seems a great â—efect in the Church for want of this Solemnity such was the rise of this great Festival p Bzovii Annal in Contin Baron Anno Dom. 1230. and so late was its Institution in the Roman Church in which alone and in no other Christian Church of the World it is observed to this day And that the whole practice of the Adoration to the Host is Novel and unknown to the primitive Church and to the Ancient Writers I shall endeavour to make evident against that bold and impudent Canon of the Council of Trent which is the first Council that commanded it in these words q Siquis dixerit non esse hoc Sacramentum peculiari festivia celebritate venerandum neque in processionibus secundum laudabilem Vniversalem Ecclesiae sanctae ritum consuetudinem soleâ—niter circumgeslandâ—â— vel â—on publice ut adoretur populo proponendum ejus Adoratoresesse Idololatr as anathema sit Concil Trident. Can. 6. Sess 13. If any one shall say that the Sacrament is not to be worship'd by a peculiar Festival nor to be solemnly carried about in Processions according to the laudable and universal manner and custom of the Holy Church nor to be publickly proposed to the people that it may be adored by them and that the Worshippers of it are Idolaters let him be accursed To confront this insolent pretence of theirs that it was an universal custom of the church thus to carry the Sacrament in processions the ingenuous confession of their own Cassander is sufficient The Custom sayes he r Consuetudo quae panis Eâ—charistiae in publica pompa conspicuus circumferetur ac passim omnium oculis ingeritur praeter veterum morem ac mentem haâ—d ita longo tempore inducta recepta videtur Illi enim hoc mysterium in tanta religione ac veneratione habuerunt ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem sed ne inspectionem quidem admitterent nisi fideles quos Christi membra tanta participatione dignosesse existimarent quare ante Consecrationem Catecbumeni Energumeni poeniteâ—tes denique non Communicantes Diaconi voce Osliariorum Ministerio secludeb antur Cassand consult of carrying about the Sacramental Bread in publick pomp to be seen and exposed to all eyes is contrary to the mind and custom of the Ancients and seems to be lately brought in and received for they had this mystery in such religious Veneration that they would not admit any not only to the partaking but not to the sight of it but the Faithful whom they accounted members of Christ and worthy to partake of such a Mystery Wherefore all those who were but Catechumeni or were Energumeni or Penetents and not Communicants were alwayes put out and dismist at the Celebration of it Whither they be Idolaters for adoring the Sacrament I have considered already and their practice joyned with their Doctrine maks it more evident I shall now prove that this Adoration of theirs was neither commanded nor used by Christ or the Apostles nor by the Primitive Church nor is truely mean'd and designed by those Authorities of the Fathers which they produce for it and upon a general view of the whole matter That it is a very absurd and ridiculous thing that tends most shamefully to reproach and expose Christianity 1. That it was not used or commanded by Christ or the Apostles is plain from the account that all the Evangelists give us of Christs celebrating this Sacrament with his Apostles where is only mention of their taking and eating the Bread and drinking the Wine after it was blessed by
lay so much stress upon it Bellar. Tom. 2. p. 286. if these are Innovations creept into their Church who was the first Author of them when did he begin in whose Reign and in what place did he live who did oppose him what company believ'd on him and what his new Opinions were as they instance in Arrianism and other Heresies And because they fancy we cannot make all these particulars so absolutely plain therefore they say we have falsely charged the Romish Church with new errours and that their Faith is truly ancient and by an uninterrupted Succession of Infallible Bishops hath been convey'd down from Christ and his Apostles in its full purity to this present Age. To satisfie their curiosity the defenders of the Reformation have done this but suppose they could not have been so particular about the birth of these new Errours or had made some mistakes in the compass of time yet however the charge of Innovation against the Romish Church stands firm and good upon these accounts 1. That Reformation carries not so much a respect to the Errour when it began as to the Errour it self Not whither it be sooner or later but whither it be an errour contrary to the true Christian Faith It may serve some honest purposes to know the who and the when the where and the how and other circumstances of its begining and proceeding but the necessity of Reformation springs from the nature of the Errour which came from the invention of men and not the Authority of Christ And matters not much whither Simon Magus who was contemporary with the Apostles was the first Author of it or Pope Hildebrâ—â—d at so great a distance 'T is enough that we are certain and sure that the Popish Doctrines which we condemn by comparing them with the Scriptures are not Christs and his Apostles have none of their Images or Superscriptions upon them who only had full Authority to make them current and true Articles of Faith They have indeed indeed Christianity among them but like Joseph's coat so dipt in blood so over-laced with Fopperies and undecent Ceremonies and so many new pieces stitch'd to the old Cloath that the old Fathers if alive would scarce know it to be the true Joseph's and would not trouble themselves so much to ask the time when this came to pass as lament the sadness of the change And the Apostles did not so much care to tell the punctual time to the Disciples when Antichrist should discover himself as to make them stand upon their guard to defend that Faith which he would invade where and whensoever he should come or whosoever he was 2. The difficuity of knowing the precise and punctual times when Errours first began In many sorts of Changes or Innovations 't is hard to know the nice time of their beginning but some latitude of Judging is allow'd and why not in things especially relating to Religion Are there not wild Opinions left upon Record among the Pagan Writers whose Authors are either unknown or which are fasely fathered upon others and as hard to be known as the head of Nile Can the nicest Romanist tell us what Rabbi and in what place and age first superinduc'd the several false Glosses and Senses to the Law of Moses yet our Saviour though he knew them well thought it sufficient to tell them that in the beginning it was not so and by comparing the Mosaick Religion it plainly appears they were new additions to the good old way And how many Errours sprung up in times of Christianity of whose Original and other Circumstances both the Romanists and our selves are yet uncertain And how many things of this nature more near our own times are we puzled about and the difficulty of knowing them ariseth principally from this twofold account 1. From the subtilty of the contrivers of Errours Which many times are the cunning and the wise in their Generation which the necessity of their cause requires Truth being strong and Errour nuturally weak and that slie deceiving Spirits lends it his utmost assistance to serve the design Such men know how to disguise new Falshoods in the old habits of Truth to make them look ancient and venerable they feel and know the temper of the age and fit their Opinions to the interest and pleasure of it They prepare their errours to be received by degrees and one part must draw on the other and the whoâ—e must be insâ—â—sibly swallowed down So it hapned in the adoration and invocation of Saints and Images and the whole structure of the Romish Religion which by severall steps and in many ages advanc'd to its mighty bulk The cunning knew the consequences of their own positions how far theâ— would reach which the vulgar eye discern'd not they well foresaw how their Hey and Stuble variety of Phrases and changes of Syllables would at â—ength fire the Foundation of Religion yet being invented at first by the Angelical Doctours and leaders of an Age for fame and reputation sake they their followers first defended them for bare Truths afterwards for Sacred and Fundamental ones and things at first only piously believed soon after have been adopted into a Creed and men of Rashness and Superstition only great in Place and Office have vented opinions whose fatal conclusions they at first we hope did not know yet the cunning many times have hatcht what they left and improv'd it fatally to Religion the greatness of the man whither an Innocent or an Hildebrand gave the errour its first reputation and the cunning of others its strength and argument Many of the great and knowing heads of the World being corrupted unto the Roman side to defend those errours which had got footing in the Church But how can we unlock the secret methods of Rome or describe the wayes and policies by which the mystery of Iniquity works Yet we are sure it 's carried on by the windings and turnings of the Serpent and men that he imploys upon design to ruin truth for when the Apostle describes the sad Apostacies and defections from the Faith they are said to be wrought by men of Skill Eph. 4. 14. and Art who lie in wait to deceive 2 From the Passions and Infirmities of other men These give the false and busie deceiver an easie Victory When Opinions are so contriv'd as to serve the designs of Pride and Covetousness Ambition and Lust and other Vices they easily pass for mighty Truths their Original is not enquir'd into the Judgment is brib'd and they bear the title of ancient and Primitive or what the deceiver pleaseth For these Passions have effeminated the mind made it soft and slugâ—ish and any bold errour shall slip down rather then be at the charge of a farther search and enquiry to know whither these things be so or no. The Roman Religion being so well cut out in its different Doctrines to hit mens Vices and Passions Gaiety or Melancholy Enthusiasm or Fury
now such a force to induce belief as it had then The reason of which is given by the same Vicentius who so highly commends that way which was then taken of reproving Heresie but adds this most wise Caution in the last Chapter but one of the first part of his commonitorium But you must not think that all Heresies and all wayes are thus to be opposed but only new and fresh Heresies when they first rise up that is before they have falsified the Rules of the ancient Faith c. As for inveterate Heresies which have spred themselves they are in no wise to be assaulted this way because in a long tract of time many opportunities may have presented themselves to Hereticks of stealing Truth out of the ancient Records and of corrupting the Volumes of our Ancestors Which if it be applied to the present state of things it is evident the Roman Church hath had such opportunities of falsifying Antiquity ever since the first acknowledgment of the Papal Supremacy that we cannot rely merely upon any written Testimonies or unwritten Traditions which never so great a number of their Bishops met together shall produce which amount not to so much as one legal Testimony but they are to be look'd upon or suspected as a multitude of false Witnesses conspiring together in their own cause How then may some say can Heresies of long standing be confuted The same Vincentius resolves us in this in the very next words We may convince them if need be by the sole authority of the Scriptures or eschew them as already convicted and condemned in ancient times by the general Councils of Catholick Priests The Tradition which is found there must direct all future councils not the Opinions of their present churches IV. I will adde but one thing more which is That the Tradition called Oral because it comes by word of mouth from one Age to another without any written Record is the most uncertain and can be least relied upon of all other This hath been demonstrated so fully by the Writers of our Church and there are such pregnant instances of the errours into which men have been led by it that it needs no long discourse Two instances of it are very common and I shall adde a third 1. The first is that which Papias who lived presently after the Apostles times and conversed with those who had seen them set on foot His way was as Eusebius relates out of his Works not so much to read as to enquire of the Elders what Saint Andrew or Saint Peter said what was the Saying of Saint Thomas Saint James and the rest of the Disciples of our LORD And he pretended that some of them told him among other things that after the resurrection of our Bodies we shall reign a thousand years here upon Earth which he gathered saith Eusebius from some Saying of the Apostles wrong understood But this Fancy was embraced very greedily and was taught for two whole Ages as an Apostolical Tradition no body opposing it and yet having nothing to say for it but only the antiquitie of the man as Eusebius his words are L. 3. cap. ult who delivered it to them yet this Tradition hath been generally since taken for an imposture and teaches us no more then this That if one man could set a going such a Doctrine and make it pass so current for so long a time upon no other pretence then that an Apostle said so in private discourse we have great reason to think that other Traditions have had no better beginning or not so good especially since they never so universally prevailed as that did 2. A second instance is that famous contention about the observation of Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the dayes of Victòr Bishop of Ròme by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western One pretending Tradition from Saint Jòhn and Saint Philip the other from Saint Peter and Saint Paul Concerning which I will not say as Rigaltius doth in his sharp note upon the words of Firmilian who pretended Tradition for the rebaptizing of Hereticks That under the Names and Persons of great men there were sottish and sophistical things delivered for Apostolical Traditions by Fools and Sophisters But this I affirm that there are many more instances of mens forwardness and they neither Fools nor Sophisters but onely wedded to the Opinions of their own Churches to obtrude things as Apostolical for which they had no proof at all For when they knew not how to defend themselves presently they flew to Tradition Apostolical 3. A third instance of whose uncertainty we have in Irenaeus L. 2. c. 39. concerning the age of our blessed Saviour when he died which he confidently affirms to have been forty if not fifty years and saith the Elders which knew St. John and were his Scholar◠received this relation from him And yet all agree that he beginning to preach at thirtie years of age was crucified about three years and an half after The like relation Clement makes of his preaching but one year which he calls a secret Tradition from the Apostles but hath no more truth in it then the other Now if in the first Ages when they were so near the fountain and beginning of Tradition men were deceived nay such great men as these were deceived and led others into errours in these matters we cannot with any safety trust to Traditions that have passed men pretend from one to another until now but we can find no mention of in any Writer till some Ages after the Apostles and then were by some body or other who had authority in those dayes called Apostolical Traditions merely to gain them the more credit Thus Andreas Caesariensis in his commentaries upon the Book of Revelation p. 743. Saith that the coming of Enoch and Elias before the second coming of Christ though it be not found in Scripture was a constant report received by Tradition without any variation from the Teachers of the Church Which is sufficient to shew how ready they were to father their own private Opinions upon ancient universal Tradition and how little reason we have to trust to that which was so uncertain even in the first Ages and therefore must needs be more dubious now Thus I have endeavoured to lay before the eyes of those who will be pleased to look over this short Treatise what they are to think and speak about Tradition It is a calumny to affirm that the Church of England rejects all Tradition and I hope none of her true Children are so ignorant as when they hear that word to imagine they must rise up and oppose it No the Scripture it self is a Tradition and we admit all other Traditions which are subordinate and agreeable unto that together with all those things which can be proved to be Apostolical by the general Testimony of the Church in all Ages nay if any thing not contained in Scripture which the Roman Church now
an Image made like to corruptible man and to birds and four footed beasts creeping things And thus changed the the truth of God into a lie But this was not the only fault but they also gave his incommunicable worship to Creatures and worshipped and served the Creature more then the Creator who is blessed for ever Amen Which words do vers 25. plainly suppose that they did worship the Creator of all things but besides the Creator for so para may signifie they worshipped the creature also which proves that the worship of the Supreme God will not excuse those from Idolatry who worship any thing else besides him For the opposition lies between the Creator and the creature be it good or a bad creature it matters not as to Religious Worship which must be given to neither Or if we render the words as our Translators do more then the Creator for para is often used comparatively yet so it supposes that they did worship the Creator when they are said to worship the Creature more that cannot signifie a higher degree of worship but more frequent addresses and thus the Church of Rome worships the Virgin Mary more then the Creator for they say ten prayers if they be prayers to the Virgin Mary for one to God ten Ave Maries for one Pater noster The same Apostle determines this matter in as plain words as can be For though there can be that are called 1 Cor. 8. 5 6 Gods whither in Heaven or Earth as there be Gods many and Lords many but to us there is but one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him Where in opposition to the Pagan Idolatry who worship'd a great many Gods not as Supreme Independent Deities for they acknowledged but one Supreme God who made all the other Gods but either as sharers in the Government of the World or Mediators and Intercessors for them with the Supreme GOD the Apostle plainly asserts That to us Christians there is but one GOD the maker of all Things and one LORD JESUS CHRIST our great Mediator and Advocate with GOD the Father that is that we must worship none else And that none of the distinctions which are used by the Church of Rome to justifie that Worship which they pay to Saints and Angels can have any place here is evident from this consideration For either these distinctions were known or they were not known when the Apostle wrote this and in both cases silence is an argument against them If they were known he rejects them and determines against them for he affirms absolutely without the salvo of any distinctions that we have but one GOD and one Mediator that is that we must worship no more If they were not known as it is likely they were not because the Apostles takes no notice of them it is a plain argument that these distinctions are of no use unless they will say that St. Paul who was guided by an Infallible Spirit was ignorant of some very useful and material notions about the object of Worship If the Apostle did not know these distinctions it is evident they are of a late date and therefore can have no authority against an Apostolical determination If he did not know them he could have no regard to them and therefore made no allowance for such exceptions Nay the same Apostle does not only give us such general rules as necessarily exclude the worship of Saints and Angels but does expresly condemn it and warns the Christians against it He fortels of the Apostasie of the latter days wherein some shall depart from the Faith 1 Tim. 4. 1. giving heed to seduâ—ing Spirits and the doctrine of Devils didaskaliais daimonion the doctrine of Daemons the doctrine of worshipping Daemons or some new inferiour Deity Saints or Angels or whatever they are as Mediators and Intercessors between GOD and men This is the true notion of the doctrine of Daemons amongst See Mr. Joseph Medes Apostasie of the latter times the Heathens and the Apostle tells us the time shall come when some Christians for it is evident he speaks here of the Apostasie of Christians shall fall into the same Idolatry which is an exact prophecy of what we now see done in the Church of Rome who have the same notion of their Saints and Angels and pay the same worship to them which the Heathens formerly did to their Daemons or inferiour Gods 3. And as a farther confirmation of this I observe that the Gospel of our Savour forbids Idolatry without giving us any new notion of Idolatry and therefore it has made no alteration at all in this Doctrine of the worship of one God which Moses so expresly commanded the Jews to observe For the Gospel was preached to the Jews as well as to the Gentiles nay the Jews had the first most undoubted right to it as being the posterity of Abraham to whom the promise of the Messias was made and therefore as the Law was at first given them by Moses so it did still oblidge them in all such cases wherein the Gospel did not in express terms make a change alteration of the Law and therefore since there was no such alteration made and yet the Law against Idolatry renewed and confirmed by the authority of the Gospel what could the Jews understand else by Idolatry but what was accounted Idolatry by the Law of Moses that is the worship of any other Beeing besides the Supreme GOD the Lord Jehovah And since it is evident that there are not two Gospels one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles all Christians whither Jews or Gentiles must be under the obligation of the same Law to worship only one God The notion of Idolatry must alter as the object of Religious Worship does If we must worship one God and none besides him then it is Idolatry to worship any other Beeing but the Supreme God for Idolatry consists in giving Religious worship to such Beeings as we ought not to worship and by the Law of Moses they were to worship none but God and therefore the worship of any other Beeing was Idolatry But if the object of our worship be enlarged and the Gospel has made it lawful to Worship Saints and Angels then we must seek out some other notion of Idolatry that it consists in worshipping wicked Spirits or in giving Supreme and Soveraign worship to inferiour Deities which the Church of Rome thinks impossible in the nature of the thing for any man to do who knows them to be inferiour Spirits But if Idolatry be the same under the New Testament that it was under the Old the object of our worship must be the same too and we have reason to believe that it is the same when we are commanded to keep our selves from Idols and to flie from Idolatry but are no where in the New
this was not done why we are not directed to pray to Saints and Angels and Images c. but the argument lies in this that there can be no alteration made in the object of worship without an express Law and therefore there is no alteration made because there is no such Law in the Gospel The Jews were expresly commanded to worship no other Beeing but the Lord Jehovah as I have already proved which Law appropriates all the acts of Religious worship to one God and therefore all those who were under the obligation of this Law as to be sure all natural Jews were could not without the guilt of Idolatry give any Religious worship to any other Beeing till this Law were expresly repeated and express leave given to worship some other Divine Beeings besides the Supreme God so that at least our Saviour himself while he was on Earth and subject to the Law and his Apostles and all believing Jews were oblidged by this Law to worship none but God unless we can shew where Christ by his Legislative Authority or his Apostles by Commission from him have expresly repealed this Law nay indeed unless we can shew that Christ himself repealed this Law and taught the worship of Saints and Angels Mat. 28. 20 the Apostles themselves could have no authority to do it for their Commission was only to teach what Christ had commanded them which though it does not extend to matters of order and discipline and the external circumstances of worship yet it does as to all essentials of Faith and worship and I think the right object of Worship is the most essential thing in Religious Worship From hence it appears that at least all the Jewish Christians in the Apostles dayes and all succeeding Ages to this day cannot worship Saints and Angels without Idolatry because the Law which was given to them and never yet repealed commands them to worship none but God and if Gentile Converts were received into the Jewish Christian Church and Christ has but one Church of Jews and Gentiles they must also be oblidged by all those Laws which were then and are still obligatory to all believing Jews and therefore Gentile as well as Jewish Christians are still bound to worship none but God Now I think I need not prove that an express Law can be repealed onely by an express Law That Law which commands us to worship God and him only must continue in full force till GOD do as expresly declare that he allows us to pay some degree of Religious Worship to other Beeings besides himself When a Law-giver has declared his will and pleasure by a Law it is not fit that Subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind and dispute away an express Law by some surmises and consequences how probable soever they may appear for at this rate a Law signifies nothing if we may guess at the will of our Law-giver without and against an express Law And yet none of the Advocates of the Church of Rome though they are not usually guilty of too much modesty ever had the confidence to pretend an express Law for the worship of Saints and Angels and Images c. and though they sometimes alledge Scripture to prove this by yet they do not pretend that they are direct proofs but only attempt to prove some other Doctrines from Scripture from which they think they may prove by some probable consequences that which the Scripture no where plainly teaches nay the contrary to which is expresly taught in the Scripture And if this may be allow'd I know no law of God so plain and express but a witty man may find wayes to escape the obligation of it This is a consideration of great moment and therefore I shall discourse more particularly of it The Law of Moses expresly commands us to worship GOD and him only Our Saviour Christ owns and confirms the authority of this Law in the Gospel the Church of Rome notwithstanding this Law gives Religious Worship to Creatures the question then is how she avoids the force of this Law since it is no where expresly repealed and she does not pretend that it is Now the Patrons of Creature-worship thinks to justifie themselves from the breach of this Law these three ways 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines 2. By distinctions And 3. By authority Let us then examine whither all this have any force against an express Law which was never expresly repealed 1. By consequences drawn as they pretend from other Scripture-Doctrines and I shall discourse this with a particular reference to the Invocation of Saints For when they would prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints they alledge no direct proof of this from Scriptureâ— but because they must make a shew of saying something from Scripture when they are to deal with such Hereticks as will be satisfied with no less authority they endeavour to prove something else from Scripture from whence they think by an easie consequence they can prove the lawfulness of praying to Saints Thus they very easily prove that we may and ought to pray for one another and to desire each others prayers while we are on Earth and from hence they presently conclude that we may as lawfully pray to Saints in Heaven to pray for us as beg and desire their prayers while they are one Earth And to confirm this they endeavour to prove that some extraordinary Saints whose merits are very great do directly ascend up into Heaven unto the immediate presence of God and a participation of his Glory and hence they conclude that they have authority and power to help us and to intercede for us and that they are so far advanced above us in this mortal state that they deserve some kind of Religious Honour and Worship from us as being Dii per participationem Gods by participation that is by partaking in the Divine Nature and Glory by their advancement to Heaven And if after all this they can prove that the Saints in Heaven do pray and intercede for us on Earth they think the demonstration is complete and perfect that therefore * Bonum atque utile esse suppliciter Sanctos invocare ad beneficia impetranda a Deo per filium ej us Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum qui solus noster Redemptor Salvator est ad eorum orationes opem auxlium que confugere Conc. Trin. 16. 25. de Invocat It is good and profitable as the Council of Trent words it huâ—bly to invock the Saints after the manner of Suplicants and to â—â—y to their prayers and help and aid to obtain blessings of God by his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who is our only not Intercessor and Advocate but Redeemer and Saviour Now how they prove all this is not my business at present to enquire but my inquiry is whither such arguments as these be sufficient to oppose against the authority of an express Law and if