497. at the Council of Trent declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils and thought he had proved that sufficiently by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas must depend on the Popes Confirmation And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith who in other cases and in his own person is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible even concerning Matters of Faith 7. But there are others or Oral Tradition who call themselves Members of that Church but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope or Council more than of other men but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition and thence conclude that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition must be infallibly true because no Age could make any change therein This is Mr. White 's way and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant But what is said in defence of this way is pure Sophistry And if such persons furnished with these Notions or Fancies had lived in the beginning of Christianity they might have been Advocates either for Paganism or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition might have been urged as well as for the Church of Rome and almost in a persect Parallel 8. Secondly Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils in deciding controversies There is good reason to think that the chief men of the Church of Rome give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility For in such great Controversies wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision from their Infallibility even in such cases where such a decision would contribute much to truth would end quarrels and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences And therefore the determining such things would be an excellent work of charity but the leaving them undetermined or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination may be politick lest they should disoblige the contrary party I shall instance in that Question which is at some times of concernment to all Mens Consciences of their Communion whether the authority of the Pope or a General Council be the greater Which hath never yet been decided by the consent of a Pope and a General Council Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council And Pius the second in a Provincial Council at Mantua declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope to a future Council to be void and Schismatical which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second But this way of decision is so little satisfactory among themselves that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent openly declare (r) Hist Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope and that this was the general sense of the French Church And divers other Bishops spake their judgments there to the same purpose 9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope and yet this is no satisfactory decision to them of the contrary opinion So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility whether in the Pope or in a General Council slighted by themselves as they think fit And this is a thing of such concern that if the highest authority be in the Council this must fix the Infallibility there also if there be any such thing because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance and so must include God's Authority in that Determination to which none can be Superior If this be seated in the Council it would take down the Pope's Plumes If in the Pope the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils as a needless thing and then all those Christian Churches Emperors and Bishops which will take in divers Bishops of Rome were very imprudent who either laboured much for them or took any great satisfaction in them Wherefore it must needs be a business of design and not of integrity to make a loud noise about Infallibility to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men when they have so low an esteem of it themselves 10. Thirdly No Infallibility of the Roman Church Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter it is observable that S. Peter himself though an eminent and prime Apostle even in a Council had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apostles For in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. when after much disputation S. Peter had declared his sense v. 7 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment v. 13 21. the final determination of that Council did much more follow the words of S. James than of S. Peter v. 19 20. with 28 29. Wherefore the claim of (ſ) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth in his Epistle to the Emperor must have an higher Plea than that of Succession to S. Peter that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council he doth not only alone propose but he also alone decrees and the Council adds nothing but Approbation 11. Nor can it be imagined that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope or Romish Church that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen Bishop of Rome concerning the Baptism of Hereticks But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error but declares him to have written proudly impertinently ignorantly and imprudently which sufficiently shews him to have known nothing of his Infallibility And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also approving S. Cyprian's answer to it and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen as bold insolent and evil improbè gesta And (w) Sent. Episcop Conc. Carth. in
separating party can justifie it self it must be able to plead truly and manifest that the Church from which it departs is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good even all the rules of Faith and Life and due Order which the Christian Religion doth direct and include 3. Beginning with the Quakers I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour and outward expressions of reverence to Governours when Christianity injoins kindness humility courteousness and the due expressions of them to all men and honourable respect to be given to Superiors I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath even in judicial proceedings which if rightly undertaken is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth the maintaining justice preserving rights and ending strife But waving very many blameable errors received amongst them I shall insist on four things which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses vigorously asserted which are of such a nature that those who embrace these Principles and practise according to them may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians Yet in so wild and Enthusiastick a Sect I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions Here I shall observe 4. First Their denial of and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord and in the Holy Ghost And (d) Conc. Nicen Constantinopol the two first General Councils of the Christian Church were in a good part imployed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresie And this Christian Faith is not only contained in and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity that many of those Hereticks who denied the Trinity thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained and his Church from him (e) Just Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. 13. had universally received Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunomius altered the Baptismal form not Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but into the death of Christ And amongst the Arians who owned not the Son to be co-eternal and of the same substance with the Father the form of Baptism was perverted and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop who Baptized into the Name of the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost And before these when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ his followers the Paulianists were injoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19. Nice to be re-baptized since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel in Cod. Ecel c. univ 19. was not into the Holy Trinity which he did not acknowledge And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholick Christian Church believed and into whose Name they were Baptized he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but they who disown the Trinity cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what my self hath formerly been concerned in Almost three and twenty years since some of the chief Quakers being busie in these parts two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions or Positions rather challenging me to dispute with them the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers with more also I then accepted this challenge and we went through all these nine in three days discourse In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarm'd Mr. Smith at Cambridge At that time in the Year 1659 I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead in the presence of George Fox and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of which were contained in a Book written by him and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend which was Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out I even tremble to write the words which the licentiousness of those times gave way to (l) Ishmael c. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer are denied and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness for the Lake and the Pit But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge 6. Sometime after this as if they had a mind to shew themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity I received a paper (m) Directed to them that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead and that the Father is the first and the Word the second and the Spirit the third and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead of Five Queries containing very many branches under them wholly levelled against the Doctrine of the Trinity and subscribed by George Whitehead and George Fox And after I had returned an Answer to these I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed In this paper which I have by me it is declared That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity are Popish terms and names
appellation of Catholick they must be content with other names as Lutherans Zuinglians Protestants c. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application if Discipline be neglected and false tenets may be taking if Governours be not vigilant than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition must depend upon the supposed goodness and care of such persons as are to administer the Discipline of the Church and since there have been many bad Councils it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governours and there cannot any security be given that these Governours might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines and oppose the true and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition But though there may be defection from truth this Discourser here seems to venture to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known I will now examine all his Characters above recited First They who forsake truth are not alwaies an inconsiderable number in respect of the other When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem In Elijah's time it was in Israel but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh the Dissenters from the Scribes and Pharisees in their pernicious Doctrines were not the greater number and when Arianism most prevailed the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth so that if the greater number have oft imbraced false Doctrine in points of Faith there can be no evidence from such numbers which is the true Doctrine Secondly Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publickly attested if by this he understands as he must the Oral and not the Scriptural way of attesting though even in the latter some may stand upon having what they have not and so likewise in the former for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees and Talmudists who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra must be acknowledged to hold truth where they differ from and contradict the Apostles and Christians nor can there be any reason why standing upon Tradition from Christ should be a security for truth when standing upon Tradition from Moses who was a faithful deliverer was no security yea by this Rule as hath been before observed Paganism would be defended for a true Religion and the Jews worshipping of Baalim and in the Christian state the Heresie of Artemon denying the Divinity of Christ since all these pretended a right to the most publick and open way of Oral Tradition Thirdly Nor are they to be accounted for Hereticks who make use of Criticisms for though nothing more than common reason and capacity is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith were to be condemned for Hereticks then not only Learned Protestants but all the most eminent writers among the Papists must be accounted Hereticks yea and even all the Fathers who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness must be taken into the number Yea the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles in the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed that is Christ Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say that S. Paul was in the error or Heresie because he made use of Criticisms and his opposers in the truth who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews Fourthly Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine be known by being called Catholicks for first though the name of a Catholick be deservedly honoured by Christians and the persons who truly answer that name yet it was not the name whereby the Apostles did first call them who held the true Christian Faith but they were called Christians yea some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns assert that this name of Catholick was not at all in use in the Apostles daies however that which then was not the chief name commonly applied to them who hold the truth can by no shew of reason be proved to be now the Character to know which hold the true Faith Secondly is it necessary they must be called Catholicks by all men or only by themselves and men of their own way if it be sufficient that they of their own way call them Catholicks then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholick Faith as is asserted by Athanasius De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in but if this was enough who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men to evidence to the world that their Heresies are truths by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholicks But if it be necessary that they must be generally called Catholicks by them who differ from them then it would likewise follow that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth to take away from the holders of truth that certain Character whereby they may be known to hold truth if they refuse to call these holders of truth by the name of Catholick and it will likewise follow that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers and not from their own Doctrines and Positions And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holders of the truth for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholicks nor acknowledge them to be truly such but to be Schismaticks We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholicks or Pseudocatholicks and when ever any Protestants call them Catholicks they mean those who call themselves so and would be so owned in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders saying he was the stone which the builders refused Thirdly Nor is it possible there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholick to shew who hold the truth more than was in the Old Testament in being called the Children of the Prophets and the Covenant which God made with Abraham the followers of Moses and the Keepers of the Law which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews in and after the times of Christ Fifthly Nor is it the mark of an Heretick to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholick for if
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
not to be allowed to argue from the Scriptures against the Church since they were not Christians and owned them not c. 15 16 17. And therefore it must first be inquired from whom the Scriptures were and by whom and to whom and when delivered all which would shew that they were for them who followed Christ and his Apostles in the Doctrine by them publickly delivered which these Hereticks pretended not to do Hence it appears that what Tertullian here writes is no way against the Doctrine of Protestants but in such a case as this was they would themselves assert the same Now though it is impossible the Scriptures should be either a directing Rule or a convincing to those persons who reject them yet in this Treatise Tertullian owns them as such to Christians who receive them and withal asserts them as necessary to the Faith as may appear from these particulars c. 22. He declares That they who receive not that Scripture the Acts of the Apostles cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was sent to the Disciples nor can they prove how when and by what means the Body of Christs Church was instituted c. 33. He prescribes against the Hereticks from the Apostles Writings c. 36. He hath these words Run through the Churches of the Apostles amongst which their very Authentick Letters are recited sounding the voice and representing the face of every one of them What else is this but to equal the delivery by the Scriptures with that which was from the mouths of all the Apostles In the same Chapter he saith John the Apostle puts together the Law and the Prophets with the Evangelical and Apostolical Letters and thence tenders this Faith to us to drink in To add but one place more c. 38. He saith of the Hereticks As the corruption of the Doctrine could never succeed without the corruption of the instruments so we could not have the integrity of Doctrine without the integrity of those things by which the Doctrine is delivered then he adds What the Scriptures are we are we are from them from their beginning and then shews that the Church doth keep them perfect which the Hereticks do not Next he cites Tertullian de carne Christi where c. 2. He supposeth That upon this account Marcion did blot out so many original instruments that is Scriptures least the flesh of Christ should be proved By what Authority saith Tertullian I pray if thou be a Prophet foretel something if an Apostle preach it openly if an Apostolical man agree with the Apostles and then follow the words cited by this Author If thou be only a Christian believe what is delivered Where it is manifest these words referr not to recommend to us Oral Tradition but the Canon of Scripture Soon after he tells Marcion that he is not a Christian but once was and now hath rescinded what he then believed where follow the next words referred to by this Author By rescinding what thou hast believed thou provest that before thou didst rescind it that was otherwise which thou didst believe otherwise So it was delivered moreover what was delivered that was true as delivered by those whom it belonged to deliver c. which words are of the same nature with the former and further condemn his rescinding or cutting off from the Scriptures those things which he once believed and were faithfully delivered for rescindere is not here to renounce as this Discourser translates it but to cut off or mutilate which indeed proves that it was otherwise before and this is the same in sense with what he calls his rejecting some Scriptures c. 3. his blotting out ch 4. his taking them away c. 5. and the same with what in this 2. ch he a little before called his blotting out the instruments of Scripture where having propounded the question by what Authority he did it and continuing his Discourse on the same subject after these words of rescinding he gives this answer Thou hast done it by no right at all Yet further that in this Discourse de Carne Christi he intended the Scripture for his Rule of Faith may be proved from ch 6 where speaking of the Body which Angels appear in Whence it is saith he nothing is manifest concerning it because the Scripture doth not declare it c. 15. He urgeth against Valentinus seven Texts of Scripture all which declare Christ to be Man and saith these only ought to suffice for prescription to testifie his humane flesh and not spiritual c. c. 22. when he had used many other Scriptures he saith The Apostle determineth all this Controversie when he declares him to be Abrahams Seed and then cites Gal. 3. adding We who read and believe these things what kind of flesh may we or ought we to acknowledge in Christ surely none other than Abraham had In the last place this Discourser cites two passages of Tertullian against Marcion to prove that the present Church contains in it the true Doctrine of Christ Now if it did so in Tertullian's time it is no way consequent that any particular Church must do so now unless it be by delivery of the same Scriptures The first place he cites but names not the Book is lib. 4. cont Marc. l. 5. where Tertullian's design is to declare the Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Scriptures to be preferred before what Marcion tenders as his emending the Gospel and so confirms the Protestant Doctrine For having observed that Marcion rejects the other Evangelists and corrupteth Luke He saith in the end of the fourth ch From the times of Tiberius to Antonine we meet with Marcion as the first and only emender of the Gospel And he observes his emending confirms ours whilst he emends that which he found first then follow the words cited by this Authour In short If it be manifest that is the more true which was the former and that was the former which is from the beginning that from the beginning which is from the Apostles in like manner that will manifestly appear to be delivered from the Apostles which is accounted Sacred in the Churches of the Apostles In which words Tertullian designs to establish the Scripture-writings against the Heretical corruption Whence it follows Let us see what Milk the Corinthians drew from Paul to what Rule the Galatians were corrected What the Philippians Thessalonians and Ephesians read c. so that Tertullian sends to the Scriptures which may be read Another testimony he ventures at is lib. 1. cont Marc. and saith it is more express but indeed makes nothing at all for Oral Tradition For this first Book being written to prove one only God against Marcion who in a Treatise called his Antitheses endeavoured to shew that there was not the same God in the Old Testament and in the New He observes c. 20. that some said that Marcion did not innovate the Rule but set it right when it was corrupted c. 21. He sheweth the Apostles never delivered any such
of Sin yet he must not be owned as a good man because he was not in all things so strict as some of their errours directed them to be While they were more severe and rigid he shewed himself more mild and gentle even towards Publicans and Sinners and hence was reviled as their friend He had not that reverence for the vow of Corban which the Pharisees had but declared against the evil of it as making void the Commandment of God which required a due honour to Father and Mother Nor had he that opinion of the rest of the Sabbath day as to think it not lawful for himself to heal or for his Disciples to pluck ears of corn and he was therefore censured and condemned of the Jews And thus it fares in part with others also who are his followers and so it frequently hath done in the best times of Christianity Many men have had such a zeal for their own errors that if others live the most holy and angelical lives in conscientious obedience to the moral laws of God and in a pious reverence to all the Christian institutions and precepts of our Saviour they will not acknowledge these to be good men or such as have any true care of Religion or piety if they do not join with them in their mistaken notions and their practices founded upon those mistakes 13. On this account the Catholick Church On this account the Catholick Church was defamed as impure and carnal and the true members thereof have oft-times fallen under unjust censures When the abetters of the Novatian Schism declared against second Marriages and the admitting those to repentance in the Church who were lapsed after Baptism they so far judged the Catholick Church impure for practising contrary to their errors that avoiding its communion they gave themselves the name of the Cathari or the persons who were pure And that themselves were the authors of this name whereby they were afterwards known and that they called themselves thereby in a way of distinction from the Catholick Christians hath not only been declared by Dionysius Alexandrinus and Theophilus Alexandrinus and other private Authors but it is also affirmed by the (q) Conc. Nic. c. 8. Conc. Const c. 7. two first general Councils And after Tertullian declined to Montanism though that Sect impiously owned Montanus to be the Paraclete and this Author of them was guilty of very great impurities of conversation he defamed the Catholick Church and its members as being (r) Tert. de Monogam adv Psychicos carnal because it allowed of second Marriages and did not prolong its Fasts and stationary abstinence to such late hours of the day as the Disciples of Montanus did And the Donatists in the vehemency of their Schism upon the like pretence of greater strictness and rigidness towards them who had offended ran to that height of censure against those pious Bishops and Christians who kept communion with the Church as to call them (s) Baron An. 348. n. 38. Pagans And the like might be noted concerning others 14. Zeal when well guided very useful but partial or misplaced hurtful Zeal and the greatest strictness of life and conversation when it is well ordered and directed is of excellent use but a pretending hereto is really hurtful when it acts by a mistaken rule It was the miscarriage of the Pharisees that they were earnest and strict about their Corban but loose and negligent concerning the fifth Commandment and shewed a great respect to the Sabbath but gave not due allowance to works of mercy and charity Let every man be as conscientious and strict as he can be in entertaining all needful truth in practising all the great duties of Religion and avoiding all evil But let not zeal be spent about such lesser things as are in truth of no concernment in Religion nor let any make such measures the standard to judge of the piety either of themselves or others for then they must miscarry This is to act like a man who hath some mistaken fancies of the best road and will allow none to be skilful travellers but them who wander with him out of the right way The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14.17 It is not concerned so much about such lesser things of which many men are fond as about practising all righteousness minding the wayes of peace and unity and being greatly delighted in the exercises and rewards of the Christian hope and obedience 15. But that I may prevent the misapprehending what I mentioned concerning some of the Jewish errors above mentioned I shall here add by way of caution that though they were too nice and vainly strict concerning their Sabbath it is a fault amongst us much to be lamented and needful to be amended that very many in our age are too loose in neglecting a due reverence for the time of Worship and the Worship of God it self as I shall hereafter further note And they who neglect the worship of God whatever party they are of cannot approve themselves the faithful Servants of God 16. Secondly Our Holy Saviour was accused 2. The worthiest persons have been oft charged with promoting the Devils work and depraving Religion of complying with the Devil and carrying on his work and corrupting Religion The Devil is so bad that whatsoever proceeds from him and whosoever join themselves to him to serve him are deservedly hateful Now our Saviour was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil and he actually overthrew his Kingdom He cast out Devils and dispossessed them of that outward dominion they had over the bodies of many men and he so vanquished the evil Spirit and that Idolatry sin and wickedness which he set forward in the world that he gained the victory over the Devil with respect to that inward dominion whereby he had governed the hearts and lives of the children of disobedience He also silenced his oracles whereby he had obtained a great veneration among the Gentiles And so admirably did our Lord prevail against all the power of Satan that even Porphyry an Apostate from Christianity and Patron of Gentilism confesseth that from the time that Jesus was honoured in the world the Gentile Gods who were no other than evil Spirits lost their power As (t) Euseb Pr. Evang. l. 5. c. 1. Eusebius relates these are his very words even in that Book which he wrote against Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Jesus was worshipped none had any sence of the manifest help of the Pagan gods 17. And yet notwithstanding all this so unreasonably spiteful were the reviling tongues of his adversaries that against all the evidence in the world he was charged with acting from the Devil and promoting his interest And when he cast-out Devils they would not allow this to be otherwise done than by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils The Holy Jesus
mixture of hearty sorrow that so much evil should prevail in the world and that so many persons divers of whom intend well should be led away thereby And I humbly beseech Almighty God of his mercy and goodness to bless and give good success to all those labours which are undertaken to guide men into the right wayes of truth and peace 26. I know that many men account him to be wanting in kindness The nature of true kindness and love to men under mistakes and error and love to others who undertakes to lay open their mistakes and miscarriages how sincere and beneficial soever his intentions be yea though this be managed with the greatest tenderness and prudence even as indiscreet Children have hard and unkind apprehensions of him who openeth their sores though it be for their cure and such a person with many men shall rather be ranked amongst revilers and reproachers than amongst the number of Friends And they account that to be kindness and love when any one is ready to speak in favour of them and their actions and will take care to hide their faults and errors whensoever he discerns them And this kind of behaviour is indeed in a due measure an Office of charity in the case of private failings where the offender is sufficiently sensible of his miscarriage and affected with it But it is much otherwise where things that deserve blame are publickly declared and professed and are justified and vindicated or indeed where they are kept more private but without any penitent resentment of them Yet these cases fall under different Rules and considerations If this were true kindness as it cannot be towards men who themselves do amiss and by their examples and perswasions would engage others to do the like to flatter and complement them and to encourage them that they do well to continue in those practices which are their errors and miscarriages then must our grand adversary the Devil be looked on as our kind friend who is very forward to sooth men in their faults and to perswade and intice them into a resolved continuance in them and to shut their ears and open their mouths against those who would advise them better But this is true Christian kindness love and goodness to follow the example of our Lord and to set our selves to do good and to preserve or reduce others from evil though in so doing we expose our selves to the censure and displeasure of bad men or of them who are misguided CHAP. II. The Principles and Practices maintained in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy SECT I. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World Sect. I 1. IN this Chapter I shall enquire The bad Principles and practices owned in the Church of Rome whether the Church of Rome and the Members thereof who practise upon the Principles they are there taught be not chargeable with things really very evil and infamous and which deserve to be greatly condemned In this discourse I shall not intend to take notice of all the considerable errors in doctrine and practice which are owned and espoused in that Church But I shall instance in so many as may be sufficient to satisfie any unprejudiced and impartial Reader of the great corruption of that Church and how hurtful and dangerous it is to be guided by it I acknowledge there hath been so much said already and so largely and plainly proved by divers Protestant Writers and by many of our own Church and particularly by many learned and worthy Discourses of Dr. Stillingfleet in this Controversie of late years that I do not pretend nor need I to add much that is material and considerable to what they have written nor indeed to say so much as they have done upon those Arguments of which I shall discourse But yet I think such Remarks as I shall make may be of so much use to some persons as to give them a satisfactory account how necessary it is to avoid the Romish gross Errors 2. Several Heads of these proposed And what I shall here consider I shall reduce unto five-Heads First to give some instances of the principles and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance against the peace and good order of the Church and of the world and the violation of the rights both of secular Rulers and of other Churches and Bishops Secondly Of such things as are plain obstacles and hindrances to an holy life Thirdly Of those practices and opinions which derogate from the dignity and authority of our Saviour Fourthly of some things which debase the Majesty of God and deprive him of that glory and worship which is due unto him Fifthly Of such things as represent Religion and the Doctrines thereof as a thing contrived or ordered to serve the interests of worldly designs or human Policy And in treating of the several instances I shall give I desire my Reader to observe that since I use these Heads in part for Method and Order sake that which is to be considered in them is not only how aptly they are digested under these several heads though I think that is sufficiently clear but especially whether they do not manifestly contain what is false evil and opposite to Christianity And therefore it may be further noted that several things which I shall treat of are upon other accounts also evil and blameable besides the respect they bear to those particular Heads under which I do digest them 3. Observ 1. Popish Principles opposite to peace and due order First I shall enquire into the principles and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance against peace and good order of the Church and the world Here I shall not need to prove that true Religion and the Christian temper greatly promotes peaceableness and establisheth justice and righteousness in the earth And that the doing wrong and injury the prosecuting unjust claims and invading the rights and properties of others as also the embroiling any part of the World in discord and confusion in wars and tumults and in Sedition and Rebellion is exceeding contrary to our holy Religion For the true principles of Morality and the light of nature will direct men who are not influenced by interest and passion to condemn and detest such things as these Wherefore taking this for granted I shall in the first place reflect on the injurious demeanour of them at Rome towards secular Princes in claiming to the Romish Bishop an universal Soveraignty over Kings and Princes with a Power to depose them and dispose of their Kingdoms That the Pope makes and hath oft acted upon this claim of Sovereign Supremacy I have shewed (a) Christ Loyalty B. 1. ch 6. Sec. 2. in another Treatise And that the power of deposing Kings is owned as a Doctrine of the Romish Church I have
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
grant of Indulgences is (c) Bell. de Ind. l. 1. c. 11. Laym ubi sup c. 1. n. 4. not from the power of order but of Jurisdiction and thereupon they place it in the Pope alone But as to this case of delivering souls out of Purgatory they forget themselves when they again assert (d) Bell ib. c. 14. q. 2. Laym ib. c. 7. n. 3. that the Pope doth not do this by a power of Jurisdiction but by proposing or exhibiting to God satisfactions and by suffrages and prayers entreating Gods acceptance of them But thus much can be also done according to their Doctrine by every Priest who offereth the Sacrifice of the Mass (e) Conc. Trident for the Quick and the Dead for Sins Punishment and Satisfactions The Pope indeed in his Indulgencies is pretended to present to God the Satisfactions of the Saints together with those of Christ but besides that the Satisfactions of Christ must be of themselves sufficient the act of the Papal Indulgence being done out of the Sacrament doth not include a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and is therefore inferior to the act of the Priest in the Mass And it is the propitiatory Sacrifice which must give the value to the Satisfactions of the Saints So that this great claim of peculiar authority in this case unto the Roman Bishop is without any solid foundation upon their own Doctrinal Principles and is wholly founded upon Policy to create the higher apprehensions of the Papal excellency Only something is said to make it passable and plausible 22. The last thing I shall here consider and to Rome in the year of Jubilee is the policy of making void all Indulgencies though plenary and all faculties of Indulgence granted to any other place or persons or upon any conditions whatsoever save only what is granted at Rome on the year of Jubilee which is now every twenty fifth year save that it was a peculiar favour of Greg. 13. (f) Tursellin Hist Lauret l. 4. c. 22. to the Lady at Laureto that Indulgentiis toto terrarum orbe ut fieri solet suspensis in Vrbis gratiam unam excepit Aedem Lauretanam When Indulgences were suspended according to custom throughout the whole World for the benefit of the City of Rome that singular place was alone excepted Had the good of men been the principal design of these Indulgencies it would have been a Work of much greater mercy and care of the welfare of men that plenary Indulgencies might constantly have been granted in all Countreys to them who should perform the conditions required But as the benefit of Indulgencies is wholly appropriated to Rome every twenty fifth year so the Papal Bull requires the performance of three days fasting and also Prayers and giving Alms. And some of their Casuists assert (g) Laym Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 8. n. 10. that all this must be done in one week or others at farthest affirm it must be done within fifteen days whilst the Jubilee continues as a Condition necessary to partake of the benefit of the Indulgence And consequently their alms being confined to those days must by all persons then attending at Rome be given there to the great enriching the Wealth and Revenues of that Church or though some may be there devoted to the service of the Church in other places it is to be expected that that Church in a more particular consideration be then regarded and interested therein 23. The result of this whole Chapter is that if disorderly disturbing the peace of the Church and the World and the unjust invading others rights if undermining and disregarding true piety if undervaluing the dignity of Christ and the Majesty of God and setting up and serving politick interests and designs instead of Religion and true goodness be things loathsom and contrary to Christianity there must then be sufficient cause for great dislike of and averseness from the Church of Rome which promotes all these things by its Doctrines and allowed and enjoined practices CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly SECT I. Of Quakers Sect. I 1. OUr Dissenters do not only lie under the Censure of private persons but even of our publick Laws and Constitutions and therefore I shall faithfully and calmly without prejudice enquire Whether there be not in them just and great cause of blame Now these are not all of one Body so much as the Romanists are though they also have their different parties but are more divided in their several ways of Communion and profession and are only united so far as to espouse the same general interest against our established Government And therefore that I may be the more clear and impartial I shall first take some view of the several most famed Parties of them separately and distinctly and then consider them jointly 2. And it is a matter of sad reflection that when the ancient Christian zeal contended so much for that Unity which our Religion earnestly injoineth the Spirit of Division hath so far prevailed amongst them who withdraw from our Church that besides their unwarrantable separation from it great numbers of them have run into other select and distinct parties and many of them very monstrous S. Austin observed that when the Donatists forsook the Catholick Church (a) Cont. Epist Parmen l. 3. c. 4. lib. de Haeres n. 69. they fell into divers parties among themselves inter ipsos multa facta sunt schismata alii atque alii separant and of these the Maximinianists were the most inonsiderable And amongst us we had formerly wretched improvements of Antinomianism into the lewdness of the Ranters of seditious Principles into the fierceness of the Fifth Monarchy men and of separation into Quakerism which is farthest removed from the Communion of the Christian Church and from many weighty points of the Christian Doctrine The giddy progress of separation was complained of in this Kingdom by one who if I mistake not is now not only a practiser but a Patron thereof who not amiss resembled it (b) J. H. to the several peelings of an Onion where first one is taken off by it self and parted and then another till at last there is nothing left but what is apt to draw tears from the eyes of the Beholder And the ill effect of our divisions is so manifest that Dr. Owen acknowledgeth that (c) Of Evangelical Love p. 2. it will be granted that the Glory of God the Honour of Christ the progress of the Gospel with the Edification and peace of the Church are deeply concerned in them and highly prejudiced by them And since the several parties condemn and disapprove each other it is manifest from thence that all of them at most one only excepted must be justly blameable for proceeding upon false Principles and unsound Assertions And if any
their former Communion they themselves become a distinct particular Congregation and thereby are under no Superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor can they be authoritatively censured by any and by this open separation they according to this principle are become a particular distinct Church and the Schism is healed and by being parted into two distinct Societies there remains no longer any such division as there was before in one Congregation which is Schism but by going further asunder and separating from one another they are in a wonderful manner brought to Unity in two opposite Congregations And thus by the late rare inventions of men which have been unknown to all former times the rending things asunder and breaking them in pieces are the new found methods to make them one But such a way of Unity if it can please some singular fancies will appear monstrous to the generality of mankind 11. That these notions and practices are great promoters of discord and division is not a bare speculation but hath been manifested by sufficient experience In Amsterdam the separate Communion of the Societies of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ainsworth under Brownism and in Rotterdam the like of those of Mr. Bridge and Mr. Simpson proceeded upon this principle And this very principle of Independency helped many forward in this Kingdom in our late times of discord to set up new parties of Anabaptists Seekers and other Sects many of which were the off-sets of fermented Independency and its adulterine off-spring And the sad and lamentable relation of the Bermudas Islands called the Summer Islands is also very considerable where after this Congregational way was there undertaken the rejected part are said to have neglected all care of Religion and the gathered or separated part to have run on in dividing till they in a manner lost their Christian Religion in Quakerism And thus many have made a further improvement than the asserters themselves allowed of the allowed liberty for them who (q) Instit o Chur. n. 28. are in Church-fellowship as they call their way to depart from the Communion of the Church where they have walked to join themselves with some other Church where they may injoy the Ordinances in the purity of the same 12. Wherefore this notion of Independency would misrepresent the Christian Society and the Institution of Christ as if whilst Unity was earnestly injoyned therein the state of this Society should be left without that Order and Government which is necessary to preserve it For under this model the Church would be as far from an orderly and regular state as an Army would be when every several Troop or Company were left wholly to themselves and their own pleasure allowing some respect to be had to the conduct of their own Captain and inferiour Officers but not owning any Authority of any General or higher Commander than what is in their own Troop Or it might be somewhat resembled by the state of such an imaginary Kingdom where every Village in the Country and every Parish in a City should have such a chief power within themselves that there should be no appeal for justice to any higher Court nor any other power to punish them but what is executed by themselves If such things as these were put in practice they would not only hinder the serviceableness and usefulness of such an Army or Kingdom if it could be allowed to call them so but here would be also wanting the beauty and comeliness of Unity and Order and a door opened to frequent discords and dissentions 13. Secondly I shall consider their gathering Churches as they call them out of those who were Christian members of the Church of Christ and entring them into their Societies by a particular Covenant made to and with a private Congregation and pretending this Covenant to be the main ground and true way of the establishment and Union of a Church The value they set upon this Covenant may appear from the declaration of the Churches in New England who say (r) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 5. First That this is that whereby a company of Christians do become a Church it is the Constitutive form of a Church Secondly This is that by taking hold whereof a particular person becomes a member of a Church And though they frequently speak so fairly to such Christian Churches as do not admit this special Covenant with a single Congregation only as to declare their owning them to be true Churches yet all this cannot well be reconciled with this principle And therefore those of this way in England at their publick meeting speak more openly and more consistently with their own notion when they declared (Å¿) Of Instit of Churches n. 23. every Society assembling for the celebration of the Ordinances according to the appointment of Christ within any civil Precincts and Bounds is not thereby constituted a Church and therefore a Believer living with others in such a precinct may join himself with any Church for his edification But since this in truth is a separating members from that which really is a true part of the Christian Church the Presbyterians truly declared that (t) Pref. to Jus div Regim Eccles gathering Churches out of Churches hath no footsteps in Scripture is contrary to Apostolical practice is the scattering of Churches the Daughter of Schism the Mother of Confusion but the Step mother to Edification But I must acknowledge that the present practices of this party also looks as if they had now laid aside this opinion 14. But this Congregational method doth suppose that Baptized Christians are not obliged by any Church-relation they are already in to Communicate with any particular Church or part of the Christian Church when the natural consequence of the Unity of the Christian Church will be to lay an obligation upon all its members to Communicate with that regular part thereof within whose Precincts they reside And this new notion gives a larger discharge to multitudes of Christians from the duties of Communion than the rules of Religion will allow until they shall enter into such a particular Covenant which is not only unnecessary but unwarrantable also as will hereafter appear And there seemed too much reason for that complaint of the Presbyterians by the Provincial Assembly as they stiled themselves that the removing the Parochial Bounds would open a gap to thousands of people to live like Sheep without a Shepherd and instead of joining with purer Churches to join with no Churches and in a little time as we conceive say they adding in the Margent as our experience abundantly shews it would bring in all manner of profaneness and Atheism And whilst they unwarrantably declare the fixed state of our Church to be such that Christians are not obliged to hold Communion therewith and thereupon both themselves depart from it and teach others to do the like it deserves to be more seriously considered by them than hitherto it hath been how this
dividing principle and practice can be justified before Christ himself For if Christ will say to them who neglect to express kindness and respect to the rest of his members In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me Matt. 25.45 May not they fear lest they hear the same who rashly and unjustly cast contempt reproach and disrespect upon that Church which he owneth as his and disown and reject its Communion 15. But this which they call gathering of Churches by taking to themselves those who either were or ought to have been under other Guides and Governours of the Church in a different but more justifiable way and order is indeed a making divisions in a setled Church and separations from it And this practce of division and separation is so greatly displeasing to the Holy Spirit of God that there are many earnest and vehement expressions in the Holy Scriptures against it To which purpose the Apostle beseecheth the Romans to mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 even them who by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple Against such separations the ancient and Primitive Christians were very zealous as I have noted in (u) Libert Eccles B. 1. C. 1. Sect. 3. another place and so are also the generality of the Protestant Writers 16. Such a way of separation which in the phrase and language of the ancient Christians was expressed by a Presbyter contemning his own Bishop and having a separate Congregation and erecting another Altar or different Communion as to Sacramental administrations was severely censured in those early times of Christianity In that most ancient (x) Can. Ap. 31. collection of Canons such a Presbyter and as many of the Clergy as joined with him were sentenced to be deposed and the Laity to be Excommunicated after admonition The Code of Canons of the Universal Church further determine concerning a Presbyter or Deacon who shall thus separate (y) Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. c. 85. that his deposition shall be without any way of return to his former honour and dignity in the Church and that if he persist in disturbing the Church he should be reduced by the Secular Power as being seditious And the African Code in this case declare (z) Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 10 11. that such a Presbyter should be ejected from his place and that he should be anathematized and the inflicting this double punishment which was not usual in the Church for a single crime shews of how heinous a nature this offence was then accounted when the Primitive rules of discipline were received 17. Amongst such Protestant Writers as are most in esteem with our Dissenters Calvin asserts it to be certain (a) Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.9 that this stone is continually moved by the Devil that he might break the Unity of the Church and he purposely opposeth and smartly condemneth (b) Inst l. 4. c. 1. in Ps 26.5 all separation from a true Church where the Holy Sacraments are duly administred and the true rule of Religion is imbraced The (c) Synops pur Theol. Disp 40. n. 37 41 42. Leyden Professors account the erecting separate Assemblies in the breach of Communion by them who hold the foundation of the Faith and agree with the Church therein upon occasion of external indifferent Rites or particular miscarriages in manners to be properly Schismatical and that this is one of the works of the flesh and renders a Society impure and that it is not lawful to hold Communion with such a Schismatical Church to which purpose they urge many Texts of Scripture And Zanchy treating largely hereof doth (d) Zanch. Miscel de Eccles c. 7. particularly undertake to maintain that though there be some diversity of Doctrine but in things not fundamental though different ways of Rites and Ceremonies though there be vices in Ministers or corruptions in people or want of due care in rejecting offenders from the Communion he that shall separate from a true Church upon these pretences shall not saith he escape the wrath of God and ira Dei manet super illum the wrath of God abides upon that person 18. How far such separations from our Church are made use of by the Romanists to serve their interest might be shewed of many of their Authors But I shall content my self here to observe what was noted by one of our own (e) Camd. Annal. Eliz. an 1583. learned Historians Mr. Camden concerning the time of Queen Elizabeth That when in her Reign some of the Ministry in dislike of the Liturgy Order and Government of the Church templa adire recusarent plane schisma facerent did refuse to come to our publick Worship and manifestly made a Schism this was done Pontificiis plaudentibus multosque insuas partes pertrahentibus quasi nulla esset in Ecclesia Anglicana Vnitas the Papists rejoicing at it and drawing away many to their party as if there were no Vnity in the Church of England 19. I shall now examine their particular Covenant whereby they ingage themselves to walk together as constant members of that particular Society or Congregation to which they join themselves Now this Covenant in a way of separation is no other but a bond of division and was to that purpose invented by the Brownists And that it was their practice is (f) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 41 42 43 44. acknowledged by the Churches in New England Against which such things as these may be justly alledged 1. That this contradicts another of their avowed Positions That nothing not instituted of Christ ought to be received or submitted to as terms of Communion with a Church and some of them more largely declare that (g) Answer to 32. Qu. qu. â—8 particular Churches have no power to make Laws for themselves or their members but to observe the Laws of Christ and if any Church presume further they go beyond their Commission and it would be sin to be subject to such Laws But such a particular contract with a single Congregation especially a separating one was never any part of Christs Institution But because this other opinion of theirs is also erroneous it is of greater concernment to observe that this way of Covenanting is opposite to the Institution of Christ in that by division and separation it breaks the Unity of the Christian Church which Christ hath established to be one Church and one Body But the dividing the Church into several Independent Societies which is contrary to what the Institution of Christ appointeth is so much designed by this Covenant that some of themselves tell us (h) ibid. Answ to Qu. 8. without this kind of Covenanting we know not how it would be avoided but all Churches would be confounded into one Now this is as much as to say that Christ and his Apostles
it occasions incoherency and confusion in this his Discourse A Third miscarriage hence arising is That he buildeth part of his discourses upon a supposition which is certainly false to wit that all that Faith which is in the Vulgar or in any others is immediately produced by the application of the Rule of Faith so Disc 1. § 8 9. whence § 14. he calls the Rule of Faith the immediate producer and cause of the assent of Faith both with reference to the ruder sort and to the Learned Now though the Rule of Faith be the surest way to beget Faith or to try any point of Faith yet is not all Faith in all persons immediately produced by it but many times by other means Thus the Discourses of Origen Tertullian and Cyprian and their Writings have doubtless perswaded and prevailed with many to receive the Christian Faith by them and believe many things declared in it yet neither their words nor writings were any Rule of Faith since both in some things appear erroneous The Goths were brought in to Christianity by the preaching of the Arians and by that means believed many Christian truths and of later years many Pagans have believed the Christian Doctrine some by the preaching of Protestants and others by the Papists yet cannot all these ways of delivery be called the Rule of Faith nor indeed any of them Yea it is sensibly evident that many Christian truths are received and believed both among Protestants and Papists by the Vulgar either from the teaching of a Parent or from a private Doctor or Teacher which may be subject to some error and so are not the Rule of Faith since they may misguide and yet in many things of revealed truth this is the common case of the Vulgar before they come to understand the Rule of Faith or that which they own as such even before the Protestant comes to understand the Scripture and what is in it contained and before the Papist understands the Tradition of the Church and how he may know what is as such delivered since all that is taught or written by some particular persons cannot be as such received I come now to examine the particular properties of the Rule of Faith above recited The first property is That it must be self evident as to its existence to all His ground for this is that the rudest Vulgar who are capable of Faith are uncapable of any skill by speculation § 3 4 9 10. But First This proves not that it must be self-evident by which he means as appears in the following Discourse that that which is the Rule of Faith appeareth evidently to be such barely by considering this Rule in it self without any other helps and advantages since without this way of self-evidence it may be sufficiently evidenceable to all capacities in such a manner as the Vulgar are capable of knowing it The Statutes of England are a Rule for the decision of Cases in the Law concerning the matters contained in them but that they are so cannot appear satisfactorily in all these Laws by the bare reading of them but their being sufficiently and generally attested and acknowledged to be enacted by the Legislative Power and unrepealed evidenceth them to be such The Vulgar know that the last Will and Testament of a man is as a Rule to shew who hath title to the Goods of the deceased and they are capable of knowing which is the last Will and Testament of a person otherwise than from the bare reading of it to wit by the full witness and evident testimony of credible persons concerning it The ordinary Jews were capable of knowing the ten Commandments and the Books of Moses to be given them from God to guide them otherwise than by the reading of them to wit by delivery of them as such by the constant testimony of all the Jews in that and the succeeding Ages Whence it may appear to be self-evident that the Vulgar are capable of receiving other proof than self-evidence though not by deep speculation yet by testimonial evidence Nor 2. Will it hence follow from his proof that the Rule of Faith should be evident to all as to its existence By all he cannot here include them who have no knowledge of Gospel Revelation But I suppose he intends all who have faith or are in the way to attain it But in this latitude it is no property of the Rule of Faith to be actually evident to all these since there may be some Faith which is not immediately grounded upon the Rule as was before shewed Howbeit since the Rule of Faith is intended to confirm and determine matters of faith so that they may be received with a full and firm assent and is thence of great use to all to settle and stablish them in the faith I assert that the Rule of Faith is evidenceable unto all or may be made evident unto all who have capacities of reason both that it is and that it is a Rule if they be willing to receive that evidence which is sufficient The second property That it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to Enquirers even the rude Vulgar I allow supposing them willing to be satisfied with good evidence The third property I admit That it is apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons that is that they who rely on it without doubting may be satisfied that they act rationally The fourth property is That it is able to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters Had he appeared only to mean by Sceptical the most curiously inquisitive I would readily have granted this property but it is suspicious that he includes such Scepticks as design to reject evidence because when he applies this Rule Disc 3. § 3. he speaks of his Sceptick as one who would find somewhat to reply rationally or at least would maintain his suspence with a Might it not be otherwise If he indeed includes persons who set themselves to reject evidence I answer the Rule of Faith needeth not be able to satisfie them nor can it since they are not capable of satisfaction and such were many of the Heathen Philosophers of the Hereticks among Christians and probably of the Scribes and Pharisees All he said for the proof of this property was That those who are out of the Church are intended by Christ to be brought in to embrace the faith and persons of highest reason and enquiry in the Church may be satisfied concerning the faith § 13 14. This is true of them who will embrace light and evidence where they find it but not of them who reject it and Protestants will affirm that the Rule of Faith taking in the testimonial evidence which is given concerning that Rule is able to satisfie all Dissenters or Doubters who are ready and willing to receive rational satisfaction The fifth property is That it must be able to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries This he supposeth proved from § 15.
Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
eighth Century and many other cases Now before the determination of such a Council it is not evident which are the true deliverers from the way of Tradition since both parties contend for their own delivery and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser but delivery or Tradition and upon the former considerations it appears that the best deliverers may be the fewest And this may be as uncertain after a Council since there is nothing else to ascertain us but the vote of a major part which in many Councils hath certainly been the worser part and maintained Heresie and therefore so it may be in others where there can be no evidence given to the contrary And by Determinations of Councils the lesser part and their Adherents are determined to reject their way of delivery and receive the other and by this means the lesser number which may be in the truth must disclaim their own sense and judgment to submit to the judgment of others which may be in the wrong and so the true Tradition may be lost Yet that it may appear more evident how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is I shall applie his way of demonstrating to some other cases which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition It is certain that after Moses the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews and after Noah who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons they had the greatest hopes and fears to ingage them to this truth and these are the causes of actual will and the truths are knowable therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah and Jewish from Moses were indefectible according to this Discourser's Principles and so the true Religion may at this time be found either among Gentiles or Jews Yea it was certain that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise and to the Angels that fell before their fall and they had the greatest hopes and fears to perswade them to keep to this will of God knowing that obeying it was their happiness and deserting it their ruine these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them therefore according to this demonstrator Adam and Eve and all the Angels did continue in their obedience The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached or by many be received in the Christian Church But in these cases who sees not that it will be answered that either the truths of God declared were not sufficiently heeded or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied and at all times acknowledged and observed and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice but then every eye will see that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church as in any other company of men So that he hath made it as clear that the Romish Tradition is indefectible as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were and are and as certain as it is that there is no Devil or fallen Angel and no fall of man and consequently no sin in the World and no Heresie ever in the Christian Church But here it is needful to do this Authour that right as to observe his unusual modesty that he intitles this Discourse not a demonstration but an indeavouring to demonstrate § 6. He speaketh to this purpose If any shall object Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills since Christs Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice to say it is universally applied and preserves none good is to question Christs wisdom and many thousands Martyrs and Confessors did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills Again nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin to teach their Children what they think will damn them but most strongly carries them to the contrary To this I may in the first place observe that neglects of duty might be if there had been no Original corruption as was in Adam in Paradise and in the Angels where was no antecedent sinful inclination but they were only capable of sinning Yet I assert there is more danger by Original corruption and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding Now Christs Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this yet this is first where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained but not so that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians who had this Doctrine lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians Chap. 3.1 Who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth And we Protestants can discern nothing to shew that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church than in the Corinthian or Galatian Secondly where this Doctrine is retained it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin which may hinder right delivery of all truth for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors The Church of Rome as well as we own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr and yet acknowledge him to have erred and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptized by Hereticks ought to be rebaptized so that in following good men there may be mistake but they are more like to err if they be bad as many certainly are But concerning his last clauses it is no way necessary to suppose that to invalidate Tradition Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them we suppose very many may design truth and good who yet may be in error yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves may design to corrupt the truth and may teach their Children so and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives which is not a design to damn themselves but a design to gratifie their evil affections S. Paul 2. Cor. 2.17 speaks of many who corrupt the word of God and S. Peter foretells of others who shall bring in damnable Heresies and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim most probably this was not out of design to damn them however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally than Jews had or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger § 7. He thus proceeds If any object the fickle nature of the will he answers Good is the object of the will Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
should not seem a sufficient answer without further proof of what is there intimated I shall undertake to evidence that the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the ancient Church against those Hereticks was such as was grounded upon Scripture as their Rule of Faith and that those Hereticks assertions were therefore rejected because they were contrary to these Scriptures Which I shall do in examining what were the grounds of Faith upon which the Catholick Fathers proceeded at the time of the four first General Councils in which were these Hereticks condemned as also Macedonius in the second Council SECT V. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council ARius being a Presbyter of Alexandria was for his Heretical Doctrine denying the eternal Godhead of the Son opposed and rejected by Alexander Bishop of that place and deposed from his Office by an Alexandrian Council Socr. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 6. upon which Alexander writes an Epistle to all his fellow Ministers wherein as he lays down many Scriptures which he declares to be full against the assertion of Arius so he there declares that the Arians when they had once determined to fight against Christ would not hear the words of our Lord. And he there likewise shews that whereas he had oftentimes overthrown them in unfolding the Divine Scriptures they as Chamaelions changed themselves The same Alexander of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople declares that the Arians assertion did tend to destroy the holy Scriptures and that in the Scriptures they pretended to urge they did offer violence to the holy Scriptures He likewise there urgeth the Scriptures against them with such expressions as these John is sufficient to instruct Paul doth declare manifestly But to leave this particular Bishop and come to the General Council When this famous Council of Nice was gathered together Constantine tells them Theodor. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 7. that they had the Doctrine of the holy Spirit in writing for saith he the Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently instruct us what we ought to think of Divine things wherefore rejecting all contentious strife let us receive a solution of such things as are questioned from the Divinely inspired speeches As this Council of Nice was put forth by Pisanus out of the Vatican Exemplar it is observable that they oft urge the same Scriptures which Alexander did urge against Arius and in the third Book of that Council The Bishops said by Eusebius In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That was rejects was not and God takes away that he was not God believe the things that are written neither think nor inquire after things that are not written So that Council After the decision of this Council Socr. lib. 1. c. 5. shews that Eusebius writing of the Nicene Confession saies The form of Execration which is set after the Creed we thought fit to be received because it prohibits the using of words not written from whence almost all the confusion and disorder of the Churches do arise Wherefore when no Scripture of Divine inspiration useth these words concerning the Son that he was of things that were not and that it was once when he was not it is no way fit to speak or teach such things That this Council made Scripture their Rule of decision will yet further appear from the words of Constantine in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria recorded Socr. lib. 1. c. 6. where he declared That the Council had diligently examined all things and writing of the Arians he adds some blasphemed speaking and professing to believe things contrary to the Divinely inspired Scriptures and the Faith And Athanasius ad Epictetum speaks how powerful the Faith of Nice might be expected to be against Heresies which was professed according to the holy Scriptures I shall hereafter observe somewhat more out of Athanasius which will further declare that at the time of this Nicene Council of which he was a Member Scripture was the Rule made use of against the Arians SECT VI. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople THis Council not being called against Arius Nestorius Dioscorus or Eutyches which are mentioned by this Discourser but against Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the holy Spirit and other Hereticks I shall but briefly observe That Evagrius Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. declares the design of that Council to be to make manifest by Scripture-testimonies what they conceived about the Holy Ghost against them who adventured to reject his Lordship And if the testimony of Evagrius being a private Historian be not sufficient this very same thing was before him attested and declared concerning this second General Council in the definition of the General Council of Chalcedon Act. 5. And in the seventh Canon of this second Council where they declare how they will receive those that return from Heresie amongst other things concerning some of them are those words We receive them as Greeks and the first day we make them Christians and the second Catechumens and so we Catechize them and make them continue a long time in the Church and hear the holy Scriptures and then we Baptize them Doth it not hence appear that this Council owned the Scriptures as the way to the true Faith and establishment in it in that they would not receive Hereticks until they had been long hearers of it But I will not here neglect to mention that at the time of this Council Pope Damasus gathers a Council at Rome hearing of that at Constantinople where they declare That after all the Prophetical Apostolical and Evangelical Scriptures by which the Catholick Church by the grace of God is founded the Church of Rome is by some Synodical Decrees above other Churches And Christ himself said Thou art Peter Is not this testimony to be seen in their own Collectors of the Councils plain enough to shew what was in those daies owned by the Church of Rome as the main ground and foundation of Faith SECT VII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus THis Council was gathered against Nestorius when Coelestine was Bishop of Rome whose place was here supplied by Cyril of Alexandria That the Nestorians then did not pretend to Scripture for their Rule is probable in that Socr. lib. 7. c. 32. relates that they indeavoured to falsifie the Copies of the Scriptures as likewise in that an Epistle of the Nestorians to the people of Constantinople begins thus The Law is not delivered in writing but is placed in the minds of the Pastors which Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 3. c. 7. And in the Epistle of Cyril to Comanus and Pontamion Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2.
Preach the Gospel to every Creature So that this was not a singular Authority committed to St. Peter but he was first made choice of to have a right understanding of the extent of his Commission And it is not to be doubted but that Authority which did belong to all the Apostles of leading Men to the Church receiving them into it governing them in it and excluding them from it doth contain the chief part of the power of the Keys 3. To us not only to the Apostles but even to other Officers of the Church as Bishops and Priests or Presbyters is given this Ministry of Reconciliation for if we consider the nature of this Office the Ministry of Reconciliation or which is all one the Ministry of the Gospel must not cease till the end of it in the Salvation of Men be accomplished And our Saviour both promiseth his Presence and Authority to be with his Ministry unto the end of the World and establisheth them in his Church till we all come in the Unity of the Faith Mat. 28.20 Eph. 4.14 and Knowledg of the Son of God unto a perfect Man And we may further observe That in writing this second Epistle to the Corinthians it is manifest from the Inscription thereof that Timothy therein joined with S. Paul Now though he was no Apostle nor a Companion of St. Paul till after the Council of Jerusalem as appears from the History of the Acts yet he here as well as St. Paul hath a share in the Ministry of Reconciliation That Timothy was the first Bishop of Ephesus is generally declared by the Ancient Writers Eusebius attesteth it Eus Hist l. 3. c. 4. and besides others this was expressed by Leontius in the great Council of Chalcedon Conc. Chalc. Action 11. there being then preserved an exact Record and Catalogue of the Bishops of that Church And though Learned Men herein disagree and there is manifest difficulty in fixing the Chronology it is greatly probable from comparing the Epistles to Timothy with the History of the Acts that he was not yet made Bishop of Ephesus when this Epistle to the Corinthians was written And this might then give some fair probability from the instance of Timothy that that Order of Priest or Presbyter as distinct from a Bishop was of an Apostolical and therefore a Divine Original But because several difficulties too large to be here discussed must be obviated for the clearing this particular I shall rather fix upon another Consideration which may be sufficient to perswade the same It is very evident from the History of the Acts and some expressions in the Epistles that for several years after the famous Church of Ephesus was founded by St. Paul Timothy the first Bishop there was usually with St. Paul in his Journeys or by his Command in other places Now it may be acknowledged that the chief Government and power of Censure in several Churches was for some time reserved in the hands of the Apostles themselves though at a distance as is evident from the Epistles to the Corinthians it was concerning the Church of Corinth But he who shall think that in all this time they had no Church-Officer fixed amongst them in that great Church of Ephesus to administer the Holy Communion and celebrate other needful Ministerial Performances must account the Apostles to have had no great care of the Churches they planted nor the Churches to have had any great zeal for the Religion they embraced which no Man can judg who hath any knowledg of the Spirit of that Primitive Christianity But if they had in the Church of Ephesus other fixed Officers distinct from the Bishop to celebrate the Holy Communion and other necessary acts of ordinary Ministration then must the Order of Presbyters be of as early original in the Church as the History of the Acts and then the ordaining Elders in every Church must take in those who are distinctly called Priests or Presbyters To this I add that the Office of Presbyter includeth an Authority to tender in God's Name remission of Sins and as from him to exhibit to his Church the Sacramental Symbols of his Grace and upon that account no such Office could ever have its Original from any lower than Apostolical and Divine Authority 4. To us in different Ranks and Orders in the Church not in a parity and equality Here is S. Paul an Apostle and Timothy in an Order inferiour to him When Christ was upon Earth he appointed the Apostles and the Seventy and when he Ascended he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers And though most of these were Officers by an extraordinary Commission which are ceased yet when Timothy was fixed at Ephesus where there then were Presbyters as I have shewed the chief power of Government and the care of Ordination was intrusted in his hands singly as is manifest and hath been oft observed from the Epistles to Timothy The like appears concerning Titus as also that the chief care of the Churches of Asia was in the hands of the Angels of those Churches If we consult the Ancient state of the Church this chief Government in a single Person or Bishop in those ancient times took place as far as Christianity it self reached Besides what may be said from particular Writers 1 Can. Ap. 2. Can. Nic. 19. the first General Council of Nice and the more ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles do both of them not only frequently mention as distinct Offices the Bishop Presbyter and Deacon but also express this distinction between Bishop and Presbyter 1. 2 Can. Ap. 1. Can Nic. 4. 3 Can. Ap. 15 31 32 38. Conc. Nic. c. â— That the peculiar power of Ordaining doth reside in the Bishop 2. That he receiveth his Episcopal Office by a special Ordination thereto 3. That he hath a particular power of governing and censuring the Laiety and other Clergy And he who shall consider that many things in the Scripture may receive considerable Light from understanding the custom of the Jews and even of the Gentiles must needs acknowledg that an account of the practice and customs of the Christian Church may lead us to the true sense of those expressions of Scripture which have relation thereto especially since no Man without this help can give a satisfactory account of the distinct work and business of those ordinary Church-Officers which are particularly mentioned in Scripture Wherefore I doubt not but according to the Scripture and the Universal practice of the ancient Church throughout the World the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining Sins which takes in the whole Office of the Ministry is in some eminent parts of it wholly reserved to Bishops while other parts thereof are dispensed by Priests and some by Deacons Ignat. ad Smyr Tert. de Bapt. c. 17. yet so that these ever acted with submission to the Bishop as is asserted by Ignatius and Tertullian
makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians tho there they be rendred by other English Words Gal. 5.20 among those Works of the Flesh concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression that they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God And I think it considerable to be further observed that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit and who in the main close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity their miscarriage in this particular in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions one being of Paul and another of Apollo 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3 4. he still keeping his Eye upon and having an aim at these Divisions as appears from that third and the former part of the fourth Chapter tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial if his work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire v. 15. That is if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine it shall go the worse with him and be hereafter to his loss and though he escape Misery and obtain Life it shall be with the greater hazard danger and difficulty And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good must carefully avoid this miscarriage Secondly Consider how extreamly opposite and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself He is one Lord and Head he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine and upon the same Hope of their Calling and under the same Only God and Father of all And all these things S. Paul urgeth as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one John 17.11 21 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end that the World might believe that thou hast sent me Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius Turcograec lib. 3. part 1. p. 234. that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks that Christians may not be at Vnity And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements Baronius Annal. Eccles An. 344. n. 9. makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine and Salmeron Tom. 9. Tr. 16. n. 1. declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour as in the mean time to chuse that which complieth with and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel But after all this or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be perswaded 1. I fear there are some fierce Men who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty that they have not Patience to hear it but rather to turn angry and to cry out as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Thus saying thou reproachest us also But it will become them and others too to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are But these Truths must be spoken whether they will hear or whether they will forbear 2. And others there are who will acknowledg in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties will plead their own Innocence and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church and not upon themselves Now here much might be said to shew that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable yea and unlawful which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters and contended for by the dividing Parties But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse Wherefore instead thereof I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration that it is not the Constitution of our Church but the ill temper of dividing Spirits that is the true cause of our Divisions And that is this That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed but to the grief of good Men they were greatly encreased thereby and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since Let all of us therefore take heed to our selves that we keep in the paths of Peace and Vnity and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery and becoming Serious and Sober Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man It is so much against Reason and Conscience and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men and the good of the World that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations This is
and spake evil of their Governours And they were frequently turbulent and tumultuous But by the Evangelical Doctrine only the Humble and Lowly can enter into Heaven The Son of God himself so far promoted Submission to all in Authority that he was obedient to his Parents was himself baptized of John And the New Testament earnestly enjoins upon us Obedience to them who have the Rule over us and denounceth Damnation to those who resist the higher Powers 6. And lastly They left themselves and their Followers at a licentious Liberty in many weighty Matters of Doctrine and Practice They could suffer their Hands to be Polluted by devouring Widows Houses and their Tables by Extortion and Excess They made void the Commands of God by their Traditions and were such Casuists as to allow Swearing by Heaven and Earth and to account such Oaths as those by the Temple and the Altar to leave no Obligation when Swearing by the Gold of the Temple or the Gift upon the Altar did oblige And it is manifest from this fifth chapter of St. Matthew that according to their strictest Rules they gave allowance to inward Wrath and Hatred and Lust if it did not break forth in open Murther or Adultery as was noted by Tertullian Tert. de Idolat c. 2. who also observeth how strictly extensive our Saviour's Doctrine is even against the unchast Eye and inward Wrath or in the phrase of St. John That he that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer But the excellent Christian Rules of Life which command the inward Man and far out-do the loose Principles of the Pharisees are many of them proposed by the Blessed Jesus in this and the following Chapters and are included under that Sanction at the close of this Sermon on the Mount that he that hears these words of his and doth them not is likened to him who builds his House on the Sand which ends in a dreadful fall And Vertuous Practices are so far from pleading any allowance from Christianity that Whosoever breaks the least Commandment and teacheth Men so shall be called least or not be accounted of in the Kingdom of Heaven These things I have discoursed of are sufficient to shew the gross miscarriages of the Pharisaical Righteousness in opposing the necessary Duties of Unity Meekness Sincerity true Religious Piety Obedience and Universal Holiness and therefore this could be no safe way to the Kingdom of Heaven I now come to the second Enquiry How stands the case of those Societies who lay the chief claims to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees in these particulars And here I shall not ransack the remote and distant parts of the World but take notice only of those with which we are concerned as the Church of England the present Roman Church and the Dissenting Parties among us Nor shall I strain resemblances to make the Cases appear Parallel but shall take notice of things as they really are to observe how far there is a likeness to or compliance with the Spirit of Pharisaism And here I profess that I seriously wish well to all Men of what Party soever and therefore whatever I shall say that speaks the error or danger of any of them is not out of design to cast reproach upon them but out of this true Charitable End to warn others to take heed thereof and I should be glad if it might make any of them consider of the error of their way 1. Concerning Separation and Division This was esteemed by the ancient Church as an heinous Crime St. Chrysostom equals it with Heresy Chr. in Eph. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. and St. Cyprian makes it a greater offence than that of the Lapsi The Church of England is clear herein it owns and professeth the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and Doctrine and none other and appoints a way of Worship agreeable thereto and so gives no cause to warrant any Separation from her Our Case with respect to the Romish Church is in part like that of the Apostles with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees whilest they professed the true Christian Doctrine and worshipped God after the way which was unjustly called Heresy Joh. 12.42 the Pharisees sentenced such to be put out of the Synagogue And the Talmud of the Venice Edition hath been observed to affirm That Jesus himself was Excommunicated with the Shammatha or great Excommunication And because we as we ought reject the evil and corrupt Romish Doctrines and Practices they censure us as Hereticks and let fly their Anathema's in various Canons of Trent and yearly denounce their Excommunications in the Bull in Coena Domini And besides this we cannot join in the main part of the Romish Worship without embracing their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices Nor have they any Right of Jurisdiction over us And all this acquits us from the Crime of Schism in our Reformation But they at Rome though they keep to their publick Worship as the Pharisees did are yet grossly guilty of Schism by unjustly rejecting all other Christian Churches who make use of their own just Rights and are not more ready to submit to St. Peters pretended Successor and his Impostures than to the Precepts and Doctrines of his and our Lord and Master And herein they pass Sentence as the Pharisee did against the Publican upon them who are better than themselves Other Parties at home practise Divisions in an higher degree than the Pharisees did openly separating themselves from the publick Assemblies of our Christian Worship 2. Concerning fierceness and furiousness of Zeal Our Church entertains no Bloody nor Uncharitable Doctrines or Tenents its Rules concerning Government contain as much mildness as can consist with Peace and Order and its Practice rather more by reason of the distemper and disorder of the minds of Men. But such is the Romish fierceness that in the highest violation of Charity they exclude other Churches from Salvation And their furious Zeal appears by Fire and Faggot by bloody Inquisitions Massacres and Rebellions by Horrid Treasons and cruel Conspiracies of which the World hath had and we have abundant Evidence These things are so unlike Christianity and Jesus the Saviour that they betray themselves to be from the Abaddon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Espencoeus a learned Doctor of Paris Esp in 1. T◠Digr l. 2. had observed how the ancient Canons obliged all the Clergy against engaging in War and Blood he acknowledgeth and smartly taxeth the contrary practice of the late Romish Church and her Bishops as herein degenerating from the Spirit of Christianity veteris Gentilismi ritu with a greater suitableness to the temper of Pagans And in other Dissenting Parties it is too manifest how prone their forward and leading Men are to censorious Uncharitableness and rash Judging and how ready they have been unjustly to take up the Sword and pursue the Interest of their Party with War and Blood with
in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy Sect. 1. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World p. 141 Sect. 2. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery p. 159 Sect. 3. Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome and are by the Authority thereof established which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour p. 186 Sect. 4. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God p. 214 Sect. 5. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy p. 241 CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly Sect. 1. Of Quakers p. 262 Sect. 2. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion p. 275 Sect. 3. Of Anabaptists p. 279 Sect. 4. Of Independents p. 292 An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Discourse Intituled Sure-Footing in Christianity THE first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith p. 321 Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 330 An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture p. 349 An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 367 An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it p. 383 An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori p. 404 An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie p. 416 An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori p. 433 An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority p. 451 Answer to his Corollaries p. 460 An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse p. 468 Sect. 1. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures p. 469 Sect. 2. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith p. 473 Sect. 3. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith p. 476 Sect. 4. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice p. 478 Sect. 5. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council p. 484 Sect. 6. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople p. 486 Sect. 7. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus p. 487 Sect. 8. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon p. 489 Sect. 9. Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine p. 491 Sect. 10. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus p. 492 Sect. 11. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith p. 497 Sect. 12. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian p. 501 Sect. 13. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith p. 506 Sect. 14. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius p. 507 Sect. 15. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil p. 510 Sect. 16. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith p. 512 Sect. 17. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith p. 515 Sect. 18. Answering the remainder of his Discourse p. 516 Sermons Preached upon several Occasions A Sermon Preached at Lyn S. Margaret 's at the Bishop's Visitation Octob. 15. 1677. on 2 Cor. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation p. 523 A Sermon Preached at Norwich March 2. 1678. on Joel 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart p. 555 A Sermon Preached on S. Matth. 5.20 For I say unto you That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven p. 577 OF REPROACHING AND CENSURE The First Part Concerning the irregular Excesses and great Sinfulness of uncharitable evil-speaking especially of Superiours CHAP. I. Some preparatory considerations concerning the evil of Reproaching 1. REligion hath that general influence upon the life of the pious man that it commands and governs his thoughts and affections his words and actions But where the true rules of piety are neglected very many indulge themselves in great disorder and miscarriages in every one of these particulars Among other things a strange licentious liberty is taken by no small number of men in speaking injuriously and casting reproaches and unreasonable censures upon others contrary to the rules of our Christian profession yea even upon men of the best principles and the best lives and not sparing our Rulers and Governours in Church and State 2. And this evil temper hath so far insinuated it self Evil speaking a vice dangerously prevailing at this time and is become so spreading and so open and manifest that I account it one of the prevailing vices of our dayes And when men are ashamed to own many other sinful practices or to shew any approbation of them as of drunkenness swearing uncleanness oppression and such like uncharitable speeches of others are entertained with a secret delight and pleasure and oft with open expressions of satisfaction And this shews the great defilement of this sin which not only prevails on the passions and affections by corrupting and disordering them but it also debaucheth and perverteth the very inward principles of Conscience it self I wish that with respect to very many persons we had not now just cause to take up the complaint of (a) Naz. Or. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it ought to be reproved and checked Gr. Nazianzen concerning the time he lived in That that man was best esteemed of not he who being governed by the fear of God durst not speak an idle word but he who speaketh the most contumeliously against others either openly or by sly intimations 3. And therefore I shall now design to speak
(f) Chrys Hom. in Ps 44. S. Chrysostome there is nothing shameful but sin and if all the world shall reproach thee and thou not reproach thy self there is no shame in all this But it is never safe to join with a multitude either in the doing or speaking evil And the state of every offender when the sin grows common is upon this account the more dangerous because he is hereby the more like to be encouraged in his sin and the more unlike to repent of it and sometimes he may be by this means so emboldned in evil as to think it strange that others run not to the same excess speaking evil of them And thus his case is like that of a man who is carried away with a fierce and violent stream which leaves but little hopes of his escaping drowning Wherefore it is as reasonable that men be careful to avoid spreading vices as that they should be cautious and fearful of infectious diseases 9. Thirdly This disorder is prone to prevail 3 It is a sin earnestly pursued by many who appear strict and zealous about Religion not only among men of careless and negligent tempers but also among them who are strict scrupulous and conscientious in matters of Religion Thus was our Master treated with infamous reproaches by them who were zealous for the honour of God Such were the Pharisees and the devouter sort of the Jewish Nation such was S. Paul himself before his conversion being exceeding zealous for the law and yet a blasphemer and injurious And such were those unbelieving Jews to whom S. Paul bears record that they had a zeal for God but not according to knowledge Rom. 10.2 These were members of the Jewish Church were strict in many things both of practice and opinion and were very earnest to make Proselytes And besides the other Sects of the Jews who all joyned together against our Lord the holy Scriptures represent none more vehement in their oppositions and reproaches than the Pharisees who as S. Paul declares were of the exactest and straitest Sect of the Jewish Religion Acts 26.5 And though Josephus sometimes prefer the Essens before them yet he also tells us that (g) Joseph de Bel. Jud. l. 1. c. 4. the Pharisees were reputed to be more Religious than other men and more strict in their interpretation of the laws But there was so much pride and passion mixed with their zeal that they were vehement against those who did not comply with them in laying a great stress upon such things wherein Religion was not concerned yea and upon those things al o which really tended to the undermining of true piety and they were eager against them who would inform them better and hence they set themselves in opposition against Christ and his Apostles 10. Misguided zeal inflameth passions and sharpneth tongues There is nothing that more sharpens the tongues of men against others than the mistaken principles of a misguided conscience which was that by which the Jews acted against the Saviour of the World both reviling and crucifying him Hence also before the great Apostle was a convert he thought he ought to do many things against the name of Jesus Act. 26.9 And hence the Apostles and other Christians were upbraided and ill intreated in that high degree that they that killed them thought they did God service Joh. 16.2 And hence divers Hereticks and those who were engaged in Errors and Schisms and divisions vented many contumelious and reproachful censures against the true Church and its members So did the Gnosticks Montanists Novatians Donatists and others anciently and all dividing Sects of later times 11. For instance the Donatists raised such high accusations against the true Christian Church as (h) Aug. Ep. 50. Ep. 162. passim to reject it from being a true Church and not to own any but themselves to be the Church of Christ and thereupon not only rebaptized all others who came to them but by savage cruelty and violence forced divers to be rebaptized Sect. III. And other reproachers but not in the like degree were embraced by the other Sects For all men who have pretended to Christianity till some late unreasonable notions in our present age which discard all obligation to visible and external Unity and publick communion in the offices of the Church have been sensible that they could never justifie their own departure from the Church unless they could lay some such thing to her charge as made their secession necessary Among these some were more fierce and furious who yielded their conscience to the service of their affections and passions as too many of late have done both in the Church of Rome and of other parties in our late unhappy times And when S. Austin with lamentations spake of the incursions of the Barbarous Nations into France Italy Spain and Egypt he thought the inhumane cruelties some of which he particularly mentions of the (i) Aug. Ep. 122. Sic vastant Ecclesias ut Barbarorum fortasse facta mitlora sunt Donatists and especially the Circumcelliones towards them who held communion with the Church were rather more savage than what was commited by those barbarous people And indeed no rage is fiercer than that which is enflamed by an irregular and disordered zeal And others who continue in a milder temper though they abstain from outrages yet by their misapprehensions are engaged in unreasonable censures of the Church and publick order and of the Rulers who appoint and establish it 12. But zeal when not governed by piety prudence truth and goodness and not allayed with meekness is like a fire violently breaking out in any part of a building which threatens the wasting and ruine of the whole And it is never safe to promote or entertain unjust reproaches raised even by zealous men when these very things though they may be popularly taking to engage a party yet are they a great blemish to their profession uncharitableness and rash censoriousness being a manifest evidence of the want of a true Religious temper wheresoever it prevails To this purpose S. James speaking of that man who is wise by the wisdom which descends from above or who is truly pious and Religious directs this wise and good man Jam. 3.13 to shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom And he then assures us that where there is bitter zeal or envying and strife this wisdom discendeth not from above but is earthly sensual and devilish v. 14 15. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure and then peaceable gentle and easie to be intreated or perswaded viz. to what is good just or reasonable SECT III. The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and excellent men and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself 1. The most infamous calumny sometimes raised against well deserving men IN sensible things
eremo Serm. 26. S. Austin's name observes that this sin hath much of spiritual leprosie in it it is dangerous to the soul and greatly defiles it it is apt to infect others and renders the person unfit for common Society and God was pleased to punish it in Miriam with leprosie in her body 26. The Reproacher by publick Censure shut out of the ancient Church When the strict rules of Christian discipline were exercised he who defamed reproached or reviled others was to be cast out of the Church by a publick censure which is an evidence that the Christian Church accounted this sin to forfeit the priviledges of Christianity and that the persons who commit it and live in the practice of it deserve not to be esteemed members of the Body of Christ And that amongst other great sinners the reviler railer or reproacher is worthy to be separated from the Christian Society is declared by the Apostle himself 1 Cor 5.11 For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle there useth is of that extent as to include all who utter contentious contumelious and defaming words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being oft used by the (y) Septuag in Exod. 17.2 7. Num. 20.3 13. Septuagint to answer the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which relates to strife and contention and takes in all contentious reproaching words According to the disciplinary rules received in this Kingdom many hundred years since offenders of this nature especially if they defamed or spake contumeliously (z) in 2. lib. Poenitent Egbert n. 21 c 29. in Spelmar Conc. Vol. 1. against their Superiors were to come under the rules of penance In like manner in the Eastern Church in ancient times (a) in Regul brev Resp 26. S. Basil adjudgeth both him who slandereth his Neighbour and him also who should comply with him or give ear unto him to deserve 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be separated and cut off from Ecclesiastical communion And it was more anciently decreed in the Western Church that those who should spread abroad reproaches or libels against others should be under an Anathema according to the Sentence of the Council of (b) Conc. Elib c. 52. Eliberis All which shews how odious this sin hath been reputed and how much abhorred and condemned in the Christian Church 27. And in the holy Scriptures when the Psalmist declares the qualifications necessary for him who shall dwell in Gods Holy Hill and threatned with exclusion out of Gods Kingdom or who shall be owned a true member of his Church here and have an entrance into his glory hereafter this is part of his description Psal 15.1 3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue nor doth evil to his Neighbour nor taketh up a reproach against his Neighbour To this S. James his words are agreeable Chap. 1.26 If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue that mans Religion is vain S. Paul also assures us that revilers shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6.10 and our Lord himself saith concerning him who speaketh contumeliously to his Brother that he shall be in danger of Hell fire Mat. 5.22 28. Now he who considers what God is and what are the excellencies of his Kingdom and with eternal destruction cannot account it any light Sentence to be eternall excluded from his glory and presence as the fallen Angels are If this be not enough the desperate misery of all wicked doers who shall be refused entrance thereinto will make the stoutest heart to tremble and will change the most brisk and jolly temper into doleful weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth When they shall be under the astonishing sence of the divine wrath the infinite pains expressed by the fire which shall not be quenched the perplexing torment of a terribly awakened conscience and the worm that never dies this will be an unspeakably dismal state To which may be added the amazing presence and Society of the Devil and his Angels and other damned persons expressing their sad out-cries and terrors and the overwhelming sense of an hopeless and unpitied condition and all this to abide in those black and frightful regions of darkness to all eternity 29. and with an heavy degree of future misery and vengeance And yet in the midst of this unspeakable and endless destruction and torment the Scripture which declareth the rule according to which God will denounce his Sentence tells us that those who reproach and speak evil of Superiors are of the number of those sinners who must expect the highest degree of judgment and severity at the great day 2 Pet. 2.9 10. The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government presumptuous are they self willed they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities Where we see despising dominion or Government and speaking evil of dignities is part of the description of those whom God will chiefly punish And to such persons will belong those other expressions of being presumptuous and self-willed for such they must be who will be so insolent as to despise what God hath set over them and forgetting their own station to reproach them who are in Authority And though the former clause of this Verse concerning them who walk after the flesh in the (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lust of uncleanness or defilement may very well be understood concerning them who practise adultery fornication and lasciviousness yet even this clause also may not improperly be applyed to this sin against which I am particularly discoursing For it is evident from Rom. 13.13 14. Gal. 5.16 17 18 19 20. 1 Pet. 2.11 12 13. and other places of Scripture that the passions of men and the expressions and unruliness of them which are contained in reproaching are included under the phrase of the lusts of the flesh and that this sin I am treating of is defiling is manifest from the former part of this Chapter Now the direful vengeance of God doth infinitely go beyond the severest executions which can be contrived by men And all men ought to have a serious sense of this and all holy and godly men have so When (d) Martyr Polycarpi Polycarp was threatned by the Proconsul first to be torn in pieces by cruel wild Beasts and when this moved him not he was told he should be burnt with fire unless he would depart from the Christian Religion it was reasonably and wisely as well as piously replyed by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Thou threatenest that fire which burns for an hour and then goes out but thou considerest not the fire of the future Judgment and the eternal punishment which is reserved for the wicked This is that we all ought to fear as most dreadful and to avoid
preserve or recover men from the snares of sin and to guide them into a true obedience to the will of God and the doing those things which are to the honour of Christianity by calming the unruly disorders of mens minds Where persons are engaged in any unaccountable practice with passion and fierceness there is no case wherein sin hath a greater dominion and government over man than in this For whilst any are carried on with rash heats these blind their minds and hinder them from a sober consideration of what they ought to do And there is no sinful indisposition wherein men are more averse from good counsel and more forward to be displeased with and oppose them who would direct them better And (z) Arist Ethic l 1. c. Aristotle observed from Hesiod that he who will neither consider things rightly of himself nor be advised by others is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man of whose good there is little hope Wherefore he who will endeavour the recovering of men from such sins must be prepared to bear the hard words of such offenders which was the lot of Christ himself of his Apostles and many of the ancient Fathers in the like case Even as he that would be most instrumental to extinguish a prevailing fire may be scorcht and must be touched with some sense of the heat and flame 31. 2. It is impious to think the breaking the laws of God to be our interest Secondly Consider how much it savoureth of impiety that the urging the plain duties of meekness patience humility and reverence to Superiours should be thought things of ill and hurtful consequence and that passionate fierceness and disobedience should be esteemed things good and useful for mankind As if those things which God commands were for the prejudice of man of whose welfare he hath so great a care This would represent the Kingdom of Christ to be divided against it self and perswade men that if they will take care of their own true interest and do what is best for themselves they must cast off the yoke of Christ and comply with the temptations of the Devil But whoever will talk or judge at this rate if he do not stop his course and return from the error of his way is in a fair progress towards the renouncing his Christianity and the denying the wisdom and goodness of God in governing the world But then he must withal contradict the sentiments of his own reason and conscience since no man can think it just and fit that himself should be thus treated either with uncharitable censures and unjust reproaches and calumnies by others or with an untractable disrespect and an irreverent and undutiful behaviour from his own Children and Servants It would be folly enough for Subjects to think that those prudent Laws which are the contrivance of the wisest men are their burden and dammage and that it would be far better for every man to be wholly left to his own will when as the (a) Cic. pro Cluent Roman Orator truly observed Laws are the bond and the soul and life of civil society and the foundation of liberty and we are therefore subject to Laws that we may enjoy freedom legum idcirco servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus But it would be far more unaccountable to have such disparaging thoughts of the directions and commands of the infinitely wise God And it hath been a great part of Satans business in the world to perswade men to reject useful truth and rules of practice by raising prejudices against them and those that teach them This he oft doth by pretending that they are against the interest of men and that some ill design is laid by them who propose them In this manner he began with our first Parents in Paradise and so he proceeded against the Christian Religion as I have shewed 32. Obj. 2. But it may be further objected Obj. 2 If Religion be concerned ought not men to be zealous If Religion be concerned and in danger doth it not become every good man to be moved and zealous in this case and both to speak and act what may tend to its preservation To which I shall return four things by way of Answer with desire that they may all of them be seriously considered 33. Ans 1 Yes in Christian and prudent actions not in sinful passions Ans 1. It is very requisite he should in such a case be zealous and active as a Christian in the diligent exercises of an holy life and in frequent and devout prayer and supplication to Almighty God to procure his protection and defence against all the enemies of his Church and their ill designs And it is proper also for him to be active as a wise man in the use of all lawful and prudent means which agree to his place and station But he must not be active as an evil doer in giving himself the liberty to vent passionate slanders and uncharitable reproaches against others or to behave himself undutifully towards his Superiours If a Ship be in a storm it is desirable that its passengers should both pray to God and in their places put to their helping hand for its security but it very ill becometh them at that time to fall into quarrels with them who take the best care for its safety And it must be considered that (b) Just Mart. Paraen p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion is not so much a name as a business of life and practice And therefore they who speak of shewing a great respect to Religion by disobeying its precepts do really lose Religion under a pretence of preserving it for though men may deceive themselves it is a truth of undoubted certainty that whosoever seemeth to be religious and bridleth not his tongue that mans Religion is vain it is an empty appearance and not profitable to himself 34. 2. Gods Kingdom needeth not the help of Satan and sin Ans 2. Religion can never be so in danger that God should need any sinful practices of men to uphold his interest His Kingdom is not so weak that it cannot stand without the assistance of the works of the Devil Such methods may help forward the ruine of a Church but will never be found the true way to its settlement and establishing Christ who founded his Church did support it when it was in the midst of persecutions even in its weak beginnings And the exercises of piety and all good conscience accompanied with innocent prudence are the way to put us under his care and intitle us to his protection but he will have no concord with Belial When the pressures of the Israelites were heavy in Egypt God delivered them from their Bondage And when their transgressions had at other times exposed them to great calamities and sufferings upon their returning to him he raised up Judges and gave them redress And he knows how to defend those who fear him by
various methods and sometimes in a more strange and extraordinary manner Thus the wrath of (c) Jos Ant. Jud. l. 11. c. 8. Alexander who went against Jerusalem with the Spirit of an enraged enemy was fully appeased to the admiration of those who accompanied him when he met Jaddus the High Priest in his Priestly Garments and remembred that before he came out of Macedonia such a person in that habit appeared to him and encouraged him in his enterprize And when a Diploma was signed to create trouble to the Bohemian Church when Maximilian the second was Emperour 1565 (d) Comen Historiolae 109. Comenius acquaints us that he who carried it going over the Bridge of Danubius without the Gates of Vienna the Bridge at that instant broke and though this person was taken up dead by some Fishers the Diploma was never seen after and thereby that Church enjoyed rest and peace And for the preservation and security of his Church in the time of its greatest oppositions he raised up a Constantine and in the same age soon removed a Julian And we have had instances of Gods care towards the Reformation of our Church in defeating many oppositions contrived against it and our Religious Princes and in restoring it again to its former establishment after our late troubles and also in ordering the Reign of Queen Mary to be short and that she should have no issue and that after her there should be a succession of many excellent Princes 35. Ans 3. 3. Religion was never more opposed than when Christ was Crucified Religion can never be opposed with greater enmity and malicious designs than it was when our Saviour suffered Yet then he reviled not nor allowed S. Peters rashness but left us his example for our imitation The Church of God upon earth was never without the enmity of the evil one and those whom he could engage against it but at sometimes their opposition is more vehement than at others When our Lord was crucified the Devil entered into Judas to effect it the Jews aimed utterly to root out the Christian name The power of the Jewish Church and Sanhedrin was then engaged against it and gained both Herod and Pilate into a compliance with them And there were great oppositions against Religion even fiery trials 1 Pet. 4.12 When yet S. Peter requires Christians to follow the example of our Lords patience and meekness and to reverence Superiours But with us blessed be God our Laws establish the true Religion our Clergy defend it and press the practice of it and our Prince whom God preserve upholds the profession of it But the Primitive Christians who lived under Pagan Rulers who persecuted the Church behaved themselves with more honourable respect towards them than many now do towards those Christian Governours and Spiritual Guides who encourage and promote Christianity 36. 4. True zeal hath respect to all duty Ans 4. True zeal for Religion is of excellent use and very desirable but it consists in pious and holy living not in passionate and sinful speaking And it must be uniform in minding all the parts of duty which are incumbent on us But they who are careless and negligent in great and plain duties can have no true love and conscientious regard to Religion and therefore no zeal for it but it is something else which they miscall by that name True zeal will put men on diligent constant and devout attendance on Gods publick worship and the holy Sacraments upon solicitous thoughts and care for the Churches peace and Union upon all the exercises of piety to God and of righteousness charity meekness and due obedience to man And particularly both with respect to the happiness of another world and a comfortable estate in this it will oblige men to curb the rashness and sin of their words and expressions according to that advice of the Psalmist and the Apostle S. Peter 1 Pet. 3.10 11. He that will love life and see good dayes let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips that they speak no guile Let him eschew evil and do good let him seek peace and ensue it 37. Wherefore let every person uncharitable reproaches against all men to be avoided as he values his own happiness and as he would approve himself a true Disciple of Christ beware of this sinful behaviour of slandering or reproaching others And not the speaker only but he that heareth such things with delight is guilty of the same uncharitableness and in like manner serves his own sinful passions and gives encouragement to the practice and spreading of this vice S. (e) Bern. de modo bene vivendi Bernard therefore well adviseth all men to avoid a detractor as a Serpent who casteth forth his poyson because besides his own sin he who willingly gives ear to him becomes guilty also To the same purpose S. Austin S. Hierome and others who sometimes speak of the contumelious ear or that mens ears as well as their tongues may render them justly chargeable with the sin of reproaching He that in this case speaks rashly or uncharitably or that entertains such expressions with pleasure must ordinarily intend a prejudice to another and a blemish to his reputation and this very intention speaks some degree of malice or ill-will contained in this sin and sometimes a very high degree thereof But the main hurt and mischief fal's upon the offender himself being contained in his sin and consequent upon it He like the man whose Spirit is so far envenomed as to take poyson in his mouth to spit it at another is in a direct way to ruine himself whatsoever prejudice the other may sustain by him So S. (f) Hier. in Ps 119. Hierome declared detrahimus illi illi non nocemus sed nostras interficimus animas we speak unworthily of another but the main dammage doth not fall upon him but we destroy our own souls 38. and repented of Let all those therefore who have been guilty of this transgression heartily repent thereof that they may find mercy with God But it must be considered that repentance in matters of injury to men by word or deed doth not only require a desisting from the further practice of the sin with due sorrow for the former miscarriage but also a careful undertaking to make satisfaction for the injury done It is therefore here requisite that the offender do readily freely and ingenuously retract what hath been spoken amiss and vindicate him who hath been injuriously aspersed and also endeavour that his future kindness towards him may be equivalent to his past unkindness And the man who refuseth this is as far from integrity as he who wrongs his Neighbour in his Possession or Estate is from honesty if he only forbear the repeating new acts of theft fraud or violence but still detains without restitution what he injuriously possessed himself of which of right belongeth to another man 39. A candid
construction needful in private and publick cases And as a preservative against this sin it is needful that we regulate our passions and maintain a due government over them and set a watch over our lips humbly begging the aid of divine assistance And we must also take care that we allow a favourable construction and a candid interpretation to the words and actions of others especially of our Superiours And to this both ingenuity and Christian charity will direct and oblige us Wise men have justly condemned those persons who are guilty of calumny against a Law in wresting the words thereof to a sense never intended to the prejudice of Authority This is done in some degree when by subtil quirks the letter of a Law is in a forced interpretation observed but the true sense and meaning neglected This fault hath been taxed by the (g) Nimis callida malitiosa juris Interpretatione Cic. de Offic. l. 1. Arist Eth. l. 5. c. 10. gravest Authours as a calumny and the (h) Cod. l. 1. Tit. 14. kg. 5. Civil Law hath particularly provided against it and this includes a false suggestion against the prudence and good design of Authority But besides this there is an higher degree of calumny when a Law or the words or actions of Rulers is odiously represented to intend some ill thing which is contrary to the mind of the Law-giver and this is a reproach against the goodness care and integrity of the Governour And the practice of this which is too frequent gave occasion to Queen Elizabeths admonition to simple people deceived by malicious 40. And towards all men Yet it is prudent to have a cautious jealousie of ill men a favourable interpretation is usually suitable to charity Yet it must not be denied that there are so many men of dangerous and pernicious principles and practices that towards them cautiousness and suspicion in policy and prudence is necessary for preventing the mischiefs which may otherwise ensue The History of all Ages will give us instances of ill designs against publick peace and settlement carried on by fair words and plausible pretences and it is great wisdom to discover and lay open the ill designs of these men and not to be beguiled by them And with respect to the Church even in the Apostolical times there were some who with good words deceived the hearts of the simple Rom. 16.18 And afterwards many Hereticks would use Orthodox words in an heretical sense as the Pelagians would speak much of (i) Aug. de Grat. Chr. cont Pelag. Celest l. 1. c. 1 2. grace in a wrested meaning and in some Councils the subtil Arians gained advantage by the over-great unwariness and charity of other well-meaning Bishops But the considering these cases will not allow any unwarrantably to defame others but will direct them wisely honestly and cautelously to provide in their places for the securing themselves and the publick good and welfare of Church and State And these are things which principally concern Governours and Rulers whom God hath placed over others in the Church or Common-wealth but it is of universal obligation to all Christians that true kindness and general love and due respect to all men especially to Superiours should prevail in them 41. And let those Christians Charity towards revilers required who are opprobriously and injuriously aspersed together with pious stedfastness and resolution embrace the temper of Christian Charity And let nothing of ill will take place in their hearts towards those who revile or slander them but let them heartily pity their folly and their sin A person of common prudence if he discern a distracted man raving and complaining highly against those who deserve well from him will commiserate the mans sad condition who would never have done so if he had not been bereaved of his judgement and understanding And the want of a Christian temper of mind is as sad a thing and on that account deserves as much pity as the loss of the capacities of reason and knowledge Let us therefore pray for them who thus behave themselves towards us Thus as (k) Basil Hom. de Ira. S. Basil urgeth did Moses in this case make intercession for Miriam and David humbled his soul with fasting for those who slandered him and our Saviour prayed for his enemies He commands us to do the like for them who despitefully use us and our Church directs us to beseech God to forgive our enemies persecutors and slanderers and to turn their hearts Wherefore let none render evil for evil but overcome evil with good And the right management of this duty is a considerable action in our Christian warfare It was the consideration of S. (l) Aug. cont lit Petil. l. 3. c. 11 12. Austin when he was reproached by the tongue and writings of Petilian that we are assaulted by good report as a trial whether we can withstand the temptations to pride and by evil report to prove us whether we love our enemies and it is our work to overcome the Devil by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left And upon a due behaviour in our conflict we may expect a reward and crown 42. 'T is necessary for them who have reproached their Rulers to acknowledge their fault and repent To all this I shall now add what I desire may be well considered and therefore I chuse to close this first part therewith and that is That Christianity will engage them who truly practise it that if they have offended in uttering any thing reproachfully or disrespectfully against their Superiours they freely acknowledge their fault and by no means continue in it This may be sufficiently inferred from the general necessity of repentance from all sins and offences against any part of our duty and therefore if this be so heinous a sin as I have manifested it calls aloud for serious repentance But besides this I shall more particularly to this purpose observe that in this special case thus much is taught us by the behaviour of S. Paul in that place which I have before mentioned and shall now more largely explain and insist on Acts 23.2 3 4 5. Where when Ananias the High Priest The example of S. Paul with respect to Ananias proposed or a Chief Priest had commanded him v. 2. to be smitten on the mouth Then said Paul unto him v. 3. God shall smite thee thou Whited Wall for sittest thou to judge me after the Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law And v. 4. when they that stood by said Revilest thou Gods High Priest Then v. 5. said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the High Priest or a Chief Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people 43. These words are acknowledged to have some difficulty in them and have been very variously interpreted but according to that sense which I
these false witnesses had to consider seriously what guilt they contract upon themselves But the upright man is no false accuser but hath a conscientious respect both to truth and charity so that he transgresseth against neither Our Lord blamed the Jews in many things but charged them with nothing but what was certainly true He called them hypocrites but he fully knew their temper and understood what was in man Indeed the censure of hypocrisie is not fit for other men to make use of in ordinary cases except it be where persons certainly manifest a vicious looseness of life and yet will sometimes seem very earnest and forward about purity and Religion or where themselves shall more privately declare their disesteem of what they publickly appear exceeding zealous for And partly by this Rule (g) Eus Eccl. Hist l. 2 c. 1. Simon Magus was charged with hypocritical dissembling a respect to Christianity 7. Secondly The second Rule is sobriety and a well composed temper of mind A just censure of the practices or Principles of others must be soberly managed when oft-times the opprobrious tongue is rash and heady and puts men upon running out of their places and stations and out of themselves also Hence some are forward to be inquisitive into the lives and behaviour of others and to pry into them with a narrow and curious search to see what they can discover to speak ill of while in the mean time they do not duly reflect upon themselves and examine and consider their own wayes These act against that sobriety which Religion requires and fall under that sharp censure of our Lord against them who behold the mote in their brothers eye but not the beam in their own Mat 7.2 3 4 5. And there are some who censure others by sinister judging and odiously representing the intentions and designs of their words and actions beyond what is evident These without due reverence to God or charity to their Neighbour so far usurp the place of God as to pass sentence on the inward thoughts and dispositions of the minds of men but they proceed herein neither according to the rules of goodness nor of righteousness And they also offend against this Rule who in speaking or writing against others let loose their expressions to gratifie their passions and fierce heats beyond what is sober and comely I acknowledge that sharp reproofs are in some cases very seasonable and proper and some practices and Doctrines are so greatly evil that it well becomes them who are lovers of goodness An angry temper to be avoided to express a pious indignation and abhorrence towards them nor is it alwayes blameable to expose some wild extravagant fancies to the just contempt of others But in an undue manner to vent expressions of wrath or reproach or of scornfulness or scurrility and to treat others with an angry and waspish temper and instead of calmness to raise a storm of rage and fury these things are evil in themselves being contrary to the meekness and gentleness of Christianity and savouring of the fruits of the flesh and the root of bitterness and they are also very unsuitable to all sorts of men Such a temper is in several respects the worse in them who defend evil error and falshood because they have no just reason to express their displeasure against the things they reject or against the persons with respect to the ill influence of their assertions and what aspersions they cast upon the defenders of the truth have some reflexion on the truth it self and this their behaviour speaks their greater averseness from it and oft makes them more stedfastly perverse in their error And this method is also very unbecoming the defenders of such excellent things as truth and goodness because they neither need nor approve such unworthy Artifices in the managing their cause and the use of such things brings a disparagement and disadvantage to the best cause and it is most suitable to truth and goodness to appear like themselves every way blameless and unexceptionable 8. They also act against sobriety and irreverence to Superiors and a due government of themselves who take upon them frowardly and irreverently to censure their Superiors and to defame them and thereby to lessen and vilifie their reputation and Authority Such persons act against the duty of their places as inferiours in which state they ought out of reverence to God and his Ordinance and out of respect to men also to honour them who are over them Yea though there may be some real fault they may not make it their business to expose them This was the miscarriage of Ham in his behaviour towards his Father Noah And it is noted both by (h) Ambr. de Noe Arca c. 30. S. Ambrose and by (i) Chrys Hom. in Gen. 9. S. Chrysostome that Ham in doing this undutiful action is particularly expressed to be the Father of Canaan not only as S. Ambrose speaks ut vitio authoris deformaretur haereditas that this might be a blemish and disparagement to his posterity who descended from him but because on this occasion of Ham's irreverent disrespect to his Father Canaan his Son and his Posterity were under a curse and doomed to a state of subjection Gen. 9.25 And therefore if any men should neither have any fear of God nor regard to themselves if they have any respect to the good of their posterity they are thereupon concerned to honour those who are in superior relations to them 9. The ancient Councils (k) Conc. Constant c. 6. of the Christian Church very justly expressed great displeasure against those who out of an ill temper would even undeservedly lay things to the charge of the Bishops and Clergy that they might lessen their reputation and esteem and hinder the Churches peace and settlement and promote disturbances therein And such disorderly practices though they have too much prevailed in the World do greatly offend against very many precepts of Religion both towards God towards our selves and towards others But while the Christian Church for peace and order sake and for the sake of piety too required a just honour to be preserved to its Officers it still maintained such a care of true goodness that where any of the Clergy were really faulty it not only (l) ibid. allowed regular accusations to be orderly prosecuted against any of its Officers but also appointed (m) Can. Ap. 74. Antioch 14 15. its Censures to be inflicted upon them after sufficient evidence of their offences 10. Now our blessed Lord Thus our Saviour practised in his sharp censures of wicked men acted nothing but what was every way suitable for him to do When he came into the world Religion was strangely defaced amongst the Jews and they who should have taken the care of it set up very many false doctrines and ill rules of practice But our Saviour was sent as a great Prophet and Teacher
and their reward from him if they be faithfully and piously managed as the Prophet Esay declared even with respect to our blessed Saviour himself Isai 49.4 5. though Israel was not gathered 21. That vicious actions and a wicked life from vicious actions and practices bring shame and disgrace to the practisers or in Solomon's phrase that sin is a reproach to any people Prov. 14.34 is very obvious to common Principles of Reason and Conscience since the generality of mankind are sensible that (f) Arist de Virtut vitiis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good and vertuous things are to be commended but filthy and vicious things to be dispraised And though goodness is too oft in practice reproached and disparaged in the world there is a vast difference between the censure an upright and truly pious man undergoes in well doing and the ill report and infamy which is consequent upon evil doing For the truly good man knows that what censure he lies under for his piety and integrity is sometimes from mens speaking against their own consciences or at best from their mistakes and misapprehensions and his conscience speaks peace to him and he knows that God both approves his sincerity and howsoever he is misunderstood by men will reward him But if the evil man be spoken against his conscience doth or may testifie that this is no more than he justly deserves and that he must expect without timely repentance more hurt from his sin than from the infamy that followeth it and that if his evil wayes make him justly disapproved and condemned of men it will make him more odious in the sight of God and the Holy Angels and will expose him to a more severe sentence and condemnation from the righteous Judge of the World 22. And that the patrons of error and from corrupt Principles and Doctrines whose evil Principles tend to corrupt Religion and debauch the world should be declared against and the danger and detestableness of their undertakings be manifested is a thing as useful and needful as it would be to detect and discover him who is contriving felony murder or any publick mischief On this account did our Saviour censure and condemn the Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees and spake to the disparagement of their reputation and commanded Matt. 7.15 to beware of false Prophets who come in sheeps cloathing but inwardly are ravening Wolves And the true Apostles made a plain discovery of the false Apostles and corrupt workers though this laid them open to reproach And S. Paul withstood even S. Peter and spake against him openly in that wherein he was to be blamed Gal. 2.14 when his own behaviour and what he encouraged others unto was of ill consequence and contrary to the true spirit of the Gospel though himself was so excellent a man that he was far from advisedly managing any ill design Indeed all dangerous errors are not of equal degree of guilt but some are more heinous than others but the meekness of Christianity obligeth no pious man to a compliance with any of them though the worst are more earnestly to be rejected 23. S. John who so vehemently and abundantly Primitive zeal in this case noted pressed the duty of Christian love in his Epistle and so fully declared the same to be the necessary Doctrine of Christ in his Gospel and who in his extreme age when he was not able to make any long discourses is (g) Hieron Comment in Gal. l. 3. related to have come into the Christian Assemblies and oft to have spoken these words Little children love one another yet as (h) adv Haeres l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus tells us he declared himself with that earnestness against Cerinthus a Master of Heresie that when he came to the Bath where S. John was he leap'd out of it and declared his fear of the place falling upon them when that enemy of the truth was there And from the like Spirit of Primitive zealous earnestness (i) Iren. ibid. when Marcion meeting with Polycarp an Apostolical man a Disciple of S. John and one who was ab Apostolis constitutus Episcopus Ordained a Bishop by the Apostles and Marcion desired him to take knowledge of him Polycarp answers him cognosco te primogenitum Satanae I know and own thee to be the first-born of Satan And all the first and purest Churches expressed vehement dislike against all Hereticks and dividers of the Church And (k) Cyp. Ep. 76. S. Cyprian when he spake of Novatianus with respect to the Novatian Schism saith that inter adversarios antichristos computetur he was to be reckoned among the adversaries to Christianity and the Antichrists And this is sufficient to shew which may be more largely and amply proved beyond all contradiction that earnest oppositions against them who forsake the Catholick truth or who divide the Church was not as some very falsly pretend first brought into the Christian Church by the unadvised and indiscreet rashness of some Canons and Councils after the first Centuries who are said herein to have swerved from the true Spirit of Catholick Charity 24. And it is a thing too plain to be denied Hartful errors are too much prevailing that in this age divers persons and parties entertain those errors and corruptions in matters of Religion which deserve to be sharply censured and spoken against 'T is generally known that the several parties and different professions do condemn one another and it may well become them to consider whether they have sufficient ground for the Censures they pass on others and whether they proceed therein in a due Christian temper of Spirit and also whether there be not any just foundation for the blame themselves meet with from others Wherefore I shall make some impartial enquiry into some of the several parties of men who divide the profession of Christian Religion And since they who strictly adhere to the Church of Rome lie under an infamous character from others I shall first enquire An account of the things discoursed of in the following Chapters whether they may not be justly accused of such things as deserve great condemnation and censure And since the dissenting parties are spoken ill of by others I shall 2. Enquire whether they be not guilty of that which is sufficient cause of blame And if any of these several parties be no further spoken against than they deserve blame and this be also ordered according to the Christian Rules I delivered above this is not a sinful reproaching but a judging righteously and according to truth 25. And I here seriously profess that there is no duty I esteem my self more obliged to practise than to have an universal kindness to all men And therefore I shall be so far from willingly charging any sort of men with what they are not guilty of that while I write some account of things blameable among several parties of men it is with a
given also (b) B. 2. ch 1. Sec. 1. n. 4 c. sufficient evidence and the same hath been done at large by others The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter who concerning the Kingdoms of the World and the glory of them said Luk. 4.5 6. All this is delivered unto me and to whomsoever I will I give it and it hath also a parallel title which bears it self up upon confident usurpation vain boasting and false pretences Yet they who are thorough Papists must acknowledge this 4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal but besides the Censure they generally undergo from their own party they are put to hard shifts when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions with the publickly received Constitutions of that Church For instance sake I shall take notice of the Council of (c) Concil Lateran c. de haeset Laterane concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea as for any other thing which declares that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholicks if he neglect to purge his Country of Hereticks Here it is first pretended Of the Câ—uncil at the Lateran that this was not declared by that General Council but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up and that there were no Constitutions or Canons made in that Council And yet in the Decretalia of Gregory the Ninth who was Pope about twelve years after that Council this very Constitution is inserted into the (d) Decret l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommunicamus Canon Law as being established by Innocentius in a General Council And from the Authority of that Council Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church And what goes under the name of this Council is acknowledged to have the Authority of a General Council both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent as hath been observed by the (e) Of Popery p. 48-51 Bishop of Lincoln 5. But it is further said by them that the Canon of Lateran concerneth (f) Shel l dons Reasons for Allegiance p. 41. not Sovereign Princes but only some feudatory Lords in Italy and some parts of the Empire And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted by the last clause of that Constitution eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them they note that there is an (g) Constit Fredericâ— n. 7 Imperial Law established by Frederick the Second much to the same purpose with this Canon to make void the rights of such Lords as purge not their Lands from Hereticks and that therein this clause is annexed that this same Law shall be observed against them who have-no Chief Lords But say they it cannot be supposed that the Emperour would enact a Law which might make void his own Imperial Dignity and forfeit his Empire Now in this Constitution of Frederick there is no express mention of any right of disposing Dominions devolving it self upon the Bishop of Rome but it may be considered how much this Emperours interest and that of the Church and See of Rome were at this time linked together For his possession of the Empire much depended on the Popes authority for (h) Mar. Polon in Oth. p. 394 395. Ursperg p. 326 327. Ave. tâ—â— Ann. Boio 〈◊〉 p. 519. Innocent the Third having excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperour some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick to advance him to the Empire and the Pope closeth with this design and encourageth both him and them And therefore this clause concerning the advancing the interest of the Church and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion of what force or validity soever it be both tended to assert Fredericks own right and jointly to gratifie the Romish See And this Law was confirmed by him in compliance with the Pope (i) Constit Fred. in Praef. on that very day in which he received his Imperial Diadem from Honorius the Third who succeeded Innocentius And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius and ratified (k) ibid. in fin by him with a severe Curse against them who should act any thing against it and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth and seems to be framed by the Popes order from this clause in the Preface Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat voluntate 6. And yet if this were true that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing only Emperours and Kings must be submissive to the Pope of such Principalities which belong to inferiour and dependent Lords this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Princes to be derived from them and to depend upon them And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies contains such things concerning Emperours and Kings as when occasion serves may be made use of to infer subjection and dependance Thus we are told (l) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Emperour must implore the favour of the Apostolical See and offer himself ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Romanae Ecclesiae praestanda to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome and must humbly desire Unction Consecration and the Imperial Diadem And the Pope after examination of the Election and considering the fitness of the Person doth grant him his grace and favour and doth eum nominare denunciare assumere declarare Regem Romanorum Nominate authoritatively pronounce receive and declare him to be King of the Romans and to be fit and sufficient to receive the Imperial Dignity And in this manner it is there said that divers Emperours have addressed themselves to the Pope some of which are there particularly named And if any King shall come to Rome (m) l. 1. Sect. â—3 c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there he is to carry the Popes train and to pour out water for his hands and to carry up the first Dish to his Table and serve the first Cup in other Collations which things with others mentioned in the same Book carry in them fair appearances of doing homage And some of the Romish Bishops which have somewhat more than others complemented Secular Authority in some of their notions have yet in their practice acted as much against them as any others So did Innocent the Third who acknowledged (n) Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervenegabilâ—m Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit that a King is to own no Superiour in temporals and therefore speaking of his own Authority besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church
caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God And then adds utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought I have yielded obedience to the Emperour and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God And in this Epistle also and in others frequently he owns Mauritius to be his Lord and himself to be his Servant And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Emperours was from humility and gracious condescension only can have no place here For he went as far as any Subject in his capacity might do in what he was perswaded was unlawful and further than he might do who was no Subject In humility he might dispense with his own right but not with what concerns God and Religion 15. These things do so plainly shew that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperour to be their Superiour even in constituting Laws and doing other acts which had respect to the state of Religion that I think it unnecessary to add other instances which might be given for many Centuries The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power But Conradus (f) Ursp p. 336. Vrspergensis differing herein from Otho whom he mentions seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceedings upon Gregory the Third who above seven hundred years after Christ in the contest concerning Images where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images should have highly honoured the Emperour who bare the impress of Divine authority did (g) ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperour and deprived him of his rights there But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him were not of the like spirit and temper Above an hundred years after him Leo the Fourth (h) Gratian. Dist 10. de capitulis and to Leo the Fourth assures Lotharius the Emperour that he would as much as he was able irrefragably keep and observe his imperial precepts and that they were lyars who should suggest the contrary concerning him and (i) c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incompetenter he likewise submits his actions to be examined by the Emperour or such as he should commissionate and to be corrected or amended if he had done amiss and not kept to the right rule of the Law 16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power so much contended for at Rome is not only the disturbing peace Such Principles of Rebellion lead men to damnation fomenting Wars and unjust invading the right of Princes but besides the ambition therein contained by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Soveraigns it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation Rom. 13.2 And such rebellious practices are the more promoted by those frantick principles of many of the Church of Rome which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects which give liberty to Subjects without respect to the Popes Sentence to take away the lives of Princes It is too clear to be denied that such Positions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits and it must be granted also that there is truth in what some of the Jesuits have observed that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome before the first institution of that Order 17. The Pope's usurped claim over other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil unduly occasioned in the Church by the claim the Roman See pretends to over all other Bishops and Churches To this authority she hath no just title but the exercise of this power did obtain and prevail in many Churches by various methods and degrees of encroachment And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated Hence this Church obtrudes on others her pernicious Doctrines and practices under a pretence of authority And by the same means it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules 18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches could never be founded in any actual possession or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution of what nature soever For an incroaching authority is void by the ancient Canons especially that of Ephesus and being an unjust possession ought to return to him who hath the true right And where there hath been any consent given to an unjust claim by misunderstanding or upon any other account or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes falsty pretended to be of Divine Authority or by Bishops in any part of the Church to yield or convey any Superiour Authority to the Roman Bishop they cannot by any act of their own exclude themselves and their Successors from the obligation to perform their duty in duly guiding governing and reforming their people And therefore so far as the authority which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ doth oblige them to the performance of this work no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome nor any act done by any others or even by themselves can set them free from it But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope as not derived from any human Constitution but from the authority of Christ To which purpose the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares That the Catholick Church (k) Catech. ad Paroch c. de Ordinis Sacramento Summum in eo dignitatis gradum jurisdictionis amplitudinem non quidem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus sed divinitus datam agnoscit quamobrem omnium fidelium episcoporum caeterorumque antistitum quocunque illi munere potestate praediti sint pater ac moderator universali Ecclesiae ut Petri Successor Christique Domini verus legitimus vicarius praesidet doth acknowledge in him the Pope the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction not given him by any Synodical or other human Constitutions but by Divine Authority wherefore he the Father and Governour of all the Faithful and of the Bishops and the rest who are in chief Authority whatsoever Office or Power they are indued with doth preside over the the Vniversal Church as the Successor of Peter and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord. 19. But notwithstanding this great noise it was unknown to the ancient Church no such Divine institution hath been or can be produced and pasce oves and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned and no such thing can be
found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
of the best members of the Church who are so far from them as all of the Romish Communion are obliged to be and are thereby guilty of heinous sin and of that which is greatly scandalous to Christianity SECT II. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery 1. I Shall now come to consider that there are such doctrines asserted by the Church of Rome and such practices established therein as are plain obstacles and hindrances to a holy life Holiness and purity are suitable to the nature of God and agreeable to the end of Christ's coming into the World to redeem us from all iniquity and to purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Obstacles in the Roman Church to an holy life Tit. 2.14 This is a compliance with his Gospel which is a doctrine according to Godliness and his Church which he founded is an holy Catholick Church And therefore nothing can be of God and Christ which is not agreeable to true goodness and piety but that must be contrary to God and Christianity which is opposite to holiness and a godly life But that the Church of Rome doth declare such Doctrines as undermine piety and holiness and establishes such constitutions and practices as are highly prejudicial thereunto I shall manifest by some particular instances And here I shall consider 2. 1. In their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution First Their Doctrine of Absolution This is such that it sooths men in their sins and thereby takes away the weighty Motive and Argument to holiness of life which is from the necessity thereof to avoid the wrath of God and endless perdition and to obtain the favour of God and everlasting salvation For this Church and the Writers thereof do generally teach that attrition though without contrition is a sufficient disposition or qualification for the receiving Priestly absolution and that persons so qualified and thereupon absolved are in a safe state as to the avoiding eternal damnation and the future enterance into everlasting happiness Now contrition includes a grief for and hatred of sin as it is an offence of God with a purpose and resolution not to go on in the practice of evil and this is conjoined with a chief love to God But attrition is a grief for sin in such a manner that it is not produced from nor containeth in it the chief love of God and goodness And when divers wayes are either asserted or disputed of by many Casuists concerning the difference between Attrition and Contrition Mart. Becanus speaks with much plainness and I think with truth when he tells us (a) Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 35. Qu. 1. that contrition includes aversion from sin and conversion to God which is in loving him above all and that this principle of the love of God which includes consequently hatred of sin and turning from it is that thing in which contrition essentially differs from attrition and that all other differences or wayes of distinguishing them are either to be rejected as false or may be spared as being of little or no use 3. Now some Writers of the Romish Communion especially in former Ages have been of opinion that contrition is necessary to justification But this assertion is declared by (b) Tom. 4. Disp 3. Qu. 8. Punct 3. Gr. de Valentia to be sententia his presertim temporibus vix tolerabilis such an one as especially in these times is scarce fit to be tolerated And he calls the other the common opinion This (c) Bell. de poenit l. 2. c. 18. Bellarmine takes for granted and Becanus declares (d) ubi sup Qu. 6. omnes fatentur contritionem non esse necessariam in Sacramento Poenitentiae that all acknowledge that Contrition is not necessary in the Sacrament of Penance And these Writers and many others affirm the Council of Trent to have declared thus much And that Council plainly enough determines that Contrition (e) Sess 13 de poenitentia cap. 4. is a grief of mind for sin already committed with a purpose to do so no more and that this which encludes a hatred of the past evil life and the beginning of a new life when it hath Charity joined with it doth reconcile man to God before the actual receiving the Sacrament of Penance if there be a desire to partake thereof But then it adds concerning another sort of sorrow from the foulness of the sin or the fear of punishment ex peccati turpitudine vel ex supplicii metu and of this that Council determines that it cannot bring a sinner to justification without the Sacrament of Penance but it doth dispose him to obtain the favour of God in the Sacrament of Penance A bad life encouraged hereby Now the result of all this according to the plainest sense their own Authours give is that if a wicked man ready to go out of the world shall be troubled when he apprehends the foulness of his sins lest he should go to Hell which is attrition and shall then send to the Priest and receive Absolution this man though his bea rt be not turned from sin to God and to a love of him and of goodness will according to this loose Doctrine go out of the world in the favour of God and in a justified state And thus much is pretended to be effected by vertue of the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution 4. Now it is to be acknowledged that the true Ministerial Absolution is very profitable being in an eminent manner contained in dispensing the holy Sacraments and is of much greater weight than many men account it to be to them that believe and truly repent or to them who sincerely perform the conditions of the Gospel Covenant but no pretence of Absolution must be admitted to make void these conditions And it may be granted that in the Roman Church in some Societies there are rules of severity directed to them who are disposed to seriousness but this their Doctrine of Absolution takes off all necessity of observing any such rules or any vows whereby they obliged themselves to any duties or exercises of perfection so far as concerns the fear of God as to the interest of an eternal state And this Doctrine opens a gap to all licentiousness of life contrary to the rules of Christianity and all good conscience by the security it pretends to give of eternal happiness to wicked and debauched men who amend not their lives nor forsake their sins If this be truth then are all the promises and threatnings of the Gospel made void as they are Motives to the necessary duties of holiness and piety 5. Holiness of Christianity undermined hereby By such arts as this all the great precepts of Religion are made of none effect in order to salvation For if against
this impure Doctrine all those Texts of Scripture be urged which require the wicked man to repent and turn from all his iniquities that he may live and other such like we are told by (f) Gr. de Valent. ubi sup Gr. de Valentia that this is the general rule extra sacramentum neminem posse justificari sine contritione that excepting the use of the Sacrament none can be justified without contrition But then he tells us casus quo Sacramentum poenitentiae usurpaetur plane ab illa lege universali exceptus est that case in which the Sacrament of Penance is used is clearly excepted from that universal Law And this exception he sayes is made in Christs instituting the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining sins As if the power of the keys and the ministerial Authority which rightly understood is great and excellent though it be grossly perverted and abused by the Romanists and sleighted and undervalued by others was an underhand contrivance to frustrate and defeat all the great precepts of God and the Laws of Christianity And these precepts are so far made void thereby that (g) Melch. Can. Relect. 4. de Poenit. Canus confidently affirms that he who with attrition receives the Sacrament of Penance is not only in a safe state but doth as much as the precepts of God require from him Whereas saith he Baptism and the Sacrament of Absolution confer grace to him that is attrite and these two Sacraments were directly instituted for the remission of all sins qui suscipit alterum ex his sive contritus sive attritus vere implet praeceptum de poenitentia quoniam Deus nihil amplius exigit in compensationem delicti commissi quam vel contritionem sine sacramento vel attritionem cum sacramento He who receives either of these either with Contrition or with Attrition doth really fulfil the precept of Repentance because God doth require nothing further in compensation for the fault committed than either Contrition without the Sacrament or Attrition with the Sacrament And thus the illustrious and substantial precepts of purity and newness of life are by these men made to dwindle into the shades of darkness 6 And as this Doctrine of Attrition is improved by them it tends to eat out all true devotion This renders pious devotion unnecessary since we are told by the Romish Casuists and Controversial Writers that this disposition is sufficient for performing the highest acts of Religion even the receiving the holy Eucharist Indeed they ordinarily grant that the precept of Contrition being an affirmative precept doth oblige at some special times though they are very sparing in fixing these times but many particularly mention the case of being in danger of death and some add the receiving or dispensing a Sacrament which ought to be handled reverently and some may assign some other special cases But others can tell us how that which is thus granted in words shall contain nothing of reality under it For if the Question be proposed whether when the precept of Contrition doth bind Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance be not still in that case sufficient h Becanus declares (k) M. Bec. ubi sup Qu. 7. that though some be of the other opinion they are most in the right who affirm this because the precept of Contrition is obligatory only on them who have mortal sin and therefore if a man may be freed from mortal sin by Attrition non amplius obligatur praecepto contritionis he is no further bound by the precept of Contrition Such strange methods are made use of to evacuate the Divine precepts And they tell us that Attrition with Absolution makes up Contrition 7. Hereby sinners are deluded by false hopes By these artifices repentance is misrepresented as if it could be sufficiently performed without amendment of life and the way to Heaven is so described as to be so far from requiring a patient continuance in well doing that there is no necessity of well doing at all This is to encourage men in such a wicked and evil life against which Christ the righteous judge will pronounce an heavy Sentence And thus they deal with the souls of men as a flattering Mountebank may do with the Body if he should pretend that he can cure the most dangerous diseases without carrying off the matter and cause of the distemper and without his Patient 's taking so much care as to observe the rules of temperance and sobriety but that man who is wise will not give heed to such deceitful boastings nor venture his life upon confidence of the truth of them when there are other rules and directions to be observed for his cure from whence he may rationally and upon sure grounds expect a good effect These Pontifician devices carry in them a perfect estrangement from the true Christian rules and since Christianity consists in life and practice more than in words and profession that man who practiseth on this Doctrine may be a Papist and do all that the Church of Rome requireth but he cannot be a true Christian to do all that the Gospel of our Saviour makes necessary to salvation 8. I confess a bad man according to the Romish Doctrine will fail of salvation if he miss the opportunity or neglect the care of Absolution But wicked men who hazard their fouls and eternal happiness that they may gratifie their lusts where they have no encouragements of hope proposed to them will much more do so where they have such great encouragements And according to this Doctrine this hazard doth not seem exceeding great when they may frequently confess and be absolved and especially after they have committed any mortal sin and thereby set all things again even and strait between God and themselves so far as concerns their being in a justified state And what may be pretended to remain as an obligation upon them to bear temporal pains and satisfactions this also may be (i) v. Sect. 9. n. 14 c. otherwise provided for 9. And we may further consider how little goes to the making up of Contrition according to the Romish Casuists Of Contrition or such a repentance as availeth to justification without the Sacrament of Penance Of this I shall give an account from Father (k) Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tract 6. c. 4. n. 1. Layman He declares that the substance of Contrition consists in detesting sin above all evil but (l) ib. n. 2. any continuance of time is not necessary to that contrition by which a sinner is justified but one simple act of grief is sufficient and it is most probable that without calling his sins to remembrance he may be perfectly converted and justified by contrition temporis momento in a moment of time And he farther saith (m) ib. n. 3. that any express purpose of keeping Gods Commands or abstaining from sin is not necessary further than it is vertually included in
Eucharistia consecrabatur ut comprehendit simul Missam Catechumenorum haec est communissima acceptio And hence such portions of Scripture as are parts of the publick service are included in that rule and Constitution which relates to the whole And the (i) de Verbo Del c. 15. Cardinal declares that what is done by the Protestants is a real and practical asserting their heretical opinion against the Church whilst they ordinarily translate the Scriptures into the German French and English tongues and publickly read and sing them in the same tongues In England before the Reformation I know of no allowed translation into English made by any whom they own to be of their Communion That of Wiclef though out of the Vulgar Latin must not be owned as such Since the Reformation the Romanists have translated the Testament into English but though these Books may be procured by some few persons they are not easily had by very many And it is probable that in some Popish Countries they may have no translation of the Scriptures into their Vulgar tongue to this time which carryeth any publick approbation or allowance with it 24. A third impediment of piety in the Romish Church 3. Of their publick Service and Prayers in a tongue not understood by the people which I shall instance in is their having the publick Prayers and the administration of the Offices of the Church in a language not understood by the people which is a great hindrance to their devotion That this practice is generally used and is established and appointed in the Church of Rome is sufficiently known and is manifest from the foregoing Section But that the Primitive Church did generally own the fitness and usefulness of having the publick service and Prayers of the Church in a language understood by the common people is evident enough from what was then practised and established Publick Offices in the Primitive Church were performed in a tongue commonly understood In a great part of the Eastern Church where the Greek language was then the common speech of the Country as is well known and doth appear from the popular Homilies of the Greek Fathers which they spake in that language they had their publick prayers and service of the Church in the Greek tongue and not in the Latin and some of the ancient Liturgies then used in that tongue are still extant And in that part of the Western Church in which the Latin was then the Vulgar or commonly known language as in Italy and many other parts the publick prayers and service were performed in that tongue and not in the Greek or any other not commonly known in that Country And this is proved from those parts of the ancient Latin Offices which are still preserved 25. But in such other Countries where neither of these languages were commonly known there are sufficient instances of the use of other languages which were known In those Eastern parts where the Syriack language obtained they had their publick Offices in that language And a Collection of sixteen Syriack Offices are declared by (k) Gabr. Sionit de Ritib Maronit in init Gabriel Sionita to be in a Manuscript in his possession many of which were used together in the same Church and others probably in other Churches and in other Ages And after the first Centuries when the Arabick and the Coptick or Aegyptian language prevailed much in Egypt and the Patriarchate of Alexandria they had also the Coptick Liturgies as (l) In Epist ad Nihusium praef Rituali Cophticarum Athanasius Kircherus testifies And that part which might seem least needful to be in the Vulgar tongue which concerns the Ordination of their Ecclesiastical Officers who might be presumed to understand other tongues was translated by Kircher into Latin out of a very ancient Manuscript in which all the Ritual was in the Coptick tongue except the exhortations which were in the Arabick This translation was by Kircher sent to Nihusius 1647 and by him published five or six years after And several other Liturgical forms both in Syriack and other languages used in those Eastern Churches are mentioned by Ecchellensis in the account he gives of several Authours and Books written in those languages in the end of his Eutychius vindicatus And I doubt not but further proof may be given of this matter That the people might understand the Service care was taken by the Imperial Law by them who have the opportunity of seeing and consulting such Writers 26. To this general and practical testimony of the Church in former ages I shall add three particular testimonies but all of them of a publick nature all which acknowledged the usefulness of the people understanding the publick Offices of the Church and in the two former there was care taken thereof The first is out of the Imperial Law in (o) Justin Novel 137. c. 6. which it is enacted that the Bishops and Priests should express the Prayers at the holy Communion and at Baptism with a voice that might be heard by the faithful people for the raising the souls of the hearers into a greater devotion and affectionate giving glory to God And then that Law citeth the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.16 Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understands not what thou saist Which imperial Law takes care that the Prayers of the Church may be understood by the people for their profit providing that the words thereof should be audibly pronounced and supposing these Prayers to be expressed as they then were in a language commonly understood A second testimony is from the Roman Pontifical in which was continued down to the Council of Trent by the Roman Pontifical a direction at the Ordination of Lectors as is noted in (p) Hist Con c. Trid. l. 6. p. 470. the History of that Council ut studeant distincte articulate legere ut à populo intelligantur From whence it is easily collected that when that Pontifical was composed the service of the Roman Church was then in that language which was understood by the people and the sense of the Roman Church then was that it was requisite it should be understood and by its authority it took care that it might be so expressed as to be understood But when after some time the Latin tongue by degrees grew out of vulgar use especially under the various Mutations in the Empire there was then want of care to order the expressions of the publick service to be such as would suit the capacities of the people 27. The third testimony is from the Council of Trent which declares (q) Sess 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa contineat magnam populi eruditionem Patribus tamen visum non expedire ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur Quamobrem retento Ecclesiae Romanae ritu
ne oves Christi esuriant mandant Pastoribus ut inter Missarum celebrationem aliquid ex iis quae in Missa leguntur exponant What the Council of Trent acknowledge praesertim festis diebus Though the publick Service or Mass contains much instruction for the people it doth not seem fit to the Fathers that it should be usually celebrated in the Vulgar tongue Wherefore retaining the rites of the Church of Rome they command the Pastors that in the time of its celebration they expound somewhat of those things which are read in the Mass especially upon Festival days Now here is an acknowledgment that it is for the benefit of the people to understand the Service for their instruction and yet a course is taken that a main part thereof should not be understood that they may still keep up the Romish usage which hath for many ages thus practised Only they shall be suffered to understand so much of what is contained therein as may keep them from famishing 28. But these words seem to carry along with them some intimation of guilty consciences in this decision As if a Physician should declare that he knows such a Medicine to be mighty useful to recover his Patient to his health but however he doth not intend he shall have it but he may apply to him such a part of the ingredients as will keep him alive and yet possibly he may be mistaken herein Or this is something like as if a Judge when he had considered a Case of right concerning a temporal estate should declare that there is a very fair and ample Patrimony that belongs to Sempronius and he ought to have the profit thereof but nevertheless it seems fit to him that Sempronius should not enjoy this Estate that so no alterations may be made in present possessions However he adjudgeth them who keep him out of his Patrimony and debar him of his right at some times and especially upon festival days to give Sempronius some such relief as themselves shall think fit for the satisfying his hunger lest he should be famished for want of all supply of food Now if such a Physician 's practice be honest dealing and the determination of such a Judge be doing justice in secular interests then hath this Council done right to the members of the Church and determined this case according to the rules of Christian integrity For as it is the duty of the Pastors to feed the sheep of Christ so it is the right of the sheep or people to receive this food and therefore to deny them much of that which is acknowledged proper for them is to defraud them of that which justly belongs unto them 29. But that the publick Prayers of the Church Publick Service in a known language greatly useful should be in a language commonly understood by the people is both reasonable and sutable to the publick Service and greatly useful and profitable to promote piety and edification For the publick Worship of God rightly performed is a great part of practical Religion And devoutness therein is both an eminent exercise of piety and hath a great influence upon the minds of men to fix in them pious dispositions for the right ordering the whole course of life This devoutness is a vigorous lively and holy exercise of the mind and affections and the whole man towards God and in his service and whilst fit and proper words would tend much to excite the people hereunto this advantage is lost in the use of an unknown tongue which is to no more purpose to him that understands it not than if nothing at all was spoken And what is here said by the defenders of the Romish practice doth generally confute it self Sometimes it is said (r) Coster Enchir. c. 17. p. 496 497. Nonest necessum à vulgo intelligi c. that it is not needful the people should understand the Prayers and Hymns of the Church because they are not intended to instruct the people by understanding the words but suavi melodia majestateque actionis by the sweet melody and majesty of the action The plea that Prayers are not to instruct the people considered to dispose them to Religious reverence towards God But if words in the worship of God be not needful to be understood what need is there of any words at all when grave actions and melodious sounds are sufficient But if it be said that words being understood by the Priests and learned men are useful to quicken their devotion and to fix and unite their minds in joyning together in the same supplications and praises in publick Service it is easie to observe that this might have the same effect upon the devoutly disposed people if the Prayers and other parts of the Service were in a language which they understood And therefore it must either be granted that it is unnecessary that any should understand the particular expressions of the Service and then it is to no purpose to use any language at all or else that it is desirable that all should understand it 30. Sometimes we are told that it is requisite the publick Service should be in Latin (ſ) Coster Enchir. ubi sup because otherwise Priests who come out of other Countreys could not celebrate the Offices neque promiscue laudes Dei decantare nor jointly with others sing the praises of God But surely such Priests though they should not understand the language may as well join in the praises of God as the people at home can do in the language they understand not And this charitable consideration towards foreign Priests might be extended so far and the care concerning foreign Priests as to prove if it had any weight in it that the service of the Romish Church ought to be in Arabick that if any Priests should come from those Eastern parts where that language is understood and the Latin is not they might bear a part in the service But if this would be ridiculous when by this method the generality even of the Priests at home would not understand it let it be considered what tolerable account can be given why they should hinder the generality of the people from understanding it especially when the Apostle himself hath so plainly determined that when prayers or praises are in an unknown tongue The Apostolical precept observed the unlearned Auditor cannot so well join therein and his edification is thereby prejudiced 1 Cor. 14.16 17. And what the Apostle speaks in that Chapter doth plainly disallow the use of an unknown tongue in the publick worship of God though they who spake spake by the extraordinary gift of tongues which thing was apt to excite the Christian Auditory to a particular admiration of the Divine gifts and so might well be esteemed an extraordinary general help to devotion and adoration And the particular exceptions against this plain and full Apostolical testimony are so inconsiderable and have been so oft
refuted that I think them not worthy to be named 31. But (e) Ledesim de Scrip. qu. Ling. non legendis c. 13. Coster Ench. c. 17. several Writers of the Romish Church tell us that it is not necessary the people should understand the expressions of the publick prayers and praises and consequently not say Amen to them because these services are not directed to them but to God and they may partake of the benefit of these services though they do not understand them Bellarm de Verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. as an ignorant Country man may have received advantage from a Latin Speech spoken on his behalf to a Prince Of the pretence that prayers are directed to God and not to the people by whom it is well understood or as absent persons may be advantaged by the prayers which others put up for them though themselves do not hear them But that this is an insufficient defence may appear 1. Because though the Lessons are directed to the people yet these also are read in a tongue they understand not 2. Because the thing here to be considered is not whether one may not be benefitted by anothers prayers and Religious addresses to God which is supposed to be true when we pray for one another but we are here to take notice whether the people ought notto bear a part and to join in those great exercises of Religious piety of prayers thanksgiving and glorifying God in the right performance of his publick worship and service For the whole exercise of Divine worship is not only to seek for blessings from God but also to praise him and glorifie him which the people cannot particularly join in and go along with unless they understand what is expressed in the service And therefore if they ought to join therein by being debarred from understanding it they are hindred from these acts of piety which they ought to perform and God is deprived of a great part of that glory that is due to him and consequently Religion and piety are much prejudiced thereby 32. Now it may be reasonably presumed The people are concerned to-worship God that if the people have such beings and souls as are indued with capacities of worshipping and glorifying God they ought to be employed to this purpose but if they have none such which would be to suppose them not to be Christians or men and to be uncapable of doing acts of duty and Religion and of receiving rewards then will they not be concerned to attend Gods publick worship And these pleas used by these Writers are as plausible to excuse their absence from the publick Assemblies as their not understanding the publick Service But that the people are to join in the duties of Religious worship is not only supposed by S. Paul in that discourse upon this subject 1 Cor. 14. but may be proved from the Psalms and many other Scriptures calling upon all people to praise and laud and glorifie God and from S. John's Visions of the Gospel-Church where sometimes the 144000 sometimes so great a multitude as no man could number are represented joyning together in the worship of God 33. But a thing so manifest as this is stands in need of no further proof siince there are such frequent precepts for prayer thanksgiving and giving glory to God directed to all Christians And the Christian Church from the beginning acknowledged the people to be much concerned in the performing the publick worship of God (u) Just Apol 2. Justin Martyr declares how in the prayers before the Eucharist all the Christians together rose up and presented those prayers and in those at the Eucharist they joined their consent by answering Amen Tertullian declaring the Christian practice saith (w) Tert. Apol c. 39. we go together to the Assembly and Congregation ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes that we may earnestly call on God by prayers as with a joint strength and this force saith he is acceptable to God And before both these Ignatius urging and commending the publick service said (x) Ign. Ep. ad Eph. if the prayer of one or two hath so great a force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much greater is that of the Bishop and the whole Church And in the Primitive times sometimes an Amen and sometimes other responsals were directed to the people in the ancient Liturgies The result of all this is that whereas the peoples actual joining in the several parts of Gods worship is a great part of their duty and the pious and devout performance of it both tends to the honour of God and to their edification the present Church of Rome by establishing their service in a tongue not understood by the people both unjustly and impiously hinders the due worship of God and that piety of men which is conjoined with it and derived from it 34. I might give a fourth instance Immoral Doctrines hinted at of the hindrances to an holy life in the Church of Rome from those loose rules of practice delivered by divers of their Doctors and Casuists and the allowance their rules give to those gross enormities and heinous vices which the Philosophers and vertuous Pagans would abhor being opposite to the laws of nature and that honesty which prevailed amongst the better part of the Gentiles Of such things as these a large account hath been given in the Mystery of Jesuitism and several other Books as their giving allowance to perjury Murder and other such heinous sins upon sleight occasions as to preserve ones reputation and the like And what endeavours have been used by the doctrine of probability and other methods to uphold those positions which debauch Morality hath been manifested from the Books of Father Bauny Caramouel Estrix and divers others It is acknowledged that vigorous endeavours were used by some of their Bishops to suppress these wretched Principles of immorality but there was as earnest and vigorous diligence used to uphold the same by many Casuists and Divines especially in Flanders and France I do not therefore charge these Principles upon the Church of Rome in general but upon many Doctors therein Some of these abominable and immoral positions were condemned by Pope Alexander the Seventh and many were Sentenced by Pope Innocent the Eleventh and the Inquisition at Rome of the latter of which I shall take some particular notice 35. Amongst sixty five Propositions condemned in the Vatican (y) Decree of Innoc. 11. March 2. 1679. by the Pope and the Cardinals the general Inquisitors these were some (z) Prop. 5. That we dare not condemn him of mortal sin who should but once in his whole life put forth an act of the love of God (a) Prop. 10 11. We are not bound to love our Neighbour with an internal and formal act We may satisfie the precept of loving our Neighbour by only external acts (b) Prop. 15. It is lawful for a
these things But that which is here to be enquired and examined is Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought not according to the institution of Christ and by his authority to be administred in both kinds 15. That Christ did institute this Sacrament against Christs Institution in both kinds of Bread and Wine is so plain from the words of its Institution that this is acknowledged in the (d) Ubi sup c. 1. Council of Trent And that he gave a particular command to all Communicants to receive the Cup seems plainly owned in one of the Hymns of the Roman Church (e) Sacris c. in Brev. Ro. in festo Corp. Christ Dedit fragilibus corporis ferculum Dedit tristibus sanguinis poculum Dicens Accipite quod trado vasoulum Omnes ex eo bibite Sic Sacrificium istud instituit He gave the entertainment of his body to the Frail to the Sad he gave the Cup of his blood saying Take this Cup which I deliver drink ye all of it Thus did he institute that Sacrifice These expressions have a particular respect to that Command concerning the Cup Matt. 26 27. Drink ye all of it And it may be further observed that those words in the Institution Do this in remembrance of me are a Precept which hath special respect to the receiving both the kinds both the Bread and the Cup. For though I acknowledge these words Do this to establish the whole Institution that as (f) Cyp. Ep. 63. S. Cyprian expresseth their sense ut hoc faciamus quod fecit Dominus ab eo quod Christus docuit fecit non recedatur that we should do what our Lord did and should not depart from what Christ taught and did Yet these words have a more especial regard to the distribution or participation of the Sacrament For Do this c. in S. Luke and S. Paul comes in the place of take eat c. in S. Matt. and S. Mark and in these words of S. Paul Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me the words as oft as ye drink it do plainly import thus much that the Command do this in that place doth peculiarly respect the receiving the Cup. 16. This Institution of Christ was anciently even in the Church of Rome acknowledged to be so fair a Rule to all Christians that from hence (g) de Consecrat di 2. c. 7. Cum omne Pope Julius undertook to correct the various abuses which had in some places been entertained Insomuch that he declares against delivering the Bread dipt in the Cup upon this reason because it is contrary to what is testified in the Gospels concerning the Master of truth who when he commended to his Apostles his Body and his Blood Seorsum panis seorsum calicis commendatio memoratur his Recommendation of the Bread and of the Cup is related to be each of them separate and distinct And that the Apostolical Church did give the Cup to the Laity is plain from the Apostles words to the Corinthians where he useth this as an Argument to all particular Christians against communicating in any Idolatrous Worship 1 Cor. 10.21 ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of Devils And the same will appear manifest from other expressions hereafter mentioned And the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. c. 2. owns that from the beginning of Christianity the Sacrament was given in both kinds But they following much the steps of the Council of Constance account neither the Institution of Christ nor the practice of the ancient Church to be in this case any necessary guide but they declare the custom then received to be changed upon just reasons 17. But that the Argument from the Institution and Command of Christ might be eluded and a Mist cast before the Sun divers Romanists and particularly (i) de Euchar l. 4. c. 25. which binds all Communicants Bellarmine declare that Christs command drink ye all of it was given to the Apostles only and not to all Communicants To which I answer 1. That the Apostles at the time of the Institution of this Sacrament were not consecrating but communicating and therefore the Command given to them as receiving the Sacrament is a rule for Communicants Which binds all Communicants and can by no reason be restrained to the consecrating Priest And indeed the ancient Church made no such distinction in this case between Priest and People but acknowledged as (k) Chrys Hom. 18. in 2 Epist ad Corinth S. Chrysostome expresseth it that the same Body is appointed for all and the same Cup And agreeable hereunto are the Articles of the Church of England which declare (l) Art 30. that both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament by Christ's Ordinance and Commandment ought to be ministred to all Christian men alike 2. That this device would serve as effectually if it were considerable to take away the Bread with the Cup from the people that so no part of Christ's Institution should belong to them 3. The Command of Christ with the reason annexed Matt. 26.27 28. Drink ye all of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins doth give sufficient light to discern to whom this Precept is designed to wit to all them who desire to partake in the Communion of the blood of the New Testament for the Remission of sins and that is to all Communicants in that Sacrament 4. S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.25 26. plainly applys Christ's Command concerning the Cup to all who come to the Holy Communion in that after the rehearsal of that part of the Institution concerning the Cup he immediately says to the Corinthians For as oft as yet eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come And he re-inforceth this Command of partaking of the Cup indefinitely to all who are to Communicate v. 28. Let a Man not only the Priest examine himself and so let him eat of this Bread and drink of this Cup. 18. But here the Council of Trent acquaints us with a claim of the Churches authority and power in the Sacrament (m) Ubi sup c. 2. in dispensatione Sacramentorum salva illorum substantia statuere vel mutare to appoint and change things in dispensing the Sacraments still preserving their substance And they seem to intimate that the Communion in both kinds No power of the Church can take away the Cup from the People is not of the substance of the Sacrament because whole Christ and all necessary grace is contained under one kind But 1. If by being of the substance of the Sacrament we mean all that is enjoined by Christ's Precept and is necessary for the right administration of the Sacrament according to his Institution The use of both kinds is proved to be of this nature and therefore to change this
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
did own himself to be the most high God and as Irenaeus relates (y) Iren. adv Haeres l. 1. c. 20. that it was he who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews and descended as the Father in Samaria and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations and they who were his followers both in Samaria Rome and other Nations did worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the chief God as (z) Justin Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms and (a) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr Eusebius from him Now if it should be supposed that the Gnosticks should own the true God and that there is no other God besides him and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone but should be perswaded that he was incarnate in Simon Magus and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters And whereas Montanus and the propagators of his Heresie did declare him to be the Paraclete as is oft expressed in Tertullian and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers as (b) Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil and others or as (d) de Consec dist 4. c. Hi vero Gregory expresseth it that he was the Holy Ghost if any of his followers professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God and the three persons of the glorious Trinity should upon a presumptive delusion believe that the Holy Ghost was imbodied in Montanus and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship which is due to the Holy Ghost this could not excuse them from Idolatry 29. Assert 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous Assert 2. In Idolatry which is in its nature a great and grievous sin all the acts and kinds thereof in misplacing proper Divine Worship are not equally heinous and abominable There is a great difference from the temper of the persons whence acts proceding from sudden surprize from weakness of understanding or from great fear are not of so high a guilt as those which proceed from carelesness of duty neglect of instruction or contempt of God or wilful enmity against the true Religion There is also difference in the acts of worship which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them And there is a difference also with respect to the object to which Divine Worship is given whence the worshipping of Baal or the Gods of other Nations in opposition to the God of Israel was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves because it included a professed departing from the true God and the worshipping of Simon Magus was the more abominable as including a following him and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God though even this would exclude those persons who designedly espoused it or who perversely or negligently joined in it from the blessing of God 30. Assert 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object which is Idolatry is a very great sin Assert 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil To suppose that ignorance and mistake should be any sufficient plea or excuse is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God as if even under the Christian revelation he had not sufficiently directed men in so important a duty as to know the object of Divine adoration or whom we are to worship And how little any misunderstanding upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists is like in this case to be available for their excuse I shall manifest by proposing another case which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread This is my Body so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature to be born of God The Remish Adoration of the Host parallel'd to be renewed after the Image of God and that God dwelleth in them and that Christ is formed in them and is in them and that they are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones and with respect to them he said to Saul why persecutest thou me and he will say to others I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them Now if from such expressions as these any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads that they are Godded with God and Christed with Christ and consequently to those in Heaven as well as to those on Earth and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles I doubt not but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended that these worshippers own only one true God and give Divine Worship to the Saints only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints and to put on Christ and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth they therefore believe it because God hath said it if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed and they can confidently rely on his word And if we compare these two together the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints and conferred upon them But the nature of the pious Christian is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements that that must be confessed to be true which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson (e) Differ of Christ Subject Unchr Rebel Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ the Bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the Bread he doth not he will raise them at the last day the Bread he will not they shall reign with him for ever the Bread shall not But these and such like words we mention not as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements remaining in their created substances and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel and the spiritual presence of Christ which though it be tendred in the Sacramental elements yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum
corda lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorifie the grace of God who bestows upon them who truly repent and believe such unspeakable benefits in the use of those means or signs which are otherwise mean than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use by the Institution of God and the right celebration of his Ordinance SECT V. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy 1. IN this last Section Of the Politick interests driven on in the Roman Church I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy or a cunning method to serve the particular interests of some men in the world True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections but by commanding and subduing them But this being from God and having to do with him is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world and therefore proposeth nothing but what is true and good and suitable to God and his Honour And when things manifestly false or evil which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers are obtruded under the disguise of Religion and required as things sacred to be received with the greatest veneration this gives too much appearance that under the name of Religion politick designs and fraudulent ends and purposes of men are managed And where such things are done Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who discover and understand them to cast off the serious sense of Religion it self Now very many things in the Romish Church appear designed to impose on and delude the people and by false pretences to advance the honour of the Pope especially and of their Clergy also and to gratifie the avarice of the Romish Court and enervate piety 2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution Divers of their errors carry on some interests seems contrived to make loose men who have little regard to God to have a mighty veneration for their Priest who notwithstanding their wicked life both can and will if they be taught right secure them in the other world upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy among the Ignorant Vulgar as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue as is observed by (a) de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation propitiatory Sacrifice and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Clergy but the falseness of all these I have above discovered Their exempting their Clergy that as (b) M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith they are not subject to Secular Princes nor can be punished by them nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope and the Clergy but is contrary to the true rules of Christianity as I have in another Discourse shewed And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry which our Lord conferred upon it be by many too much neglected and disregarded we make not use of false methods for its support Besides these their feigned revelations and visions concerning matters of truth and Doctrine their many counterfeited Relicks as objects of veneration and their falsly pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine are manifestly designed delusions to impose upon others that they may be admired by them 3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on and shall only consider a few things which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity grandure and Soveraignty and to bring in vast revenues for its support needs not be suggested to any considering men And the Popes pretence to be S. Peter's Successor seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity in his first entrance thereupon For at the time of his Coronation among other Rites one of the last is that (c) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain in which he must be sure to have neither silver nor gold and scattering it among the people must use those words of S. Peter Silver and Gold have I none Some things in the form of the Papal Coronation observed but what I have that give I you Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing that the Pope by being advanced to his See should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peters poverty especially when in order to his expressing thus much there is care taken before-hand that he must cautiously avoid the having all silver or gold in his hand If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus when he used those words this would have been looked upon in him as a cheat and imposture which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation which goes immediately before this when the Pope is sat down or almost lies along upon a Marble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome which Seat is called Stercoraria and one of the Cardinals lifts him up (d) ibid. using those words in Psal 113.7 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum de stercore erigit pauperem ut sedeat cum principibus solium gloriae teneat Where what the Psalmist calleth a dunghill the Roman Church who would be accounted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth concerning a stately Marble Seat But waving such things as these I shall enquire into two other things of greater moment and concern the one of Infallibility the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences and applying to them a fit proportion of the Churches Treasury 4. Concerning Infallibility Infallibility calculated for design This is a strange claim in such a Church where there are so many palpable errors contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the ancient Church But this pretence mightily serves their interest for if this be once believed and received all their other errors must thereupon be received with
those who are in a true Christian state saith that Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2.2 And who who examines himself can pretend himself free from every disorder in any passion or affection from all failure in word or thought and that he can be charged with no neglect of any duty at any time either towards God or man in any relation whatsoever nor with any blameable defect in the manner of the performance thereof And the pretence to perfection and sinless practice is the more fond and unreasonable in this Sect because of the gross and heinous errors of judgment and consequently of practice which they are guilty of together with many words of falshood censoriousness or uncharitableness 14. Now the great hurt and danger of this opinion concerning perfection is First That it makes void such duties as confession repentance application to the benefits of Christs expiatory Sacrifice which things are not only injoined upon Christians by the frequent commands of the Gospel but are also proposed as the conditions for obtaining the pardoning mercy and favour of God and the exercise of repentance and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance contains very much of the practical part of the duties of the Christian Religion Secondly It greatly misrepresents the Covenant of Grace as if together with the rules of an holy life and the assistances enabling thereto it did not for the encouraging our best and sincere endeavours make allowances for the imperfections of the upright mans obedience and propose pardon to them who are truly penitent If the Gospel did not admit these gracious terms and conditions the state of the best sort of men would be miserable But S. John joins these two together 1 Joh. 2.1 the strictness of the Gospel rule that will not allow of any sin My little children these things write I unto you that ye sin not and the gracious conditions of pardon through the merits of Christ if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation c. 15. Wherefore we acknowledge the Christian life to have in its degree an Evangelical perfection whereby in the upright Service of God it is free from the dominion of sin and is diligent in the progress of grace and piety and obtains pardon for its offences But with respect to its practice as (t) Aug. ad Bonif. l. 3. c. 7. S. Austin observed ad ejus perfectionem pertinet ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio It is a branch of his perfection truly to know and humbly to acknowledge his imperfection For as he speaks in another place (u) Retrac l. 1. c. 19. Who can be compleatly perfect but he who observes all the Commandments amongst which this is one injoined upon all Christians that we must pray forgive us our trespasses quam orationem usque ad finem seculi tota dicit Ecclesia This is the prayer which the whole Church maketh to the end of this world SECT II. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion Sect. II 1. THough I shall wave divers Sects which appeared in our late times of Confusion as Seekers Ranters and various Enthusiasts I shall take some notice of the Fifth-Monarchy men who since his Majesties return to his Kingdom made an attempt to put in practice their evil and wretched Principles The notion of our Saviour's personal Reign a thousand years upon Earth hath deceived many persons in the Christian Church through their misunderstanding some expressions in the Apocalypse to which purpose also they applied many other Scriptures though the ancient opinions of many worthy persons in the Christian Church who were led away by this error did still retain the meek and peaceable temper of Christianity (a) In Esai l. 9. in fin l. 15. in init passim S. Hierome in many places speaks of this opinion as a Jewish error and perstringeth the embracers thereof as Judaizers And indeed this notion had some considerable affinity with the Jewish expectation concerning the Messias that he should appear as a Temporal Prince to Reign gloriously and powerfully upon Earth and those Christians who were led away with this mistake looked for the restoring and rebuilding the City of Jerusalem when this Kingdom should appear with other things too much savouring of Judaism 2. And that this earthly and worldly Reign of Christ was very agreeable to the dreams and fancies of the Jews may be yet somewhat further manifested by observing that even (b) Gem. in Sanhed c. 11. n. 11. the Jewish Talmud speaks of the time of a thousand years when God shall renew the World and he alone shall be exalted and Reign and the righteous shall enjoy outward and temporal delights in the world And some of the Rabbins do more particularly express their sense concerning this state insomuch that in the Commentaries of R. Abraham on Dan. 12.2 as his words are related by (c) in Exc. Gem. Sanh ib. Cocceius it is said that as he understands that Prophecy the just who died in exile out of the Land of Israel at the coming of the Messias should be raised again and have all manner of delightful Food Fishes Fowls and great Cattel and then should die a second time and be raised again at the Resurrection of the dead and then should be in the other world where they should neither eat nor drink but injoy the brightness of the glory of God But so far as these things relate to earthly and sensual pleasures they might well enough suit the temper and disposition of the Jews and were agreeable to those carnal delights which (d) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cerinthus talked of in the Kingdom of Christ on Earth for a thousand years but such things savour not of the true Spirit of Christianity but are plainly opposite thereto 3. But it must be acknowledged that there have been divers worthy persons in the ancient Church and some of late who have embraced the Millenary opinions but have still retained such Principles and Opinions as are suitable to the peaceableness and Spiritual purity of Christianity Such besides Papias were Justin Martyr Irenaeus Apollinarius Tertullian Lactantius and others of old and Mr. Mede in this last age These looked for the coming of our Saviour with his Martyrs and other Saints raised from the dead to Reign on Earth before the end of the World Their chief ground was from Rev. 20.4 But their interpretation of those words concerning the Souls of them that were beheaded c. living and reigning with Christ a thousand years besides much that may be otherwise said against it cannot agree with v. 7 8 9. Where after the thousand years are ended Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out to deceive the Nations and Gog and Magog shall compass the camp of the
Circumcised Gen. 17.12 which is a manifest evidence that they were interested in this Covenant made with Abraham And this precept of Circumcision concerning the Infant Males continued in force until the coming of our Saviour and thereby Infants born in the Jewish Church were owned and received to be members of that Church Now our Saviours coming was not to confine the Church to narrower limits but to extend and enlarge it 3. And it may not be amiss to observe that the Jews themselves did generally acknowledge that the priviledge of having such Children admitted into their Church in their infancy whose Parents were members thereof was not peculiar to that Nation alone but did also belong to those who from among the Gentiles became Proselytes to the Jewish Religion When they admitted the chief sort of Proselytes which were called the Proselytes of righteousness this was usually done (a) Seld. de Syned l. 3. c. 3. p. 34 37-40 Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.6 by Circumcision together with a kind of Baptism or washing them with respect to their uncleanness in their Gentilism and Sacrifice as Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot and others have observed who also have manifested from the Jewish writers that they did usually admit Children even Infants with their Parents And if the Mother was admitted into the number of this sort of Proselytes when she was with Child that Child afterwards born was supposed not to need any other washing but if it was a Male was received only by Circumcision And it also appears by the testimonies produced by the latter of these Writers (b) Hor. Heb. ibid. that they ordinarily admitted the Infants of Gentiles to be Proselytes if they were taken into the care and education of Israelites and this was agreeable to what God had established concerning him who was born in Abraham's House or bought with money of any stranger not of his Seed 4. And that the New Testament doth particularly admit Infants into the Church of God and giveth them a right to partake of the benefits of his Covenant as well as the Old Testament did might be justly presumed because there is not any thing said or done by our Saviour which doth exclude them nor is there any thing declared by God whereby he expresseth his altering the terms of his Covenant so as in this particular to confine it into a less and straiter compass under the Gospel But besides this there are plain expressions in the New Testament that Infants are received as Members of the Church of God and interested in the promises of his Covenant under the Christian Dispensation Our Saviour saith of them that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 10.14 and S. Peter perswades the Jews Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and the same thing may be inferred from other Texts of Scripture And these expressions especially considering what God had established and injoined in the time of the Old Testament do sufficiently declare this sense of the Gospel-Covenant that Children and Infants are included therein 5. And whereas the Judaizers did earnestly contend with the Apostles about the necessity of Circumcision and other Jewish Rites to be continued in the Church we read of no contest about the admission of their Children into the Church Had the Apostles and the Christian institution herein differed from the Rules received under the Old Testament in not admitting Children into the Church of God these men would no doubt as eagerly have contended with the Apostles about this thing as about the other since this was a branch of Gods ancient Covenant and such a branch as they could not but think to be of high concernment to themselves and their Posterity But the Christian Doctrine plainly acknowledgeth that Children were reputed holy if but one of their Parents were Christians or Believers 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore such Children which otherwise had been unclean were accounted to belong to the Church by vertue of that relation they had to such Believing Parents And when the Apostles are said to have Baptized persons and all theirs or all their Houshold upon the consideration now mentioned it is not to be doubted but Children and Infants were included in these expressions Act. 16.15 and v. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 and also in that other precept of Baptizing all Nations and making them Disciples Mat. 28.19 And this will receive further confirmation from the ordinary and usual practice of the ancient Christian Church in Baptizing Infants which I shall by and by mention 6. Indeed under the Gospel it was necessary that adult persons both Jews and Gentiles should first be taught the Christian Doctrine and own their belief thereof and undertake the practice of repentance and obedience before they could be Baptized into the Christian Church But this gives no support to them who oppose the Baptism of Infants since even under the Old Testament such persons who being adult were received as Proselytes to the Jewish Church were first to be acquainted with the Law of God d and then to profess their owning and believing in the God of Israel (c) Selden ubi sup before they were admitted into that Church by Circumcision and other solemn Rites And this reasonable and necessary observation with respect to those who attained to years of discretion was well consistent with their Circumcising Infants and the Divine Law injoined that when strangers were desirous to embrace the Jewish Religion and were admitted thereto all their Males and therefore even those which were Infants must be Circumcised Exod. 12.48 7. And those words of S. Paul from which the favourers of Anabaptism have endeavoured to prove that under the New Testament none and therefore no Infants are interested in the Gospel-Covenant and Membership of the Christian Church by being born of Christian Parents are greatly mistaken S. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israel which are of Israel v. 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called For 1. These words have no peculiar respect to the time and state of the New Testament but they give an account how the promise to the Seed of Abraham was to be understood from the very time in which it was made to Abraham And the Apostle here shews that this Promise and Covenant was particularly fixed upon Isaac and his Family v. 7. and then upon Jacob v. 13. and yet then Infants were constantly Circumcised 2. The true sense of these words is that the Promise and Covenant of God to and with Abraham and his Seed did not bind him to continue all the posterity of Ishmael or other Sons of Abraham nor yet the Posterity of Esau to be his peculiar Church and people though these were Circumcised and lineally descended from Abraham but had departed from the Religion Piety Faith and Obedience of their Father Abraham And from hence the Apostle proves that
the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists is neither agreeable to the words themselves and the scope of that place nor to such other expressions of the New Testament as I have above mentioned 8. Secondly This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church upon a double account For First The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism who run into other errors to avoid this But yet this is deducible from their Assertion and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion For since Christians are Baptized into the Body or Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 and are thereby entred as members thereof if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism or to be capable of being Baptized they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ and parts of his Body And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by Gods special institution and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing upon Earth And those great priviledges of the New Covenant of which eternal Salvation is the chief belong to that Church which is the Body of Christ and to the lively members thereof For Christ is the Saviour of this body Eph. 5.23 And this Body which is his Church is that which he will present to himself having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified Eph. 5.26 and of the laver of regeneration and of regeneration it self also they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.3 5. 9. But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them and the Christian Church hath from the beginning alwayes acknowledged to belong to them All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit and so particularly is Christian Baptism Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert Eccles B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5 another place And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism with respect to regeneration and remission of sins so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants is much worse and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced being untrue the consequence it self is also false and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants nor are damaged thereby whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof and in a continued succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do S. Austin (e) de peccar Mer. remis l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam the Authority of the Vniversal Church without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is called by S. Austin (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides a Doctrine of Faith most firmly and constantly believed in the Church And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59. ad Fidum S. Cyprian and an African Council with him is very manifest When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion that Infants ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day of their Birth or until the eighth day which was the time appointed for Circumcision though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism S. Cyprian largely declares that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion but every one of them judged Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man i. e. upon account of their age And he there shews that Infants from the time of their Birth are not to be prohibited Baptism And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism is apparent from this expression relating thereto (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdenda est as far as is in our power if it be possible no soul is to be lost The plain testimonies of Origen both upon Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes Theolog p. 429 c. Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who would have more large and ample proof hereof 11. But that learned man truly observes that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen who though they deny not Infant-Baptism yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants and incline to perswade the same Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism advise that if Infants be in no danger of death their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old or somewhat less or more that themselves may hear something of that Mystery and give answer But though he might proceed
upon a notion peculiar to himself it is manifest that he was no favourer of Anabaptism because in that very place he both declares the lawfulness of Baptizing Infants as they were Circumcised the eighth day and the profitableness of Baptism to them that die in their infancy and also presseth the practice thereof when the Infant is in any danger But besides all this it seems to me not improbable that these words of Nazianzen have respect to some special case and probably to that which was then very ordinary and usual in the Christian Church concerning such Infants whose Parents were yet unbaptized either continuing Catechumens according to the discipline of the Church or else after their embracing Christianity did long by their own choice and neglect defer their Baptism Of this latter sort he discourseth much in this Oration (l) p. 647. 650 658 660. and oft-times and even in this very place reprehends the fault of many adult persons who neglected Baptism and urgeth them to be Baptized and then proposeth this Question and gives this Answer concerning Infants 12. And there are three things which incline me to think that these words must have respect to some such special case as this I have mentioned besides that this is very suitable to the Scope and Coherence of his Discourse in this place it self 1. Because he doth in (m) p. 448. another place of this Oration perswade to the Baptizing Children even those who are Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and that they should be sanctified while they are Babes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this he recommends to be done before any evil be imbraced as being greatly useful for the future life of the Child 2. In the same Oration he declares his judgement that even Infants dying without Baptism (n) p. 453. should not be admitted to future glory though they would be free from future punishment And therefore it cannot be supposed that he would advise that to be ordinarily done which might run a needless hazard of the loss of future glory to Infants in that case where they were certainly qualified for the receiving Baptism and being benefitted by it as the Infants of Believing and Baptized Parents were But in such a case as that abovementioned where there might be doubtfulness concerning such Infants being in a capacity to receive Baptism he might account that advice he gave to be proper and useful 3. Because the Christian Church did generally admit those who were in the very entrance of their infancy unto Baptism and it cannot well be imagined that so peaceable a man as Gregory Nazianzen was would advise against the general practice of the Christian Church in ordinary cases while yet he professedly allowed the lawfulness and usefulness of that practice 13. Tertullian adviseth the deferring (o) Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. the Baptism of Infants till themselves be instructed But this place also may I suppose have a good account given of it by considering the state and discipline of the Primitive Church And therefore 1. Pamelius thinketh (p) In Tertul. de Bapt. n. 126. that this might probably be spoken concerning such Infants whose Parents were Infidels but I had rather understand this also concerning those whose Parents were professed Christians but not yet Baptized 2. Tertullian (q) c. 12 13. both in this very Book and elsewhere * de Anima c. 39 40. asserts that Baptism is necessary to salvation and the priviledges of Christianity and to that purpose he applys to Baptism as other ancient Writers generally did those words of Christ Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And therefore he plainly asserts Nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem And this shews that the advice of deferring Baptism in persons fitly disposed to receive it and further than the just rules of trial fixed in the ancient Church did require was unreasonable and dangerous And this may incline us to think that he intended not to plead for any other procrastinating Baptism so far as his words can be fairly reconciled to this sense And he seems plainly enough to speak his judgment that the Infants of (r) de Anima ubi sup Christian Parents were fitly qualified for Baptism 3. He adviseth also grown persons to defer their Baptism and particularly Virgins (ſ) de Bapt. c. 18. and Widows till they either Marry or were of tried and confirmed constancy But all this seems to require the careful observance of that which the Primitive rules of order established that all those who were born Gentiles and were by Baptism to be solemnly entred into the Christian profession must first give evidence by due and sufficient trial both to themselves and to the Church also that they were stedfastly resolved to be constant and serious practisers of the holy rules of the Christian life And till they had done this he perswades them not to put themselves over forwardly upon Baptism lest they should deceive themselves and the Church too by failing in their practice for as he saith here (t) ibid. omnis petitio decipere potest decipi 14. If any person will contend that Tertullian intended to perswade to a more general delay of Baptism than what this fair account of his words doth admit he must acknowledge also that he adviseth this forbearance as well in the case of the adult as of Infants But though the very long deferring of Baptism was practised by several persons it was generally disliked by all the wisest and best men in the Christian Church Hence the particular Fathers set themselves vigorously to reprove and disswade this practice which was undertaken by several persons upon different accounts insomuch that many chose to defer their Baptism until they had apprehensions of approaching death and then were Baptized in their Beds But the ancient Church gave that publick testimony of its dislike of this practice in that such Clinicks if they recovered were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office in the Ministry not only by the (u) Conc. Neoc c. 12. Council of Neocaesarea but by earlier rules of more ancient observation which were urged by (x) Eus Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cornelius against Novatus And if Tertullians words should be construed as I think they need not be to perswade what the Church so generally disallowed this would only speak him to err but would be far from giving any allowance to this practice And thus having now considered the custom of the ancient Church for the Baptizing Infants we have from thence in complyance with the Scripture a further confirmation thereof and a sufficient evidence that the Primitive Church were not nor durst be so uncharitable to Infants as to debar them of Baptism 15. Thirdly Anabaptism so far as it throughly prevails must utterly rend the peace and unity of the Church and renounce the
Communion thereof and therefore is deeply Schismatical and unpeaceable For they who assert those not to be owned right members of the Church who were Baptized in their infancy unless they be Baptized again do and must maintain that those Churches can be no true Churches of Christ whose members were Baptized only in their infancy and thereupon pass that heavy and unjust Censure upon the generality of all Christian Churches since the time of the first founding them that they are no true Churches Hence they are put upon rejecting the Communion of the true Catholick Christian Church and the setting up for new Churches in an high opposition to Charity and Unity and in an open and avowed practice of Universal Schism To this purpose Bullinger Calvin Zanchy Beza and other Protestant Writers have complained greatly of Anabaptists as laying a foundation of all disorder and confusion Indeed they described those Anabaptists they wrote of not only to hold this erroneous Opinion concerning Baptism it self but to be Enthusiasts and undervalue the Holy Scriptures to ingage in such Libertinism as to disallow the just authority of Magistrates and the setled Government of the Church to imbrace the Principles of Antinomianism with practices suitable thereto with other hurtful errors hence the Anabaptists were by (y) Explic. Catech. Par. 2. Qu. 74. Vrsin called a Sect quae sine dubio à Diabolo est excitata monstrum est execrabile ex variis haeresibus blasphemiis conflatum which saith he without doubt was raised by the Devil and is an execrable Monster made up of various Heresies and Blasphemies But this Principle of theirs concerning Baptism is such that thereby they cut themselves off from the Church or Body of Christ and its Communion and involve themselves in a very heavy sin and dangerous condition 16. And whatsoever may have any usefulness towards piety and goodness which any of these men may seem to aim at in a way of error and with a various mixture of other things hurtful and evil is provided for by us if good rules be carefully practised in a better manner and in a way of truth That every man ought to make Religion his own act and make a free and voluntary profession thereof and yield his hearty consent to ingage himself therein and in the practice thereof we assert to be very necessary in persons who are of age and capacity of understanding And though Infants cannot do this in their infant state yet their future obligation is then declared on their behalf and when they come to a sufficient age they are certainly bound to believe and to do what in their Baptism was promised and declared in their names And this is afterwards solemnly promised by themselves when in their younger years they are confirmed and they likewise in a sacred manner ingage themselves hereto when at a fuller age they receive the holy Communion and it would be of great advantage to the Church of God and the holy exercises of piety if these two offices were more generally seriously and devoutly attended upon Men also oblige themselves to the faith and duties of Religion by their whole profession of Christianity and all those acts whereby they own and declare themselves Christians and particularly in joining in all duties of Christian Worship Sect. IV. and professing the Creed or Christian Faith and the performance of what is thus undertaken runs through the whole practice of the Christian life The result of what I have said concerning Anabaptism is that the miscarriages therein contained are of a very great and weighty nature it being no small evil and sin to offend greatly against the truth and withal to confine and derogate from the grace of the Gospel-Covenant and the due extent of the Christian Church besides the comfort and incouragement of Christian Parents and to be so injurious to Infants as to deny them those means of grace which they have a right to partake of and which are useful to their Spiritual and eternal welfare in neglecting also what God establisheth and keeping off Infants from that solemn ingagement to God which he requireth and to undermine the very foundations of Peace and Unity in the Church SECT IV. Of Independents 1. IN discoursing of Independency and the Practices and Principles thereof I shall not search after all things that might be spoken to since in several things the Independents or Congregational Men differ from one another and alter their own Sentiments and it was the profession of those five chief Persons who espoused this Cause in the time of our Civil Wars and Confusions (a) Apologet. Narration not to make their present judgments and practices a binding Law to themselves for the future And therefore I shall consider only some things which are mainly essential to the Congregational way and are the chief distinguishing Characters of that Party and the things they mainly urge and contend for And I shall shew that these things are so far from being desirable or warrantable that they are chargeable with much evil And here I shall treat of three things First Of single Congregagations and the power thereof not being subject to any Superiour Government in the Church Secondly Of their gathering Churches out of Christian Churches by separation and modelling these by a particular Covenant with a private Congregation Thirdly Their placing the Governing Power and Authority of the Church in the People or major Vote of the Members of their Church 2. First Their asserting single Congregations not to be subject in matters of Ecclesiastical Order and Government to any higher Authority among men than what is exercised by themselves This is that Principle which denominates this party Independents Indeed some of themselves did at sometimes express their dislike of this Name and the Authors of the Apologetical Narration above mentioned called it the proud and insolent Title of Independency But as this Name is ordinarily owned by the Congregational men as in the end of their Preface to their Declaration of their Faith at the Savoy and very frequently elsewhere so the Answer to the Thirty two Questions from New England gives this account of it (b) Answer to 14. Qu. We do confess the Church is not so Independent but that it ought to depend on Christ but for dependency on men or other Churches or other subordination unto them in regard of Church-Government or power we know not of any such appointed by Christ in his Word And this they speak concerning a particular Congregation And whilst we assert that such Congregations ought to be under the inspection of Bishops or Superiour Governours in the Church and under the Authority of publickly established Rules and Canons of the Church and under the Government also of Princes and Secular Sanctions they of this way own no such higher Governing Power and Authority above that of a single Congregation 3. Concerning the Civil Magistrate they declare him bound (c) Decl. of
who appointed not this kind of Covenanting established the Christian Church in that way of Unity that it was one Church but these have ordered this method for the dividing it 20. Secondly This casts a disparagement on Christs Institution of Baptism as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church and the Communion thereof The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12.12 and that they who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance members are received into fellowship with Christ and communion with his Church But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the World And of Baptism being ordained by Christ for the solemn admission of the party Baptized into the visible Church are rejected and left out in the declaration of Faith by them of the Congregational way And we are told by the New England Independents that (k) Answ to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church and they there say strangely enough that Christ Baptized but made no new Church Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism to receive members of his Church this Covenant which he never appointed is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it 21. Thirdly By making this Covenant the only right ground of Church-fellowship they cast a high reflexion on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches who neither practised nor delivered any such thing as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established But this Covenant managed in the dividing way is somewhat like the practice of Novatus who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism who ingaged his followers by the most solemn Vow that they should never forsake him nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation But this bond of their own promise and vow was intended to keep them in that separation which the more solemn Vow of Baptism and undertaking Christianity ingaged them to reject And it is a great mistake to imagine that the former ought to take place against the latter or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it 22. Fourthly The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation entred under such a particular Covenant is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity For according to this notion the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love as being members one of another and that Christian care that follows thereupon it limited to a narrow compass together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also which ought to be inlarged to all those professed Christians with whom we do converse And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence that the duties of love and being helpful to one another and provoking to love and good works upon account of our membership with the Church visible though these things be in practice too much neglected should be straitned by false and hurtful notions and opinions It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews that when God gave them that great Commandment to love their Neighbour as themselves they should satisfie themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour than the Divine Law intended And it must not be conceived that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church and fellowship therein will be esteemed in the sight of God a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity than the like mistake was under Judaism 23. Thirdly I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people or the members of the Church To this purpose by some of them we are told that (m) Answ to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest the Keys are committed to all Believers who shall join together in the same confession according to the Ordinance of Christ and they give the people the power of (n) Answ to Qu. 15. censuring offenders even Ministers themselves if they be such And on this account at least in part I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations that which I shall particularly insist on is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto How plain is it in the Scripture that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church and that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches did and were to do the like It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church that Christ declared Joh. 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained and Matt. 18.18 whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And by these and such like words the power of inflicting Censures and receiving to and conferring of the priviledges of the Church as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God and remission of sins are particularly tendered are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church which practised accordingly which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages For instance even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spake to S. Peter of the power of the Keys and of binding and loosing infers the Episcopal honour and that every act of the Church must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors And from those words and what our Saviour spake to his Apostles Jo. 20. about remitting sins he concludes that only the Governours in the Church (q) Ep. 73. can give remission of sins And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy and the
authority of his Chair to avenge himself of him and might be certain that what he should have done by his sacerdotal power would be acceptable to all his Collegues In which words he plainly asserts the authority of inflicting an Ecclesiastical Censure even upon a Deacon to be wholly in the Bishops power by virtue of his Office And it is indeed no mean authority which is committed by the Institution of our Lord to the Officers of the Christian Church who are appointed to be as Shepherds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and to rule his flock Joh. 21.16 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 25. Indeed they of the Congregational way do assert some special authority to the Pastors and Teachers of their Congregations and to them they particularly reserve the administration of the Sacraments They declare (ſ) Of Instit of Churches n. 16. that where there are no teaching Officers none may administer the Seals nor can the Church authorize any so to do But then they also place the power of making these Officers and committing authority to them in the people and attribute very little to the power of Ordination Indeed concerning a Pastor Teacher or Elder they tell us that (t) Ibid. n. 11. it is appointed by Christ but no such appointment can be produced he be chosen by the common suffrage of the Church it self and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with imposition of hands of the Eldership of that Church if there be any before constituted therein But if there be no Eldership in that Congregation as there can be none in the first erecting any particular Congregational Church and in the after appointing a Pastor it must be at least of those who are in inferiour Office (u) Answ to Qu. 13. they think it neither lawful nor convenient to call in the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches by way of authority when the Church is to ordain Officers But this Position proceeds upon their dividing notion in not owning the true Unity of the Catholick visible Church and thereupon they assert that as to (x) Answ of Eld in New Engl. to 9. Posit Pos the 8. acts of authority and power in dispensing Gods Ordinance a Minister cannot so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own But how little they esteem that irregular way of imposing hands which themselves speak of as Christs Institution may appear from their declaring that a Pastor Teacher or Elder chosen by the Church (y) Inst of Ch. n. 12. though not set apart by imposition of hands are rightly constituted Ministers of Jesus Christ To the like purpose the Elders of New England speak who also give power (z) Answ to Qu. 21. to those who are no Officers of the Church to ordain Officers and also judge that a Minister Ordained in one Church if he afterwards becomes a Minister in another Church must receive a new Ordination But surely those who let loose their fancies at such a strange rate used no great consideration of what they wrote 26. And it greatly concerns the people since they undertake to act in the name of Christ in dispensing any part of the power of the Keys as in inflicting Spiritual censures and to exercise his authority in constituting Officers in his Church by giving Office-power to them that they be well assured that they have sufficient authority from him to warrant their proceedings especially since such things as these are represented in the Holy Scripture and have been ever esteemed in the Ancient Church as well as the Modern to be peculiar acts of the Ministerial power in the Chief Officers of the Church And they whom they call Pastors or Teachers but have no better authority than this to warrant them to be so had also need to beware how they undertake to dispense the Christian Mysteries as Officers appointed in Christs name For if they to whom God hath given no such Commission presume to set apart Officers in his name and to impart to them his authority this is like the act of Micah in consecrating Priests Judg. 17.5 12. or like Jeroboams Sacrilegious intrusion in making those to be Priests who were not so according to the rules of Gods appointment 1 Kings 12.31 chap. 13.33 which thing with its concomitants was so highly offensive to God that the very next words tell us vers 34. this thing became a sin unto the house of Jeroboam even to cut it off and to destroy it from off the face of the earth Nor can it be thought a lesser affront to the Majesty of God to set up chief Officers in his name without his Commission than it would be against the Majesty of a King to erect Judicatures in his Kingdom or to confer the great Offices of the Realm and places of eminent Dignity and Trust without any Authority from him or from his Laws 27. And to exercise any proper Ministerial power in the name of God or Christ without sufficient authority is no small offence The severe punishment of Saul's Sacrificing by the loss of his Kingdom 1 Sam. 13.13 14. and of Vzziah's offering Incense by his being smitten with Leprosie which rendered him uncapable not only of Governing the Kingdom but of having society with the Congregation of the Lord 2 Chron. 26 19 21. testifie how much God was provoked thereby The dreadful Judgment upon Corah and his Company for offering Incense and pleading the right of all the Congregation of Israel against Moses and Aaron as if they had taken too much upon them was very remarkable And much more is it sinful and dangerous to intrench upon the Office of the Gospel Ministry because the Institution of Christ the authority conveyed by him and the grace conferred from him are things more high and sacred than what was delivered by Moses 28. But the making and Ordaining Ministers in the Church was both in the Scripture and in all succession of antiquity performed by those who had the chief authority of Office in or over the Christian Church as particularly by Christ himself his Apostles and the succeeding Bishops Christ himself sent his Apostles as his Father sent him and he not his other Disciples gave them their Commission S. Paul and Barnabas where they came ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 and so must Titus do in every City of Crete Tit. 1.5 And when S. Paul sent his directions to Timothy concerning the due qualifications of those who were to be Bishops and Deacons in the Church 1 Tim. 3. and wrote this for this end that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God v. 14 15. this plainly shews that he had the main care of appointing and admitting Officers in the Church of Ephesus 29. In the Ecclesiastical History of the next ages there is nothing more plain than that the Bishops of the Christian Church who as (a) de Praescrip c. 32. Tertullian (b)
adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus and (c) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others affirm were made and appointed by the Apostles themselves did Ordain the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons That the ancient Church did generally acknowledge that a Bishop was regularly to be Ordained by three Bishops who must be of other Churches may partly appear from the industrious care of (d) ibid. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novatus though very ill managed against peace honesty and other rules of common morality as Cornelius relates it to send about to find three obscure Bishops who might Ordain him in opposition to Cornelius But this is more fully evident from the great contests concerning the validity of Cecilians Ordination against which the Donatists earnestly objected as the main pretence for their Schism that Felix one of the Ordainers of Cecilian was not a regular Bishop and therefore his Ordination was insufficient which case was canvased in Africa Italy France and other places So that that first Canon of the old Code (e) Can. Ap. 1. that a Bishop was to be Ordained by two or three Bishops was so far manifestly agreeable to the ancient practice and sense of the Church that they usually insisted upon having the greater number of three in this Ordination And so it was particularly expressed in the Canons of the first General Council (f) Conc. Nic. c. 4. which also requires the consent of the other Bishops of the Province and particularly the (g) ib. c. 6. Metropolitan which was included in the more ancient practice And this may be sufficient to satisfie any man that Ordination and regular Ordination of the chief Officer in the Church was in the first Ages of Christianity accounted greatly necessary and that the Bishops of other Churches there being but one Catholick Bishop of one Church three at least must meet together to confer this Ordination Much more might be added if it were needful in so plain a case 30. And whereas so great a stress is laid upon the election of the people as if this were the great essential thing which constituted any one in the Office of the Ministry it is also manifest that the choice of any person for the Ministry which was by way of recommendation of him to those who were to Ordain him was sometimes done by the people and sometimes by others But there was no rule in the Scripture which requireth any necessity of the peoples election nor was there ever any constant practice hereof either in the time of the Holy Scriptures themselves or in the next ages of the Primitive Church When Christ chose his Apostles he called to him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom he named Apostles Luk 6.13 but he did not appoint his other Disciples to chuse them James who was made the first Bishop of Jerusalem is related to have been chosen by the Apostles (h) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 2. particularly by Peter James and John Many times the Holy Spirit guided the Ordainers to fix upon the particular person to be ordained Thus Timothy was chosen by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4 14. And the Spirit directed the other Prophets and Teachers that they should separate Saul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them Act. 13.2 And (i) Cl. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 54 55. Clemens Romanus declares that the Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons proving them by the Spirit And that the Spirit of God should then guide the Ordainers to choose persons for the Ministry rather than the other Believers and Disciples may be of use to acquaint men that our Saviour never made the peoples choice either necessary or the main thing essential to the Ministry In some places the Presbyters of the Church were the persons who elected their Bishop and this (k) Hieron ad Evag. S. Hierome saith was the practice at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius And since Mark died whilst many of the Apostles were alive and several years before the Martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul this also gives a fair evidence that popular elections were no Institution of Christ or his Apostles 31. Sometimes even under the early ages of Christianity Bishops were chosen by Councils of other Bishops And so was (l) Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domnus chose Bishop of Antioch by the Council which deposed Paulus for Heresie And there are frequent instances of like nature And after the Empire was Christian this election was sometimes made by the Emperour himself and thus was Nectarius chosen by Theodosius at Constantinople even whilst a General Council was there sitting and had been deliberating about the choice of a Bishop of Jerusalem Now the considering how variously such elections or recommendations were made is sufficient to manifest that the Apostolical and first Primitive Churches accounted no one particular way of election to be the main thing essential to the Ministry And the popular way hath the least of all to plead on this account that the various inconveniences of admitting that were found so great that this was forbidden to be practised by one of the ancient Canons which was received in the general Code And the result of all this is That the insisting on this and those other things above mentioned which are the support of Independency are plain errors and mistakes and deviations from the true Christian Rule and Practice and are much the worse because they are imposed upon men in the name of God as if they were his special Institutions and thereby tend to create the greater disturbance to the best and most regular Constitutions of the Christian Church as if they had departed from the Divine Institutions and their form and establishment is such that it is not fit to be Communicated with but may most safely be forsaken FINIS AN ANSWER TO Mr. SERJEANT's DISCOURSE INTITULED Sure Footing IN CHRISTIANITY By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIV The first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith THis Author J. S. intending as his Title page tells us Rational Discourses on the Rule of Faith which I design to examine spends his first Discourse in seeking and laying down properties of that Rule This was indeed requisite to be inquired into and had it been faithfully managed as it is not I had then passed by this Discourse without any Animadversion But since it is neither accurate nor impartial some defects and miscarriages in it are necessary to be observed In this Discourse he examines the sense of these words RVLE which he saith signifies a thing able to regulate or guide him who useth it § 2. and FAITH which is a believing God in revealed Truths § 8. which imports some knowledge of supernatural things He
know that it is incorrupt as to the faith it contains he may thus be satisfied When he considers that it is Gods Word delivered to the World for their use that they may know him and believe him as we before shewed this common Christian may thence conclude that if he does his best to enquire God will preserve his Word so free from corruption that it shall not misguide him to his hurt And when he further knows that the Church of God hath alwayes had the highest esteem of these Books of any others in the world and the greatest care of them and that there are infinite Copies of them in several Regions of the World both in Originals and Translations which that they all contain in them an agreement in the same matters of truth he hath good reason to believe because it is generally asserted by the best and most learned men this vulgar Christian knows and even the Romanists who design to speak all they can against the certainty of Scripture have never yet dared to affirm the contrary for though there be many various readings yet not such which will mis-guide in any matter of Faith These things will make him more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire than any man can be of the Statutes of the Land or of any Histories or any other Records whatsoever that is he hath the greatest evidence of its integrity that can be of any Writing in the World which had its original some Ages past and infinitely a greater evidence than can be given for Oral Tradition being preserved For if one Record be commonly acknowledged a more certain preservative of truth and in it self less lyable to corruption than common fame much more when so numerous Records or carefully and religiously transcribed Copies all agree Again when he considereth that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were untill the coming of Christ in very corrupt times and amongst very corrupt persons preserved so entire that Christ sendeth to them to learn Religion he hath great reason to judge the New Testament preserved entire since we cannot suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old and there are now abundantly more Copies both Translations and Originals and old Translations speak the agreement of the old Originals whence they were translated and these Scriptures highly valued and publickly read in a constant manner in so many places of the World and all agree in all points of Faith Nor could they possibly be any where all corrupted to one purpose in a way so apparent to sense as words written are since there never was any General Council collected out of all parts of the World to determine any thing concerning the various Scripture readings or the alteration of any Copies if any such had been it is possible there might have been some corruption general if not by confederacy yet by mistake unless the former Copies should yet remain to discover this as it is certain many very ancient Copies and probably more ancient than any General Council yet remain in the World as for instance that written by Tecla in our Kings Library sent from Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople Ad § 6. To the fourth Objection concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the right Translation of Scripture I grant their knowledge of Scripture is by Translations S. Austin observed de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. The holy Scriptures being spread abroad far and wide by the various Tongues of the Interpreters are made known to the Nations for their salvation And a man of mean capacity may be satisfied concerning Translations if he consider that he hath reason to judge that the Original Languages may be understood by men of learning partly because himself by use and observing hath learnt his own Mother-Tongue and therefore hath reason to think that others by the same means may learn other Languages and particularly those wherein the Scriptures were written partly because he thinks it injurious to the Goodness Wisdom of God to imagine that he should give forth a writing to guide the World and that it should be in a Language which was not intelligible and partly because he hears that so many Churches have these Books translated and that even such as this Discourser who would cast and suggest all doubts they can concerning Scripture translated into the common Tongues yet dare they not say that it is not capable of being translated so as to deliver the same matters of Faith yea the Papists themselves both use allow of and many of them endeavour to make new Translations Having gone thus far he may further consider that if it can be truly translated he hath reason to judge that such men who have the common fame even amongst the Learned for men of skill in Languages are best able to give the sense of the words contained in those Languages and he can conclude that whatever God thought requisite for him to know from this Book is so written that such men of Learning are able to give the sense of it and that whatever in any phrase cannot by such be understood is something fit to be further enquired into but not necessary to be now known Yea further he can conclude that he hath reason to conceive that the Translation with us in use doth contain in it the true Doctrine of Christ which is in the Original because he heareth this oft averred by honest and learned men amongst us and because the Papists who are professed enemies to this Translation yet dare not nor do not assert the contrary but raise only some more inconsiderable Cavils about phrases By this I suppose our vulgar Christian satisfied if this Discourser be not with this answer let him consider a parallel case If many English men should purposely go to France to give a description of that Countrey and they take a particular view of all places and write this and all agree together and many thousand others who after go to see it all agree in all material things yea and when many others shall go over on purpose to find fault with this description who yet can find nothing very material to object but only carp at small things will this Author say that all this can signifie nothing to inform him satisfactorily who stayes at home unless he could be able to demonstrate to himself that they indeed were in France as they all agree and that they did see what they wrote Either this is something very considerable and rational to engage assent or else against all reason most English men have confessed that there is such a place as Rome and such a person as is called the Pope when we never saw either it or him Ad § 7. To the fifth Objection concerning printed Copies Before I answer this I shall observe that as it is suspicious in the whole Book here is manifestly evident either a piece of gross ignorance in the Writer or a designed cheat upon his
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
Tradition § 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property That it is certain in it self because this will prove the fourth fifth and seventh Now though this be not true that what is certain in its self can satisfie the piercing Wits and convince obstinate Adversaries and be ascertainable unto us because there may be a certainty in the thing which is not discerned and it is not the being but the evidence of certainty submitted to that works these effects else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing since all truth is certainly in it self truth yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition I shall over and above yield the rest This he thus goes about to prove Since Faith must be certain and must have a certain Rule he hath as he saies shewed that Scripture is not certain therefore Oral Tradition is This loose Argument deserves no better answer than that I have shewed Scripture is certain in it self therefore Oral Tradition is not Yet I must tell him his Argument is otherwise faulty than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain for there is something besides Scripture which is a better guide or leader to the Faith than the Oral Tradition and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as preserved in the Ancient Fathers or approved Writers of their time For though they were men and might in some things mistake and therefore their testimony is much inferiour to Scripture yet since they lived in times near the Apostles and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth than what is now owned in the Church of Rome after many successions of Ages and great degeneracy of life even in the dreggs of time And we have as much and more reason to think these men both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ and faithful in relating them as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers and the present Traditions of the Romish Church may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention Disc 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith which shall be discussed in the end of this Book § 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition in that he saith It hath for its basis the best nature in the Vniverse man's and that not in speculations which may mistake by passion but his eyes and ears which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature and this in most many times every day which is a much higher certainty than a sworn Witness hath of what he saw or heard but once These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing Must there not be a delivering and receiving which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind He who considers this aright will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis a man clad with all his infirmities with a memory that may let things slip especially if they be numerous as revealed truths are with an understanding that may mistake especially in things difficult as many truths are with affections that may disrelish or slight them if corruption prevail as it may oft do in the members of the Church with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat when they think they only explain and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered may remain very uncertain whether they be true or not And he who is a Witness in any Court may be much more sure that what he once saw or heard if he perfectly remember it was so heard or seen by him than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men who took them themselves upon others relations and they on others and so on So that the great imperfection of Tradition is chiefly as to the delivery of it by former Ages which this Author doth not so much as touch of here in his proof of its certainty and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses shall be answered in their place But what he saith That in most many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses this may be true concerning some Christian truths but to assert this concerning all truth is such an apparent falsity as no ingenuous man could be guilty of For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree which is truth and have had in many Cases Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith and in many other things they are yet undetermined which could not be if these things were daily cleared to their senses unless they be men of much duller sense than the rest of mankind are § 13. He reminds of what he had said before § 8. That it is as evident that while the next Age believes and practises as the former Age did they are of the same Faith as it is that to believe the same is to believe the same But this is not at all to the purpose concerning Oral Tradition only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off or wholly omitting matters difficult and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would dissent in But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition as we have above shewed that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held See n. 13 14. § 14. He tells his Reader That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logick and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logick and Sophistry but what he now asserts is a bold daring to let his Reader know that under some contrived expressions he will strain to vent any falshood though never so gross Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it do say very much against it yea they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered Yea that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse he who here would perswade his Reader that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition yet Disc 7. § 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it and spends that Discourse in Answer Though indeed much more than that is by us observed against Tradition He concludes § 15. from his Discourse that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty I conclude from the
incomparably more powerfal causes to carry the will than temporal ones therefore a world of Believers cannot be willing to do that which would lose them and their Posterities infinite goods and bring them infinite harms To this I answer That if this be spoken of the generality of professed Christians these words would still as much plead against Adams fall and the corruptions of Gentiles and Jews as against defection in the Romish Church since all these had the greatest goods and harms proposed to them But I further answer That a considerable number in former Ages would indeavour to know and deliver ttuth aright but they still are liable to mistakes and others that hear them to misunderstandings and also it is possible that the subtilty of some Deceivers may take place and be received sooner than their delivery of truth by which means those truths may many of them be lost or perverted and even in these last Ages I doubt not but even in the Roman Church there are many who would desire good and love truth and therefore as they have discerned it many have forsaken the Romish way but they who most desire to find it can in the way of Tradition see no more than is there to be seen and if others by subtilty corrupt some of that it is not in the power of these honest meaning persons to hinder the prevalency of such corruptions if they be promoted by a more potent party and interest § 8. If any think the proposal of Sensible Objects more considerable than of Spiritual he indeavoureth to shew the excellent proposal of the truths of God and thereby evidenceth they may be applied This doth not much concern Protestants we acknowledge that there is nothing wanting as to the proposal of Gods truth but yet there was in many neglect of receiving what was sufficiently propounded whence followed all the abovementioned miscarriages And even God himself propounded his truths as he thought most meet that is he proposed such as were not so necessary for all to know more mysteriously whence many might be ignorant of them or misapprehend but other necessary truths he propounded with abundant evidence and plainness But in the present way of Tradition what this Authour observes to make the proposal evident is very imperfect for though they have obvious Metaphors daily Practices Language and Actions Sacraments and Ceremonies yet these things may themselves partake of corruptions and then may help to clear what is propounded that somewhat may be understood but not withal to secure that this is certainly from God and therefore is Divine truth Nor do most of these things reach all truth to be delivered nor secure from all misapprehension so far as they are intended to signifie truth in such matters as are more difficult and mysterious An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie § 1. HE observes That that which seems only and mainly to prejudice his Argument is that there have been Hereticks or deserters of Tradition but he saith it sufficeth that the Causes to preserve Faith intire are as efficacious as those laid for the Propagation of mankind the only subject of Faith and more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their Faith In answer to this I first observe that though it much destroyes the grounds laid by this Authour to observe that there have been Heresies and those much spread in the Church yet this is not the only prejudice against his Argument for if we had never heard of or could make no proof of any Heresies in the Christian Church yet from considering the very nature of Oral Tradition as hath been shewed in the former Discourse and from observing what great defects were in it both amongst Gentiles and Jews it is sufficiently manifest that it is not indefectible and hath not the certainty requisite to the Rule of Faith by which means if Heresies had not been they might begin But I further undertake to manifest that because it is certain that Heresies have spread in the Church from this consideration it is evidenceable that Oral Tradition is so defectible as that it cannot be a sure Rule of Faith His paralleling Tradition with the propagation of mankind is a meer piece of sophistry For if he indeed assert that the causes to preserve Faith intire in the way of Tradition are as sufficient as those to propagate mankind in the intire nature of man he must then either acknowledge that there have been oft Societies of persons of different natures both in themselves and from mankind who are brought up amongst men and call themselves men and propagate in their kind and cannot by the eye be distinguished from men and are capable of deceiving great multitudes by perswading them that they are the true men and that others are not or else he must deny that ever any such Hereticks have been in the Church who have declared themselves and have been owned by many others to be the true Christians and holders of the truth The case of Tradition and Propagation are wonderfully different also in that he who hath the nature of man in him by Propagation cannot alter this nature and make himself of another nature at his own pleasure whereas it is very possible for such as have imbraced the true Christian Doctrine to forsake it and fall aside into Heresies as hath been oft evidenced in the World and also in that those particular persons in mankind who do not propagate their kind are not capable at their pleasure of propagating any thing different from man but in the way of Christian Faith they who do not propagate the true Faith may and many of them do propagate error and that so subtilly that very many are oft deluded by it Yea this Discourser himself § 2. acknowledgeth that he knows the multitudes of Hereticks which have from time to time risen makes this his Position seem incredible and therefore I infer that unless his Reader can be assured that this Position is more true than it seems to be he must from his own words conclude it really incredible § 2. He comes to consider how an Heresie is bred where he tells us The Church is to be considered as a Common-wealth under Discipline having Officers to take care that all Motives be actually applied and because it is impossible the perfection of Discipline should extend it self to every particular some by pride ambition lust and itching desire of followers may propose new tenets which by their plausibleness and licentiousness if Governours be not watchful may suit with the humour of divers and draw them into the same faction Thus a body is made inconsiderable in respect of the whole The Church stands upon the uninterrupted succession of her Doctrine They cry the Church hath erred in Faith and disgrace Tradition A new Rule is sought for either by private inspiration or waxen natured words They study wordish Learning and Criticisms and whilst the Traditionary Christian hath the
read such a Position in a Book as that I hear or see other things in converse in the world Now since what is thus delivered by Protestants to their Children is so delivered because it appears to be the Scripture-Doctrine this is an establishing and holding to not a rejecting and throwing by the Scripture as a Rule But while we own Scripture as a Rule there is no more reason why Protestants should tolerate men to contradict what is plainly and evidently deducible from Scripture under pretence of holding to it as a Rule than there is that in a case of Rebellion one who is to indeavour to suppress the rebellion should be suffered to assault the King when he plainly appears to be the King under pretence that he took him to be a Rebel Yet as to matters not fully clear in Scripture Protestants do allow differences of Opinion if managed peaceably and that it may appear that we are not violent prosecutors of our own apprehensions only because they are so the Laws of England condemn nothing for Heresie but that which was so declared by one of the four first General Councils But what he intimates of obliging to act that is if with good conscience to hold as themselves do makes me think he designs chiefly to reflect upon prudential constitutions such as are amongst us the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy and matters of Liturgy and Conformity But in none of these things do Protestants desert this Principle of Scripture being the Rule of Faith For Protestants who hold this assertion never intended to exclude the use of prudential Rules and Constitutions for the advantage both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Societies but such Constitutions they neither own nor press as matters of Faith nor as Gods Commands in themselves necessary to salvation In this case if Protestant Rulers oblige to nothing as prudential orderly and decent but what they are well satisfied that it is lawful according to Gods word and agreeable thereunto and for other ends expedient and not needlesly burthensome which appears the common case of all Protestant Churches they no way swerve from Scripture-Rule Yea if here any Protestant Rulers should err and urge as lawful decent and prudential what is indeed sinful and evil in this case they sin and practically swerve from the true Rule as men do in all acts of sin and mistakes of judgement but they do in no wise intentionally disown this Rule of Scripture since they hold fast this as a firm Principle that if any thing which they require to be practised as lawful can be fully manifested to be against Scripture they will rather reject that Constitution than oppose the Scripture and will acknowledge that their Subjects ought to obey the Scripture rather than such commands But he tells us That these Dissenters from Protestants do guide themselves to their best capacity by the Scriptures Letter which is the Rule their persecutors Protestants who punish them for not obeying taught them and made use of themselves when they brake from the Romish Church I answer 1. It is much to be feared that many who dissent from the Protestant Churches in these matters prudential do not act according to their best capacities but some from passion and self-will some from the applause of a party others from pride and a sinful resolution not to disown what they once unadvisedly and erroneously took up 2. Yet I doubt not but very many who dissent from the prudential Rules of the Protestant Churches or particularly of the Church of England do act according to the best light they have of Scripture truth yet have they not the same reasons and grounds to justifie them that Protestants have to justifie themselves in departing from Popery for we rejected Popery not only because we could not discern whether it was lawful or not by the Scripture-Rule but because in matters plain in Scripture we did clearly discern it sinful by clear Scripture-evidence which plain evidence Dissenters from the Church of England cannot have nor can they pretend it unless it be rashly under passion or preconceived prejudice But for those who act according to the best light they have from Scripture which will suppose them willing to be better informed we Protestants no way dislike but highly approve of their Rule and of them for designing to follow it so far as we can discern such persons And as the Protestant Doctrine asserts that all things necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture so we doubt not but these persons and all other who according to their best capacities close with the Faith there delivered and practise the duties there required are in the way to salvation nor can they err in matters fundamental But still they may err in some other matters and particularly about the lawfulness of some things prudential nor did Protestants ever assert that they who designed to follow Scripture to the best of their light could in nothing be subject to error where they have not a discovery of clear evidence which in all things all inquirers may possibly not attain Yet I must further declare that if this design of following Scripture according to mens best capacity were more followed and all passions prejudices and unchristian suspicions laid aside amongst all Dissenters the number of them who dissent from the Protestant Churches upon the best light of Scripture they have would in a short time be reduced to a very few 3. Where in any case such persons as these are punished it is not for designing to follow Scripture but for not obeying some prudential lawful commands in a case where their mistake is the cause of their not obeying not is it any more a condemning their design to follow Scripture than in Civil Laws and Constitutions when any one is impleaded in a Court because he for want of good Counsel acts what he by mistake thinks to be according to Law but is cast as not having acted according to the Law the Judge should be thought to punish this man unjustly because he designed obedience to the Law yea to punish him for designing this obedience to the Law Some such inconveniences as these are like to be in Civil things while men are liable to mistakes and something is capable of being mistaken but these things concern not at all the Rule of Faith or the rejecting the Scripture from being the Rule of Faith From what hath been said it is easie to vindicate the Protestants from the following self-contradictions he chargeth upon Hereticks The first of which is to reform upon pretence of Scriptures Letter being the Rule and afterwards in practice to desert that Rule in their carriage towards others This Rule Protestants desert not since they propound nothing to be assented to by any as a matter of Faith but what they judge certainly evident in Scripture nor require they any thing to be practised as orderly but what they discern or judge not contrary to Scripture 2. Nor
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule that if any Christians should live under such a Power as this Author speaks of should be a self-condemning tyranny over mens consciences if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule they must live in patience meekness peace humility and subjection to the Higher Powers and it must be from pride wrath passion malice and refusing to be subject all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures that all Rebellion against Government must proceed Whence amongst the Primitive Christians where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Christ his Son with the holy Spirit which is the only God and the Christians knew there was none else and punished them for not worshipping as Gods them whom they knew were no gods yet in this case the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governours If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule both as to Faith and Life be prevalent as it will guide us aright into the truth so it will end all quarrels silence all animosities and contentions and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet peace friendship and love as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth § 5. He tells us The use of this Discourse is to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition to be very few to which he hath received our answer § 3. and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady than that laid to preserve mankind I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation § 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader that the way of Tradition is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind I would only advise him to be so ingenuous as to speak plainly out his meaning and say that as in mankind the causes for keeping intire the nature of man are such that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man who really were not so the way to preserve Tradition is such that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth when indeed they had it not and if he would thus do he might amuse his Reader but would never deceive him having before told him that there have been many Hereticks in the World and that even amongst these the way of continuing Heresie is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori § 1. HE declares That he will trie to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause § 2. he saith this seems needless against Protestants who yield the points of Faith we agree in to have come down by this way of Tradition He presseth therefore from Protestants a candid Answer to these Queries 1. Was not the Trinity Incarnation and all other Points in which we agree held in all Ages since Christ by Gods Church 2. Whether seeing those points were held ever of Faith Fathers did not actually teach Children so or the former Age the latter if so they came down by Tradition 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things had any such been 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause and its formal effect so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery But because he fears the Protestant will flie off here he will follow his designed method Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies than that he would flie from such shadows To the 1. Qu. I answer That if we indeed understand by Gods Church that number of Christians who have intirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion they must needs have held these great truths likewise But many have pretended to be Gods Church who held them not Nor hath this belief been alwaies preserved in the Churches who once imbraced it since the Eastern Churches who before received the true Doctrine of Christ were drawn aside by the Arian infection and denied those points which shews Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points in any particular Church To the 2. Qu. I answer That in the Church of God which ever held these points Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines yet were they not only nor chiefly continued by the way of Oral Tradition For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule as shall be after shewed from their Writings and Fathers taught Children chiefly then by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching but they had also the Scriptures read among them and perused by them and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church chiefly from the Scriptures Irenaeus testifies even of those Primitive times Adversus Haeres lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge which is come even unto us being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures That Christians then received their instruction in the Church chiefly from Scriptures he likewise sheweth lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to flie from the Opinion of the Hereticks and flie unto the Church and be brought up in its bosom and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures For saith he the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World therefore the Spirit of God saith Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise that is eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies and those very clear I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority Yea such was the esteem of the use of Scripture that in the Primitive times before their Children were taught matters of human literature they were instructed in the holy Scriptures Thus was Origen brought up Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures Sozom. Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only in the true Church of God as indeed they have not been yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition as would secure the right delivery of all other things For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition depending upon this supposal that in such a Society it hath alwaies been rightly delivered and rightly received which
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
that with many it doth not work its effect in the former it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter especially since there have been many Hereticks § 10. They who do not to others what they would have done to themselves this is because they are swayed by some temporal good but this cannot be in the Church supposing sanctity in it because in virtue and glory we have not the less when others have the more but rather we have the more also so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children without the least good to themselves if they should deceive them But alas Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world that when he hath proved as it is easie to do that it is highly irrational for any man to chuse any sin he would thence conclude for certain that there are no such sinners in the world How evident is it that there hath been so much want of Sanctity that many either to please their own fancies or to promote their own interests have depraved the true Religion or corrupted the Christian Doctrine But in these cases as in all acts of sin men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows but at the seeming good and delight § 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality wisdom and goodness of the recommenders § 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring but Christianity more and chiefly in matters of endless misery and happiness § 13. Consider credit he who will lie perniciously and to friends how ill is this esteemed Chiefly if this be against the highest Motives and with the greatest confidence and Oaths This is of all other cases most disgraceful in matters which concern Christs Doctrine chiefly if in a Pastor against his particular Oath to preach Christs Doctrine truly Nor can the world of Fore-Fathers all conspire to this villany Yet it is certain notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine it may be both mistaken and depraved Nor doth love of off-spring take place actually against all setting examples of sin nor against ignorance and mistakes nor in Jews and Hereticks did it take place against corrupting worship Nor have all men been so tender of their credit Many Hereticks have been self-condemned There were who said of Christ let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours Simon knew and was Baptized into the Christian Doctrine and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it Yea men gain credit at least with a party by their erring explications if they be plausible and take with the multitude and then alone can they become Traditions However some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world this Authour would conclude that Pastors can never deliver amiss and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches or any places whatever I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it they will still as Christians believe that S. Peters Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers who hath assured us 2 Pet. 2.1 2. That there shall be false Teachers who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their pernicious wayes § 14. He concludeth with a flourish That every virtue and Science would contribute to Traditions certainty which would require he saith a large Volume to shew But that we may judge what this large Volume would be he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words Arithmetick lends her numbring and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers Geometry her proportion to shew the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition c. But if such words as these were considerable this Discourser may receive a return more truly Arithmetick cannot number and determine the many possible and probable wayes of erring in Tradition Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear in the receiving the Body of Christs Doctrine by Tradition more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomets existence nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church who have delivered their own opinions and speculations to one who only testifieth what he received Logick will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition Nature will evidence the great possibility of mans mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition Morality will shew the great corruption of man whereby he is lyable every where to err and miscarry Historical prudence will shew the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles and many Christian Nations overspread with known and confessed errors and will thence conclude that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition to neglect the faithful preserving truth Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order than Tradition is Metaphysicks with its speculations will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christs Doctrine to this Age to be an aiery vanity Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition Controversie will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition without any written support So that after all the survey of his several Discourses where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition I may well conclude that this way of Tradition is defectible ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES AFter these several Discourses he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them all which must needs fall with the ruine of their foundation Yet that they may not pass without due Censure I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries and for the most part directly contrary to them from our Discourse Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith who hold not to Tradition since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture and Motives enough to believe Disc 2.3 4. But they have no sure-footing in the Faith who depend only on this Oral Tradition since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide Disc 5.6 8. Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church and a true Church who own not Oral Tradition because they may be a number of Faithful Cor. 1. but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition cannot
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
every one of them must effect it by taking such assertions as he findeth in the Holy Scriptures or such as are consequent from them Where in the end of the same Prooem he declares in other words the Rule laid down not many Periods before in the beginning of it which is quite opposite to the design of Oral Tradition I shall yet further confirm this by two other passages out of those Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one lib. 1. c. 3. where when he had declared that some of the Greeks and Barbarians owned the Son of God he adds We according to the faith of his Doctrine which we have for certain divinely inspired do believe that it is no other wayes possible to expound the more eminent and more divine account of the Son of God and to bring this to the knowledge of men but only by that Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Ghost that is by the Evangelical and Apostolical as also that of the Law and the Prophets Now it is not conceivable that he who believed that without the Scriptures there could be no eminent Christian knowledge of Christ should lay any other Rule of Faith or exclude Scripture from being that Rule The other passage is lib. 4. c. 1. It is not enough he sayes for them who discourse of such and so great things to commit the matter to humane senses and the common understanding but we must take for the proof of the things we speak the testimonies also of the Divine Scriptures which testimonies that they may afford us certain and undoubted faith either in such things as are to be spoken by us or in those that are already spoken it seems necessary to show that they are the Divine Scriptures inspired by the Spirit of God which he there undertakes to prove What can be spoken more fully to make Scripture both the only Rule and a certain and undoubted Rule of Faith And if yet nothing will satisfie but the word Rule we shall find that also toward the end of his fourth Book immediately before his Anacephalaeosis where he saith our understanding is to be kept to the Rule of the Divine Letters Though enough hath been already observed to shew the great mistake of this Citation from Origen I shall yet farther take notice that the phrases which deceived this Author Ecclesiastica Traditio Ecclesiastica Praedicatio do both of them amongst the Fathers oft signifie the delivery in the Church by the holy Scriptures But to avoid multiplying instances concerning Ecclesiastical Tradition I shall refer to what shall be spoken concerning Clemens Alexandrinus whose Scholar Origen was and to what is hereafter cited from Athanasius against Samosatenus concerning the phrase of Ecclesiastical preaching we may observe a like phrase in Austin de Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 16. Let them shew their Church if they can in the prescript of the Law in the predictions of the Prophets in the Songs of the Psalms in the words of the Pastor himself in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical Authorities of the holy Books Somewhat alike expression is above cited from Irenaeus lib. 2. c. 46. and from Leo Ep. 10. in Sect. 8. n. 2. His other testimony from Origen is at the end of his 29 Hom. in Matt. We ought not to believe otherwise than as the Churches of God have delivered us by Succession Which words he there speaks to the same purpose with the former to assert the way of the Churches Tradition and that Scriptural against the Hereticks To understand Origen herein it is not amiss to observe a little before these words he expounds the abomination of desolation to be a word which stands in the place of the holy Scriptures and perswades to depart from the Creator who is the only and true God and to believe another God we know not whom above him to whom none is like In which words he evidently refers to the ancient Hereticks and in the beginning of his 30. Hom. names Basilides Marcion Valentinus and Apelles to whom he referred every one of which as the Church-History informs us brought in another God from the true Concerning these Heresies Hom. 29. at the end he exhorts that though they should pretend some Scriptures they should not believe them but keep to the Churches Tradition Why they are not to be believed in pretending to some places of Scripture he sheweth Because the light of truth doth not appear from any place of Scripture but from all Scripture that is of the Law Prophets Evangelists and Apostles That the Churches Tradition he recommends is that only which is grounded upon and according to Scripture is evident in that a little before he saies The abomination of desolation doth alwaies superadd something to what is in the Scriptures and the shortning those daies he expounds that the good God will cut off all those additaments to Scripture by whom he pleaseth Origen here all along agrees with the Protestants Rule but no way with Oral Tradition nor with any thing else that differs from Scripture or adds to it but he accounts all such as the abomination of desolation It were easie to observe many other testimonies from Origen which I omit as supposing I have from these two places chosen by this Authour shewed enough that Origen owned the Rule of Scripture Protestants as well as Origen would not have men be deluded by the subtilty of any Hereticks who pretend to urge Scripture and yet they no more thereby disown its being a Rule of Doctrine than our Saviour did disown it as a Rule of Life when he would not be tempted by the Devils citing the words of Scripture to act against its commands SECT XII What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian THree Discourses of Tertullian are referred to by this Discourser The first of which is de Praescriptione adversus Haereticos cited Corol. 15. where he will not allow Hereticks to argue out of Scripture The design of this Treatise of Tertullian is to evidence that the Doctrine professed in the Church of Christ was the true Christian Doctrine against such Hereticks which were of the same mold with them Irenaeus and Origen opposed who either would not admit the Scriptures cap. 17. or else changed the very proprieties of the words not allowing their known significations but imagining in them strange things which no way appear which was the way of the Valentinians c. 38. And these Hereticks were not satisfied with what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but produced other things c. 8. Against these he pleads prescription as to the true Christian Doctrine as being from the Apostles and having Communion with them He shews there is no disputing with such Hereticks from Scripture since they will not stand to it c. 17 18. And since these Hereticks did not own the only God and Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit c. 7. and 13 14. He urgeth That they were
thing as this but fully asserted one and the same God Nor was there ever any question about this in their daies for as there were questions about things offered to Idols about Marriage and Divorce about veiling Women and the hope of the Resurrection in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings so he saith if there had been any Question about this matter it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle that is the Apostles writings and then adds the words cited by this Discourser And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles than that which is this day published in their Churches In which words as Irenaeus and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general so he here establisheth the Churches Tradition against Marcions innovation or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ as his Church received it which principally included the Scriptures And that Tertullian chiefly designed against Marcion to establish the Scriptural Tradition may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed To see yet more of Tertullians mind in this case observe that known place against Hermogenes who asserted matter co-eternal with God Advers Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read Let Hermogenes his shop shew it written If it be not written let him fear that woe that is denounced against them who add or take away What can be more full to shew the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it and that it is full and compleat SECT XIII What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith FRom this Father he only cites one place and that so much contrary to the plain design which is obvious to any eye that it appears evidently he never took it from Clemens himself but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way or taking things upon hear-say For shewing which nothing more is needful than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely Strom. lib. 7. He saith In those who are indued with knowledge the holy Scriptures have conceived but the Hereticks who have not learned them have rejected them as if they did not conceive some indeed follow the truths saying and others wrest the Scriptures to their own lusts but if they had a Judgment of true and false they would have been perswaded by the Divine Scriptures Then follow the words cited If therefore any one of a man becomes a Beast like those inchanted by Circe so he hath lost his being a man of God and one remaining faithful to the Lord who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies Then his next words are but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures and commits his life to the truth of a man in a manner becomes as God We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine both by the Prophets and by the Gospel and by the Apostles He who is to be believed of himself is worthy of all belief when he speaks in the Lords voice and the Scriptures Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion to find out things And then he shews That we are not satisfied with what men say but inquire and believe what God saith which is the only demonstration according to which Science they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here is not to guide men to the Oral way this Discourser talks of but as Origen and Tertullulian do so also Clemens against the way of the ancient Hereticks who were opposers of the Scripture commendeth the Churches Tradition which was in the Scripture Much more might be observed to this purpose from this 7. Strom. of Clemens and several other places but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose is sufficient against him SECT XIV What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius OUr Discourser wisheth Protestants would seriously weigh the Sayings of this Father and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his daies This we assure him we will do and likewise highly honor that Rule of Faith which Athanasius made use of which we know was not Oral Tradition but Scripture The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice but sought after some other Synodical determination where they might have the Faith and therefore procured another Council to be called he saith Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers in seeking that which they have not which are part of the words cited by this Discourser his following words I think cannot be found either in that Book or elsewhere in Athanasius which are All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors that is from Christ by Fathers do not seek and therefore they only have Faith if thou comest to Faith by seeking thou wast before an Vnbeliever Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further saies If they had believed they would not have sought it as if they had it not and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe you are not Clergy-men but begin to be Catechumens Which words he writes upon occasion that the Arians Confession began not So believes the Catholick Church but the Catholick Faith was in the presence of Constantius put forth such a day as Athanasius there declares But that we may understand Athanasius his mind where they who are Believers must have Faith and not elsewhere seek it which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors if any such words be any where in Athanasius in this very Epistle he declares it thus It is a vain thing that they running about pretend to desire Synods for the Faith for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods And if for this there should be need of a Synod there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers they who came together in Nice wrote so well that whoever faithfully read their Writings may by them be remembred of that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition so they do advance Scripture The next testimony cited and vainly flourished over is from Athan. de Incarn against Paulus Samosatenus where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word shews That such great things and difficult to be apprehended cannot be attained to but by Faith And they who have weak knowledge if they here reject not curious questions and keep to the
and sutably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Priviledges 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are intrusted to bind and continue or to loose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules and accordingly the Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I forgive it also in the Person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power is for Edification not Destruction both to the whole Church and to the Offender that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation The general result of all I have said is That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance and such persons who have a low esteem thereof if they have any reverence for their Saviour let them seriously consider whether he who is Truth and Goodness can be thought to use such high expressions in this case as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and such like to impose upon the World which he came to guide and save and upon his Church which he so dearly loves with empty sounds of great things which signify little or nothing What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook according to some Canons the strict observation of Penance Conc. Ancyr c. 16. Elib c. 2 7 47 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years and even to the end of their Life that they might obtain Absolution and the Peace of the Church and its Communion And under this severe Discipline as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis de Poenit. c. 9. they did ly in Sackcloth and Ashes they never used such Cloaths or Diet as might appear pleasant they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting Prayers and Tears crying to God day and night and among other things they made humble Supplication even upon their Knees unto the Members of the Church and fell down prostrate before its Officers it being their custom Presbyteris advolvi charis Dei adgeniculari And all this was done in the greatest degree while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power But that which they apprehended and which I doubt not to be true Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni is that as Chemnitius expresseth it Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit peccata remittit it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry viz. where they proceed according to his Will And as under the Law he who trespassed beside the amendment of his fault and restitution either in things Sacred or Civil was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering for obtaining the Mercy of God even so under the Gospel he who performs the other conditions of Christianity ought where it may be had to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin and the receiving this Testimony together with that of a good Conscience upon a Christian Penitent Deportment is next to the great Absolution by Christ the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort Only I must here add which I desire may be particularly observed that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins and other Blessings of the Gospel to them who fall not under gross enormities and the censures of the Church though performed also in its degree in Doctrine and other Benedictions and Absolutions is chiefly done by Administring the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism wherein may be obtained remission of Sins Wherefore I conceive that as that Man who being converted to Christianity doth profess the Doctrine and embrace the practice thereof in other things but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour and runs himself upon the needless hazard of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof even so is it with those adult persons who being otherwise piously disposed do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper which is particularly appointed of God to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice for remission of Sins and other blessings of the Covenant to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same And if this which to me seemeth a great Truth was duly heeded the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion and other Services of God would be as it was in the Primitive Times generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance in Persons adult and resolving upon a true Christian course of life Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom truly asserteth Chrysost in 2 Cor. 2.5 That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice and by his Ministry But the Priestly Authority according to the Romish Ordination Pontif. Rom. is chiefly placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing their Form being Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass That is properly Ordo Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9. c. 1. saith F. Layman where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchos in which as also in the Council of Trent it self Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil Trid. Sess 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders partly upon this account and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour Indeed here it must be granted and asserted that the
Elements for the Communion were usually offered to God to be set apart for a sacred Use and that all Christian Worship being in a large sence the offering spiritual Sacrifices to God so is especially the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper because therein is eminently a Commemoration of the only Sacrifice of Christ with a peculiar Address unto God thereby and it and the Benefits thereof are mystically represented and exhibited therein And in this sence it is ordinarily called a Sacrifice and a commemorating Sacrifice in ancient Writers and Liturgies But the Romish Church not satisfied herewith in the Trent-Assembly thundreth an Anathema against them who deny their Mass to be verum proprium Sacrificium Concil Trid. Seff 22. Can. 1 3. a true and proper Sacrifice and to be a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the Quick and the Dead for Sins Punishments c. And they assert that the Elements being properly transubstantiated Christ doth in this sence yield himself to be sacrificed per Sacerdotes sub signis immolandum Ibid. cap. 1 2. and that this is as compleatly a Sacrifice for Sin as that he himself once offered and the very same solâ offerendi ratione diversa And Bellarmine dares to say of this Sacrifice of the Mass Bellarm. in Expos Doctr. Christ de Poenitent Mundum Deo reconciliat it reconciles the World to God But this their Sacrifice is contrary to the Doctrine of the Scripture and derogatory to the Honour of Christ's Oblation in that it was the Excellency of his Sacrifice above the Aaronical Ones that there is no place for the daily Offering and Repetition thereof Heb. 7.27 Chap. 10.10 11 12 14.18 Chap. 9.25 26 28. since by one Offering once made he hath perfectly accomplished the End of Sacrificing as the Apostle largely asserteth nor can he die any more And their Transubstantiation on which this is founded carrieth so plain Contradictions to the Evidence of Sense the Principles of Reason and the plain Assertions of Scripture and is attended with such numerous and palpable Absurdities that the general Belief of such a thing by those of the Romish Communion may be placed among the chief Miracles really wrought in that Church And the Sacrifice of Christ was on this account expiatory in that by the Satisfaction he made to his Father he so far appeased his Wrath and procured his Favour towards Man as to obtain the Terms Grace and Blessings of the New Covenant Wherefore if the very same Sacrifice be really offered in every Mass it must be to the same end and then not only the Redemption of Man must be there made but the original Sanction of the Gospel-Covenant must be then and not before established Besides this as the High-Priest who offered the Expiatory Sacrifice under the Law must enter with the Blood thereof into the Holy of Holies So the Apostle acquaints us that Christ who is an High-Priest and an High-Priest after the Order of Melchisedec offering himself as an Expiation for Sin must by his Blood-enter into the holy Place not made with hands even into Heaven it self Wherefore no Man can undertake properly to offer this Sacrifice but such an High-Priest who with the Blood thereof doth enter into Heaven it self Heb. 9.11 12 23 24 and not still abide upon Earth 2. We must reject all Power of reconciling any adult Persons unto God who do not perform the other Conditions of the Gospel-Covenant If Simon Magus receive Baptism in Hypocrisy he doth not receive Remission of Sins but is in the Bond of Iniquity and the Devil may enter into him who taketh the holy Communion unworthily as he entred into Judas He that comes to receive Reconciliation without pious care of serious Repentance is as the Man under the Law who came to be purified but brings an unclean thing with him before the Lord which is a kind of bidding Defiance to the Holiness of God and the Purity of his Worship Now the Church of England declares in her Liturgy that Christ hath left a Power to his Church to absolve all Sinners who truly repent and believe in him And that he is the merciful Receiver of all true penitent Sinners and most willing to pardon us if we come unto him with faithful Repentance if we will submit our selves to him and from henceforth walk in his Ways with much more to that purpose But in the Romish Church where they make such a distinction between Contrition and Attrition as that the latter is an imperfect Grief which doth not include the Love of God above all nor doth always take in with it a Detestation of Sin as the former doth their Doctors out of a strange Looseness of Principles assert the Duty of Contrition very rarely to oblige any Man And even the Council of Trent favoureth that Position Sess 14. cap. 4. That Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution is sufficient to please God concerning which the Generality of their Authors speak much more plain and many of them urge the Authority of this Council This is called by Valentia receptissimum Axioma a most received Maxim and tho there are some Doctors Greg. de Val. Tom. 4. Disp 7. Qu. 8. Punct 3. who require Contrition as needful with that Sacrament he saith this is Sententia vix tolerabilis an Assertion that may hardly be tolerated Filiucius who was Professor in the Jesuits College at Rome and the Pope's Penitentiary asserteth Filiuc Tr. 6. c. 8. n. 197. Ex vi justitiae ad Deum c. That upon account of doing what in Justice we owe to God he that hath Attrition with the Sacrament is not bound in Duty to be contrite no not in the hour of Death Indeed he there saith that upon account of Charity to God or themselves Men may be bound to be contrite viz. if they would secure themselves tho they should miss the Sacrament of Penance or would do more for God than he requireth Filiuc Tr. 7. c. 6. n. 14. M. Canus de Poenit. Relect. 4. But in another place he tells us That enough is done to satisfy the Duty of Repentance by Attrition with the Sacrament And Canus asserteth Deus nihil amplius exigit God requires no more than either Contrition without the Sacrament or Attrition with the Sacrament To the same purpose also speaketh Becanus and Greg. de Valentia denieth it to be needful with the Sacrament Becan Schol. Th. part 3. c. 35. qu. 6. to have any such Disposition which is putata Contritio or which they suppose to be Contrition But is this a Doctrine suitable to the Purity of God and the holy Jesus that Men may all their Life-time be so like to Devils as not to have any single Act of Hatred against Sin or of Love of God above all things and yet by a few Words of the Priest as strange a thing as the Power of Transubstantiating be transformed into Saints but without any
I shall only here further observe that in the very beginning of Christianity the distinction of the Officers of the Christian Church was owned and acknowledged to be correspondent and parallel to the distinction of the Officers of the Jewish Temple-Service the observing of which seemeth of considerable moment in this case Even St. Hierome declares That what place Aaron Hieron ad Evagr. Epiph. Haer. 29. 78. Hieronym de scrip Eccles in Jacobo Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 23 gr his Sons and the Levites had in the Temple the same have the Bishops Priests and Deacons in the Church It is related concerning St. James the first Bishop of Jerusalem by Epiphanius out of Clemens that he did wear the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is in the Septuagint the Plate upon the high Priest's Mitre on which was engraven Holiness to the Lord and he as also S. Hierome and Eusebius from Egesippus relate that to him only it was lawful to enter into the Holy of Holies 〈…〉 Now all these Christian â—â—â—iters with others who use somewhat like expressions as â—â—â—crates concerning St. John must never be thought to â—â—â—â—pire together to impose Fables upon the after-Ages 〈◊〉 â—ould they be so much wanting in the knowledge of Christianity as to imagine that these great Officers of the Christian Church were Jewish High Priests and ministred in their Temple-Service but the sense of these expressions though they may seem at first view obscure is that S. James was acknowledged to have a like eminency of Office above others in the Christian Church of Jerusalem as the Jewish High-Priest had above other Priests in the Jewish Church Naz. Or. 5. And Nazianzen expresseth his being ordained Bishop by these and other like words saith he Thou anointedst me an High-Priest and broughtst me to the Altar of the Spiritual Burnt-Offering sacrificedst the Calf of Initiation and madest me view the Holy of Holies Which words evidence that the Christian Bishop by an Allegorical Allusion was described by words primarily relating to the Jewish High-Priest because of a Parallel eminency in each of them Now this Observation shews the distinction of these Officers of the Christian Church Euseb HIst l. 2. c. 1. Hieron de script Eccles from the very beginning thereof St. James being ordained Bishop of Jerusalem very soon after our Saviour's Ascension And this will further evidence that as the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the Jewish Writers frequently mention the Officers of the Temple-Service only by the names of Priests and Levites including therein the High-Priest whose Office was distinct from the other Priests so it is no prejudice to the like distinction of Offices under the New Testament that in the Scriptures and some other ancient Writers the Officers above Deacons are sometimes expressed by the name of Bishops sometime of Elders Priests or Presbyters whilst yet we have very plain Testimony of the singular eminency of one who hath since been peculiarly called the Bishop I come now to the last thing to be discoursed of the Divine Authority by which this Ministry is established God in Christ hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation and this speaketh three things 1. The true Original of this Function God the Father gave the Ministry of Reconciliation our Lord sent his Apostles as his Father sent him and the Holy Ghost made the Elders of Ephesus to be Overseers of the Flock And here not only St. Paul who was called immediately but Timothy also even as those other Elders of Ephesus being called by Men whom God made chief Officers in his Church received this Ministry by Divine Authority and therefore the Administrations thereof are performed in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost This therefore is such a Sanction as every Person upon Earth ought to reverence and whosoever either despise or oppose this Ministry had need seriously and timely to consider whose Authority they undertake to affront When our Saviour appointed the Twelve Apostles and afterwards the Seventy Mat. 10.15 Luke 10 12. he bids them both to shake off the Dust of their Feet against that City that should not receive them and tells them it shall be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that City and declares further even to the Seventy who were then of the lowest rank of them whom he sent Luke 10.16 he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me But for all those who are employed about God's Work and are warranted by his Authority if they be faithful in his Service 1 Pet. 5.4 they shall be here under his Care and hereafter partakers of his Reward St. Peter acquaints us that when the chief Shepherd shall appear they shall receive a Crown of Glory that fadeth not away Rev. l. 16 20. ch 2. l. and St. John assures us That our Lord himself holdeth the seven Stars or the Angels of the seven Churches in his right hand 2. This speaks also the Excellency of this Ministry As it is from God it is properly and eminently a Gift of God even a Gift of that high Nature that when Christ in his glorious Exaltation received Gifts for Men he then gave some Pastors and Teachers Eph. 4 1â— and as Head of his Church established this fixed Ministry And if we consider it as it respects Men the most excellent Designs are thereby pursued to wit the promoting among Men the Glory of God and the Kingdom and Government of Jesus Christ and the conducting Men into the Ways of God and thereby unto Peace and Reconciliation with him and to everlasting Happiness Hereupon they who serve God in this Office 1 Cor. 3.9 2 Cor. 6.1 are owned to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Fellow-workers with God himself as under God carrying on the great Design of God and his Goodness in the World And this speaks it an Institution of great Value Worth and Honour And as I above noted this Ministry to excell the Jewish Priesthood which yet was very excellent so St. Chrysostom observes That God hath given this high Honour thereto Chrysost de Sacerdot l. 3. c. 5. which he hath not given to the holy Angels and Archangels themselves to be Ministers of Reconciliation and to dispense in his Name the Pledges of his Grace and Favour unto the Members of his Church 3. This sheweth that no Man may take this Honour unto himself but he that entreth into any Order of this Ministry must do it in that way which God appointeth The Apostles were constituted and commissionated immediatly by Christ himself and as he committed the general Care of his Church to them he therewith endued them with a Power to ordain others which is a chief part of that Care and of great concernment for the present and future Good of the Church The Assistants of the Apostles and the first Bishops and other Officers of the several
Churches were ordained by some one or more of the Apostles or of those Apostolical Men who received Ordination from them The ancient Testimonies of the Fathers assure us Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren l. 3. c. 3. Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 35. gr Acts 6.3 6. Acts 14.23 Eus Hist l. 3. c. 23. gr that Clemens was ordained by St. Peter and Polycarp by St. John The Scriptures acquaint us that the seven Deacons were constituted by the twelve Apostles and where Paul and Barnabas came they ordained Elders in every Church And Eusebius declares as a Matter of certain Truth that St. John in his old Age in some places made Bishops and in others planted whole Churches After the Apostles had committed particular Churches to the Care of their Bishops or Metropolitans they also intrusted the Power of Ordination peculiarly in their hands which indeed is included in committing to them the chief Care of the Church Titus 1.5 1 Tim. 3. 1-14 15. To this purpose Titus was appointed to ordain Elders in every City of Crete and Timothy directed how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God concerning the Ordination of its Officers And from these Principles the Truth of what Clemens Romanus declareth may be easily inferred Epist ad Cor. p. 57. That the Apostles ordered that when those chief Officers of the Church whom they had appointed should die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their places should succeed them in the same Office and Ministration and therefore with a Power of Ordination And the universal Consent of genuine Antiquity shews the ancient Church to have received and followed that Platform and Model which was framed by the Apostles for Episcopal Eminency in Government and Power in Ordination To this purpose both Tertullian and Irenaeus urge this Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. as a convictive Argument against the later Brood of Heresies That the Catholick Church could produce such a Catalogue of their Bishops and the Succession of them which would manifest that the first of them who was fixed in their several Churches was there placed by the Apostles themselves or by Apostolical Men their Assistants And the Succession in divers chief Churches is still preserved in ancient Writers and Ecclesiastical Historians And that the Power of Ordination especially was peculiar to the Bishop besides the Testimony of ancient Canons and Practice is acknowledged even by St. Hierom. Hieron ad Evagr. ◠And the placing of this Power in a single Person was of great necessity and usefulness for preserving the Churches Peace and Unity From hence I conclude that Episcopal Ordination was according to the Constitution of the Apostles and constant Practice of the Ancient Church the only regular way of entring into this Office and Ministry of Reconciliation and he that knows how easy a thing it is to raise plausible Objections almost against any thing will not be much moved by such as some produce in this case against so plain Evidence and general Testimony Indeed there have been some and but some Protestant Foreign Churches not the Bohemian as some English Writers have unfaithfully misrepresented it nor those of Sueden and the Danish Dominions nor divers others in Germany who have been without this Episcopal Ordination and it must be said that in this particular which is a matter of moment they are defective in that Primitive Apostolical Order which we observe But in the first fixing these Churches and their Ministry all things seem not to have been done as they would have chosen but as their present Circumstances would give them leave while they wanted that Privilege which our Reformation enjoyed the Consent of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors For besides the Expressions of particular Writers the French Protestants in their General Confession Confes Gallic c. 31. concerning the Entrance into the Ministry pleaded a Necessity in their Reformation of having some things done extra ordinem out of the regular Way with respect to the making up the Ruines and Decays of the Church Yea those Churches themselves and the most worthy Men among them are no Opposers but Approvers of this Government and Order as hath been sufficiently shewed concerning many principal Persons among them And even in the Synod of Dort when those sent from England asserted Episcopacy as Apostolical there was not as they declared in their joint Attestation any one Person in that Synod who spake a Word against it yea as Bishop Hall acquaints us the President of the Synod said Domine Divine Right of Episcopacy part 1. c. 4. non licet nobis esse tam faelices We may not be such happy Men. Now I conceive it becomes private Persons not to be over forward in judging other Churches but to express as much Charity towards them as the case will bear but to shew no such respect to any as to neglect a due Reverence to whatsoever is of God Wherefore I shall only note three things in general 1. That it is indeed a Truth that some positive Precepts may in extraordinary cases be dispensed with by the Goodness of God who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice This was that which warranted David's Men in eating the Shew-Bread In this case Circumcision was forborn in the Wilderness and the Jewish Casuists thought that Precept not to oblige Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 7.19 when the circumcising an Infant was inevitably like to procure his Death The sacrificing in another place than that which God had singly appointed was practised by Samuel as well as others after the Destruction of Shiloh and before the Building of the Temple and by Elijah under the general Defection of Israel The celebrating Baptism by Persons unordained was allowed in the ancient Church Hieron adv Lucif si necessitas cogit as St. Hierom phraseth it And the Command that all the Males of Israel should three times in the Year appear before the Lord doth yet by the Letter of the Scripture give allowance to him who was in a Journey and by the reasonable Interpretation of the Jewish Writers 1 Sam. 1.21 V. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 186 187. the same Liberty was to be extended to those in Childhood and Infancy as Samuel was and to those in Sickness Old-Age and such like 2. Yet it becomes all good Men who are to obey God and reverence his Institutions not to be forward in judging themselves disobliged by the appearance of such Cases as they account extraordinary from Obedience to any of his Rules of Order When Saul thought he had a Case of Necessity to warrant his Sacrificing yet God was highly displeased therewith and deprived him of his Kingdom Nor might Vzzah touch the shaking Ark. 3. In ordinary cases he who willingly breaks positive Rules established by God's Authority is guilty of heinous moral Evil in disobedience to God's Commands contempt of his Government and
for Life is worth the valuing Now here upon the first mention of returning to God are some overtures of hope v. 13. He is gracious and merciful v. 14. Who knows if he will return and repent And after the continuance of solemn and serious Devotion required in the following Verses we have a plain and clear promise of help v. 18. Then will the Lord he jealous for his Land and pity his People So excellent and efficacious a prescription is true Repentance and returning to God that upon this the Scene of affairs is presently changed And whereas all that part of this Prophecy which goeth before this Text contained doleful and heavy Judgments From this Verse forward there are great Blessings and Comforts promised to Judah and Judgments denounced against her Enemies even unto the end of this whole Prophecy Thus hereby the dark Night endeth in the appearance of a bright Day and the stormy Tempest is blown over and behold a Calm In these words we have 1. The Authority by which they are commanded Therefore also now saith the Lord. So that we have here a Divine Law and Precept even with respect to these foregoing Circumstances which had a terrible Aspect But how sad soever they were God himself directs to a way of help There is no state how perplexed and uncomfortable soever in this World but which is intended of God to deter Men from Sin Even in the severest threatnings of God's Wrath and Anger there is as Cl. Alexandrinus expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a kindness and love to Men by such Threatnings to reclaim them from their Sin and reduce them from the Paths of Ruine And this Phrase therefore also now saith the Lord doth also give notice of somewhat remarkable which followeth which requireth our special attention and diligent observation 2. The chief thing here expressed is the Precept or useful Direction it self Turn ye even unto me with all your heart This I shall insist upon and thence shall undertake to shew That Pious and Penitent behaviour towards God and hearty turning to him is always useful and is the best way for remedy under the greatest difficulties And of this I shall discourse as the nature of the subject requireth with the greatest plainness and evidence that I can The Duty here enjoined is of great concernment and usefulness To a Man's self a quickned and renewed exercise of his Duty brings inward Peace intitles him to the Blessing and Favour of God and the Rewards of his Kingdom The state of the World and of the Church is such That many Men know not whither to look or turn and then the most useful and necessary undertaking is to direct their eyes to God and turn unto him Other acts of prudent care are in their places needful also but there is no true Prudence in the neglect of this which is of greatest moment The Prodigal Son in his straits could take no wiser course than to bethink himself and return to his Father and thereby he takes the best care of his Duty and his Welfare both together And this true penitent application to God is the sure and only way to obtain his favour Zech. 1.3 Turn ye unto me saith the Lord of Hosts and I will turn unto you saith the Lord of Hosts In speaking to this Duty I shall enquire into these two things I. What Encouragements have we for obtaining good fr om God by our hearty turning to him II. What is it to turn to God with all our heart or what must be done by us for the right performing this Duty Qu. 1. What Encouragements have we that we may receive good from God by hearty turning to him This enquiry is sutable to the design and occasion of my Text these words being proposed as a way for receiving help and good This also is of great use with respect to the Duty it self since Men are not forward to undertake things which they think will be to no purpose and will tend to no advantage And this also is needful with respect to the general state of Religion since he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him Wherefore I shall here consider the more general encouragement we have to turn to God from the nature of God himself and then the particular encouragements from the state and nature of Christianity Among the various Encouragements from the Nature and Being of God I shall only mention two things 1. God's Supreme Government and Authority Upon this account his favour is highly valuable because he disposeth of all the great Affairs and Concerns of Men. For he orders the final Judgment which concerns the eternal state of Men and this will proceed according to the Rules of Righteousness and the New-Covenant and according to the Sentence which will then be pronounced must every Man 's endless Condition be But with respect to that Day those who are hard and impenitent do treasure up Wrath against the day of Wrath but those who turn unto God shall inherit Life And God so disposeth of all private and publick Affairs in this World that thereupon it is of great concernment to have him well-pleased with us And if a gracious Prince standing by his faithful Subject or a righteous Judg taking in with an honest and just Cause be the Advantage of those who are concerned therein much more is the Kindness and Care of God greatly valuable For no Evil befalls any without his hand nor are there any publick Calamities but such as are his Judgments He can and oft doth defeat the Counsels of Men and discover their secret Contrivances and he governs them and their Actions and the Events thereof Herein we have hitherto had cause to admire the Goodness and Wisdom of God and his Counsel shall stand 2. The Goodness and Purity of his Nature This shews his great readiness to express his Favour to them who heartily turn to him The Order and Beauty of the Creation and the constant and abundant Supplies of Providence are Evidences of God's great Bounty and Readiness to communicate of his Goodness to his Creatures The Light of this World is not so diffusive of it self as the Goodness of God is since from him as the Father of Lights cometh every good Gift But that Purity which the Perfection of the Divine Being doth assure us to be in God and which even our own Consciences must also acknowledg speaks Goodness and Piety to be acceptable to God and the Persons who are exercised therein to be peculiarly the Objects of his Favour And as he is a Governour Obedience and Reverence must be both due to him and pleasing in his sight And indeed no good Man is so highly pleased with Goodness and Seriousness as the holy God is and there is nothing in his whole Creation that he esteems so much He hath said Heaven is my Throne and Earth is my Footstool
by the Persecutions it endured but should prevail under them And if it had not been from the Support of the Power of God the Christian Church in its weakest Estate could never have stood against the Wisdom and Power of the World which was then engaged against it but God then did and yet will uphold his Church even to the end And with a particular eye to God's especial Care hereof in these latter Times we read that when the Thousand Years were ended and the Nations and Gog and Magog compassed the Camp of the Saints and the beloved City then Fire came from God out of Heaven and devoured them Rev. 20.8 9. And those Interpreters who would understand these Phrases of the Camp of the Saints and the Beloved City concerning any particular City or Place upon Earth seem not herein to observe the Nature of the Prophetick Style which will direct us to understand it of the more eminent and chief part of the Christian Church Wherefore we have great grounds for expecting Good from God if we mind our Duty to him Now upon this Encouragement let us in the Fear of God undertake this Duty that we may be instrumental to the procuring Good to the Church of God and that we our selves may be Partakers of eternal Happiness This is the way to have God to be our Friend and no other Peace in the World can be concluded and secured upon those advantagious Terms as our having Peace with God may be And therefore I shall now come to the second thing I proposed to discourse of what we are here commanded to do Quest 2. What is it to turn to God with all our Heart Answ This is one and the same thing with Repentance The Septuagint express this Phrase of Turning in the Text by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or being converted to God And this supposeth or includeth 1. A serious Consideration and minding of our Rule together with the Motives that should put us upon a Practice answerable thereto This Rule is the Word of God or the Holy Scripture as superadded to the natural Light of Reason and Conscience Upon due pondering of this Josiah's Heart was tender and he humbled himself and undertook a Reformation 2. Self-reflection and Examination of our Minds Ways and Actions by this Rule with this stedfast purpose that nothing may be entertained or allowed in us which is not agreeable thereunto 3. An humble and serious Sorrow for past Miscarriages with hearty and unfeigned Confession of Sin and earnest Supplication to God for the obtaining Mercy 4. A resolved undertaking to forsake all Evil in Heart and Life and to do our Duty These things are so plain in the Nature of them and so evidently necessary in their general Consideration that they need not either further Explication or Proof The Practice and Exercise of Repentance and turning to God taketh in all these but both the Phrase of Turning and the chief Design of Repentance hath principal respect to the last of them it being all one to turn to God and to return to and carefully set upon our Duty And therefore I shall now insist on this and that we may practise these things to good effect I shall urge some particular Instances which are of great use to be performed in our minding this Duty 1. In avoiding Schisms and Divisions and practising Unity and Peace 2. In the forsaking Debauchery and Profaneness and the embracing Seriousness and Sobriety 3. In rejecting all Irreligion and Neglect of the Worship of God and engaging our selves in true Piety and hearty Devotion 1. In the avoiding Schisms and Divisions and practising Unity and Peace How many and frequent are the Precepts for Peace and Unity delivered in the Doctrine of our Saviour and how earnestly is this urged and inculcated If there be any Consolation in Christ c. saith the Apostle Phil. 2.1 2. Fulfill ye my Joy being of one accord and of one mind And if we view and consider the Business of our Religion as it was delivered by our Saviour and his Apostles this will be found to be one of its great and weighty Precepts And shall we then be forward to contend about other lesser things to the neglect of this As the Scribes and Pharisees would tithe Mint Anise and Cummin but neglected the weighty Things of God's Law St. Paul tells us The Kingdom of God is not Meat and Drink but Righteousness Peace and Joy in the Holy-Ghost For he that in these Things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Rom. 14.17 18. In which Words it is very plainly asserted that whilst some other Things which Men may contend about are of less moment these Things here mentioned are of great concernment to Religion it self and the being esteemed of God and good Men. And as Peace is one of these great Duties here urged so that the Apostle had a very particular Eye thereupon may be concluded from the Words immediatly following v. 19. Let us therefore follow after the Things which make for Peace And the Neglect of this Duty is very hurtful and pernicious to the Christian Church For as in the Body when it is rent and torn and the Members disjointed there must be from this very Cause great Disorders Weakness and Feebleness so is it also in the Church of God Yea these Things are to be accounted of dangerous Consequence for the undermining or shaking the Kingdom of Christ since our Lord himself hath told us that a Kingdom divided against it self is brought to Desolation And shall any good Man be pleased to join with the Enemy in his Designs against the welfare stability and safety of the Church of Christ Now besides many other Arguments which might be insisted on to disswade from Schisms and Divisions there are two things I shall recommend to you as being well worthy your serious consideration First making Divisions in the Church either includes a total want or at least a defect in a great degree of the true Spirit of Christianity This must needs be so because the observing Peace and Unity are so great a part and duty of our Religion If we reflect on our Baptism we are baptized into one Body and therefore are to observe Unity And when S. Paul urgeth the Ephesians to take care of that great Duty of walking worthy of that Vocation wherewith they were called Eph. 4.1 To that end he most particularly and largely insists on their keeping the Vnity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace v. 3 c. And from this very Reason he concluded the Corinthians to be carnal because of the envying strife and divisions that were among them 1 Cor. 3.3 And where-ever the Peace and Unity of the Church is broken from those corrupt Principles of Pride Self-will and the carelesness of obeying God's Commandments this speaks such an unchristian temper as will exclude such Persons from the Kingdom of God And therefore those very phrases the Apostle
of God in it that all his Revelations to the Patriarchs and Prophets and especially that by the Holy Jesus to the Christian Church do greatly insist upon it When the Gentile World went greatly astray by their abominable Idolatries and their gross Impurities even in their pretendedly Religious Rites the Doctrine of the Gospel appears to turn them from the Power of Satan unto God When the Jews had been under a lower Dispensation our Lord gives his Disciples more excellent Rules and enlargeth the Precepts of the Moral Law as was truly asserted by Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus St. Augustine and other ancient Writers And why should it be thought strange that Lawgiver should add to the Precepts already given and extend them further who established many new Duties such as to believe the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Faith to perform many religious Services in his Name and with an eye to him to attend on the Gospel-Sacraments to reverence the Christian Ministry and the Power of the Keys and to own and embrace Communion with the diffusive Catholick Church in all Nations He laid new Obligations upon his Disciples concerning Divorce and the changing the Zeal of Elias into Christian Meekness And it is but reasonable to expect that under the Instructions and Motives of Christianity there should be required greater Measures of the Love of God and Goodness But when the Jewish Church had in their Principles and Practices grosly degenerated from the great Design of the Law and many Corruptions were introduced our Lord protests against them and gives his Disciples this Admonition That their Righteousness must exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees The Pharisees were the strictest Sect of the Jews at that time the Scribes were their chief Teachers and Guides their Righteousness here intended was what was according to the Rules and Doctrines they delivered and received Against that Leaven of Doctrine our Lord warned his Disciples Mat. 16.12 The out-doing and exceeding this Righteousness is so necessary that it is enjoined under this severe Sanction That otherwise we can in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The Kingdom of Heaven is a Phrase peculiar to St. Matthew among all the Penmen of the Scripture but hath been observed not to be unusual in the Talmud Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.3 and other Jewish Writers It sometimes expresseth in this Evangelist the Kingdom of Christ in his Church on Earth but in this place and others the Kingdom of Glory and eternal Happiness But if any should think these Words directly to assert that none whose Righteousness exceeds not that of the Pharisees and their Teachers the Scribes can be true Members of the Christian Church and Christ's Kingdom upon Earth he must consequently acknowledg that they cannot be Heirs of Heaven Yet these Pharisees were not so wholly irreligious but that they attended the Temple and Synagogues made many Prayers seem'd to have a great Veneration for the Law and a Zeal for the Honour of the God of Israel They were not so grosly dissolute and debauched as to give themselves up to Uncleanness Intemperance and all Unmercifulness but they condemned Adultery fasted and gave Alms. Wherefore it may be needful to enquire I. What were the Miscarriages in their Righteousness and wherein must we exceed them if ever we attain to Happiness II. How stands the Case of those Societies who chiefly pretend to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees III. What is the Result of these Enquiries I. Touching their Miscarriages and Defects 1. They placed much Righteousness in their being a peculiar Party and maintaining a kind of Separation They were a particular Sect having and needlesly affecting singular Practices and Opinions different from the other Jews and such as were not enjoined in the Law of Moses The Name Pharisee is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and divide and themselves were distinguished into seven sorts as the Jewish Writers tell us They did not indeed withdraw themselves from the Synagogue or Temple Publick-Worship since as Josephus saith Antiq. Jud. l. 18. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever referred to God both Prayer and other parts of Worship were much ordered by their Model But concerning the Synagogue-Worship there is probable Evidence that the several chief Sects among the Jews and therefore the Pharisees as one of them had their distinct Assemblies And it is certain the Pharisees did reject the best of Men from their Synagogue-Communion meerly for doing their necessary Duty in professing upon the fullest Divine Testimony that Jesus was the Christ and becoming his Followers And in the Temple-Worship the Pharisees were guilty of a kind of Separation under an appearance of Communion For since the daily Sacrifice in the Temple was a Burnt-Offering and therefore appointed for Expiation and Atonement Num. 28.3 the Devotions of them who attended at the Temple at the Hours of Prayer and Sacrifice ought to be conformable thereunto but the Pharisees Prayer there as our Saviour describes it had nothing in it of humble Supplication for God's Mercy and Favour but he thanks God he was not as other Men. And this Spirit of Division was so much the worse in them because it was founded in an high Conceit and great Confidence of their own Righteousness though they had little reason for it and in a contempt of others But now such a proud Temper is inconsistent with Christianity which makes Humility a necessary Qualification for the obtaining everlasting Life And Divisions and Separations are so unaccountable for the Members of the same Body the Church to be engaged in that the Doctrine of Christ gives us frequent Precepts earnest Exhortations and pressing Arguments to Peace and Unity and plainly expresseth the great Danger of Misery in the neglect thereof When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Contests fierce Heats and Divisions are reckoned among those Works of the Flesh which exclude from the Kingdom of God Gal. 5. can any think the great Discords in the Church unconcerned herein when the Concord of Christians is here chiefly enjoined and the Neglect thereof is every way exceeding hurtful and when all these very Expressions are used by St. Paul to set forth the Divisions of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 3.3 And therefore where-ever Rents or Schisms in the Church are Works of the Flesh as they must be when they are the Product of Pride Self-will or voluntary Disobedience to or Neglect of the Precepts of Peace and Unity they are destructive The Ancient Church charged an high Guilt upon these Practices Cypr. ep 76. ◠St. Cyprian accounts Schism greatly to deprive Men of the Hope of Christianity And St. Austin maintains against the Donatists that their Separation was as great a Sin as that of the Traditores who gave up the Scriptures into the hands of their Persecutors with which Crime the
such circumstances as I forbear to mention And the consideration of this temper may give us some account of the great eagerness and restless earnestness of these erring Parties in propagating their particular Interests 3. Concerning the aiming to gain the applause and favour of Men in the neglect of Duty Our Church in its Rules of Doctrine lays the same stress upon all Duties to God or Man that the Gospel of our Saviour doth without yielding to the Humours of the Profane the Debauched or the Turbulent and Unruly The Romanists suit themselves to all Dispositions they have severe Rules in some of their Regular Societies for the more Serious but they take great care to gratify Wicked and Debauched Persons also with as much Liberty as they can well desire Their Casuists generally declare That an act of Attrition or such Sorrow for Sin as is not accompanied with hatred against it or the true Love of God is at last sufficient with Absolution to remove the guilt of Sin and secure them from Eternal Death But if temporal Punishment remains for them this can only bring them to Purgatory and here they may have considerable help from Indulgences and the Treasury of the Church which are dispensed for Ave-Maries and other Prayers visiting certain places having Masses said for their Souls and by other works without their becoming really holy and good And besides this their feigned Miracles and Revelations their pretended power of Transubstantiating of dispensing the Treasury of Merits in the Church and of justifying them who are not contrite by Absolution seem methods contrived to gain admiration from the People And other Sects make their Interests and seek Reputation by popular Arts and often by promoting or conniving at Uncharitableness Mens high Conceits of themselves and a Temper averse from Unity and Obedience which are things of a very evil Nature And some of their chief Teachers acknowledg that in some things they act against their own Judgments in compliance with their People 4. Concerning Superstitious urging those things as parts of Religion which are not such Our Church owneth no necessary Article of Faith but what is in our Creed nor any Doctrines of Christianity but what are deducible from the Holy Scriptures Our Constitutions for Decency and Rules of Order are established only as such and are withal innocent useful few and agreeing to Primitive Christianity But at Rome a great part of their Religion as they make it consists in acknowledging many things to be de Fide which are neither contained in the Scriptures agreeing with them nor acknowledged in the ancient Church in entertaining various false Doctrines and pretended Traditions with equal reverence to the Holy Scriptures and in using divers Rites as operative of Divine Aid and Grace which God never appointed to that end Our other dividing Parties are too nigh the Pharisaical Doctrine concerning the Obligation of their voluntary Vow against their Duty to Superiours And many of them lay a Doctrinal Necessity either upon disowning Episcopal Authority which hath so great a Testimony of Apostolical Appointment Or in being against Forms of Prayer at least such wherein the People vocally join or in condemning as sinful innocent Appointments decent Ceremonies and suitable Gestures And those who own not these Positions nor condemn our Worship as sinful and yet divide from us must assert other Positions for Doctrines which are equally erroneous and dangerous For if their Principles be agreeable to their Practice they must assert that Men may break the Churches Peace and expose it to the greatest hazards gratify its Enemies and disobey Authority which are great Sins to maintain an opposition to those things which themselves dare not charge with any Sin But this is to aver such Doctrine to be from God which is contrary to his Religion his Nature and his Will and are but the Precepts of Men and it is to strain at a Gnat but swallow a Camel Now if to counterfeit the Seal or Coin or falsely to pretend to the Authority of an Earthly Prince be greatly culpable can it be otherwise to stamp a Divine Impression on things which God disowns 5. Concerning Obedience and Submission to Superiors this Duty is regularly enjoined in our Church both with respect to Private Relations Spiritual Guides and Civil Rulers In the Romish Church there is strict Obedience required in their several Orders to the Superiors thereof in the Laiety to the Clergy and in all to the Pope But this is so irregular that thereby the natural Honour to Parents is much discharged and St. Peter's Precept of Honouring the King is under the name of his Vicar changed into such Positions as when occasion serves may encourage the Deposing and Murdering him And among other Dissenters their Divisions as they are circumstantiated are ipso facto such visible Testimonies of their want of Submission to their Ecclesiastical and Civil Governours that nothing need be added And it is known there were some of these Parties whose Principles allowed them to take Arms against their King and who exposed his Royal Person to Violence and Death 6. Concerning a loose and licentious Life Our Church requires a Sincere Holy Exercise and presseth all the Precepts of our Saviour and the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel and enjoineth the careful observation of our Baptismal Vow But in the Romish Church he that considers the immoral looseness of the Jesuits and other Casuists may wonder that such things should be owned by Men of any Religion much more of them who profess the Christian Religion For instance By our Saviour's Doctrine to love God with all the heart is the great and first Commandment But Azorius asserts Azor. Tom. 1. l. 9. c. 4. That it is hard to fix any time when this Precept of Loving God doth oblige to any exercise thereof with respect to it self but only when it is necessary to Repentance And he roundly saith We are not obliged to any exercise of Love to God when we attain to the use of Reason nor at the receiving any Sacrament not at Confession nor at the approach of Death Filiuc Tr. 22. c. 9. Filiucius thinks this Opinion probable and therefore safe by their Doctrine of Probability but prefers another Opinion which is but little better That we are bound to act Love to God at the time of Death and in some other extraordinary cases if they happen and that ordinarily Men ought to exercise an act of Love to God at least once in five years But I am amazed to think how sparing such Men were of inward Religious Devotion and what Strangers to it And for the practice of Repentance which is another great Duty of our Religion Though Contrition which includes an hating and forsaking Sin and turning to God be acknowledged of good use by them yet Filiucius saith Fil. Tr. 6 c 8. n. 196 197 and 208. Men are not obliged to acts of Contrition every year but once in
five or seven years and that if they die without them they may be saved But Layman declares Laym l. 5. Tr. 6. c. 2. n. 6. That the Precept and Duty of Repentance is satisfied by coming once in a year with Attrition to Confession and the Sacrament of Penance and by doing the same at the time of Death But is not this a Religion set up to undermine the Holy Gospel of our Saviour and to intitle those workers of Iniquity to Heaven whom his Doctrine will condemn to Hell And our other Parties give too much allowance to some particular miscarriages which I have before mentioned And many of them lay not that stress they ought on a Holy Life in general which is included under Conversion and Repentance in that they do not account it a necessary condition or previous qualification for the obtaining the Favour of God and the Pardon of Sin or which is all one for Justification Having now gone through these Heads of Discourse I shall further here observe three things First That the Romanists are not only thus far guilty of equal but are chargeable with much greater miscarriages than those of the Scribes and Pharisees I might have run on the Parallel farther as when the one devoured Widows Houses under a pretence of long Prayers the other carry on the like designs of Covetousness and Extortion by their Indulgences and Masses for the Dead But the Pharisees were not so degenerate as to offer their Prayers or Sacrifices to Saints or even to Angels though the Law was given by their Ministration but to such the Romish Church directs a great part of her Religious Worship They gave not Divine Honour either to the Temple which was the place of God's Presence or to any Sacrifice as the Papists do to the Host They worshipped not the Invisible God under the debasing representation of an Image as the Samaritans did and the Romanists do And when God appointed a continual Burnt-Offering with a Meat-Offering and Drink-Offering they did not make so bold as to alter his Institutions and withdraw one part thereof as they at Rome have done concerning the distribution of the Eucharistical Cup. And when the Pharisees had only so much Pride as vainly to account themselves righteous and far better than others they did not as the Romanists do pretend to such Supererogation and so great a stock of Merits as to be able thereby to supply the defects of others But if they at Rome had what they pretend it had need be a vast Treasury of good Works to make amends for the notorious bad ones which are the result of the Positions allowed and maintained in that Church The Pharisees claimed a great Authority to be Masters of the Faith of others but it doth not appear that they founded this in so high and unreasonable a claim to Infallibility as they at Rome do the holding of which engageth them to continue in all their other Errors Nor were they so deeply uncharitable as utterly to exclude the Essens and all other Sects from the favour of God as the Romanists deal with all other Churches nor did they debar the people from reading the Scriptures Secondly I observe that other Dividing Parties though they are very different among themselves and are not all to be alike esteemed of yet either all or most of them have some miscarriages not received by the Scribes and Pharisees for instance the Pharisees did not slight or neglect the Sacraments of the Old Testament either Circumcision or the Passover as too many now do one or both the Sacraments of the New They never gave way that the Temple-Sacrifices and other such like Services of God should be performed by any other but only those Priests whom God had appointed for that purpose when many in our days can admit and allow the performance of Christian Ministrations by those who have no Regular Authoritative and Justifiable Ordination And such things however some esteem of them are of the greater moment because they violate the peculiar Institutions of our Lord and the ordinary way that he hath appointed for the conveying and applying the Grace of the Gospel and the benefits of his Death and Passion Thirdly I observe also that it must be acknowledged there were other great Crimes of the Scribes and Pharisees which are not chargeable on any of those Parties of whom I have discoursed Such were their professed disowning our Saviour and his Doctrine their actual contriving his Death and their obstinacy under those various mighty Miracles which were frequently wrought before their Eyes But as the former Transgressions which I mentioned have been particularly proved destructive so I think them to be especially intended in this severe censure of our Saviour of the insufficiency of their Righteousness For these words were uttered soon after he began to teach and before the Scribes and Pharisees had declared their greatest enmity to his Person their obstinacy under his Miracles or their contrivement of his Death and therefore they must have respect to their Righteousness according to that time when these words were spoken And the scope of his Discourse shews him to condemn as greatly defective such Rules of Doctrine and Practice as they then directed and proposed I now come in the third place as my Conclusion to note the result of these Enquiries in two particulars First This should warn those of the Romish and other opposite Perswasions to consider seriously of their own Danger and of what may conduce to their Safety If they think themselves sufficiently secure so did also the Scribes and Pharisees of whom our Saviour judged otherwise And I could heartily wish that all persons of their several Divisions were really free from all things sinful and dangerous I think my self obliged to express as much Charity to others as can be consistent with Truth and a sober Judgment And therefore I freely acknowledge that the several Parties who divide from our Church are not all equally chargeable with many things I have insisted on and I verily hope that in all these various divisions there may be several particular persons led aside by meer mistake and misapprehension and whose uprightness of intention may be a preservative to them from much of that evil they might otherwise be engaged in And though all Sin is every where prejudicial I hope also that those miscarriages which such persons are brought into by their undiscerned Errors will not exclude them from the Mercy of God and many of their Practices may be better than their Principles But whilst any of us may express our Charity towards them and hope the best it becomes them to have that care of themselves as to fear the worst For Charity doth not make the Condition of other Men safe unto whom it is extended but this must be determined by the Judgment of God Those Persons whose Minds or Practices are really worse than other Men hope them to be are in never the
better State for such charitable Hopes And whosoever are engaged in any of those Evils which were included in Pharisaism and condemned in Christianity had need carefully to reflect on themselves and heartily and timely to amend But if any should be offended at a Discourse that represents to them the Danger of their Practices and should be more ready to censure it as uncharitable than to weigh and consider it they may know that as this speaks a very bad Temper of Mind prevailing in them so the letting Men alone in their sinful Actions is so far from being any part of that Charity which our Saviour practised or enjoined that it is more agreeable with the Temper of the Evil One who is willing that they who do amiss should continue in their Evil be flattered therein and not so consider thereof as to forsake it Secondly Let all who are of our Church and whoever embrace the true Catholick Communion be careful and serious in practising Holiness and Righteousness Our Doctrine and Profession condemneth and disowneth all unsound Principles and corrupt Practices And as the more devout Jews daily blessed God that they were born Jews and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles so have we great reason to praise God that we live in this excellent Church and are thereby free from various Snares to which many others are exposed But if amongst us Debauchery Profaneness or Irreligion prevail upon any Persons whomsoever such Wickedness of Life will exclude Persons of the purest Profession and Belief from ever entring into Heaven St. Austin sometimes warns against this Aug. de Civ Dei l. 20. c. 9. de fid oper as a considerable Defect in the Pharisees Righteousness that while they sate in Moses's Chair our Lord tells us they say but do not If ever we will be happy our Practice must answer our Profession the Doctrine of Christianity is a Doctrine according to Godliness and must be improved to that End An Heretical or Schismatical Life as some ancient Writers call that vicious Conversation which separates the Man from the Ways of God and Religion is the more unaccountable and inexcusable when it contradicteth and crosseth the most Catholick Profession and the best Rules of Duty clearly proposed Wherefore let us be careful that as the Righteousness required in the Doctrine of our Church in conformity to the Gospel of our Saviour doth greatly exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees so may that of our Lives also in conformity to that Doctrine Which God of his Mercy grant through the Merits of our holy and blessed Saviour To whom c. FINIS BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Ric. Chiswell SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland and of Foreign Parts Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers in 2 Vol. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia c. B. Wilkin's real Character or Philosophical Language Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Guillim's Display of Heraldry with large Additions Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England in 2 Vol. Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion Herodoti Historia Gr. Lat. cum varils Lect. Bishop Sanderson's Sermons with his Life Fowlis's History of Romish Conspir Treas and Usurpat Dalton's Office of Sheriffs with Additions Office of a Justice of Peace with Additions Lord Cook 's Reports in English Edmunds on Caesar's Commentaries Sir John Davis's Reports Judge Yelverton's Reports The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits Seminary Priests Recusants the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgments and Resolutions of the Judges with other Observations thereupon by Will. Cawley Esq Josephus Antiquities and Wars of the Jews with Figures QVARTO DR Littleton's Dictionary Latin and English Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism History of the late Wars of New-England D. Outram de Sacrificiis Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Parkeri Disputationes de Deo The Magistrates Authority asserted in a Sermon By James Paston Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the Commons 1679. Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon April 9. 1671. Mr. John Cave's Fast Sermon on 30 of Jan. 1679. Assize Sermon at Leicester July 31. 1679. Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor 1679. History of the Powder Treason with a vindication of the proceedings relating thereunto Speculum Baxteriunum or Baxter against Baxter Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections Bibliotheca Norfolciana sive Catalogus Lib. Manuscript impress in omni Arte Lingua quos Hen. Dux Norfolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro scientiae naturali promovenda donavit OCTAVO BIshop Wilkin's Natural Religion Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy Lord Hollis's Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers in the Case of Skinner Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Appeals Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Impositions Letters about the Bishops Votes in Capital Cases Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History on Roots Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice Dr. Brown's Religio Medici with Digby's Observations Dr. Sympson's Chymical Anatomy of the York-shire Spaws with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains Hydrological Essays with an Account of the Allum Works at Whitby and some Observations about the Jaundice Organon Salutis or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach With divers new Experiments of the Vertue of Tobacco and Coffee with a Preface of Sir Henry Blunt Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity in three parts Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness Dr. Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists Record of Urines The Tryals of the Regicides in 1660. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil Moral Natural c. with a large account of all his Works by Dr. Tho. Tennison Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England Sir John Munson's Discourse of Supreme Power and Common Right Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts Mr. Seller's Remarks relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries The Country-man's Physician Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-Lands Markham's Perfect Horseman Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob about Catholick Communion The History of the House of Estee the Family of the Dutchess of York Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha or Natural Power of Kings Mr. John Cave's Gospel to the Romans Lawrence's Interest of Ireland in its Trade and Wealth stated DVODECIMO HOdder's Arithmetick Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christiana Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations An Apology for a Treatise of Humane Reason Written by M. Clifford Esq VICESIMO QVARTO VAlentine 's Devotions Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell AN Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author and divers other English-men now living there and of the Author 's miraculous Escape Illustrated with Fifteen Copper Figures and an exact Map of the Island By Capt. Robert Knox a Captive there near 20 years Folio Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation Octavo Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons never before Extant Mr. John Cave's two Sermons of the Duty and Benefit of Submission to the Will of God in Afflictions Quarto Dr. Crawford's serious Expostulation with the Whigs in Scotland 4o. A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome to which is added The Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy and their Protestation Published by Dr. Burnet Sir James Turner's Pallas Armata or Military Essays of the ancient Grecian Roman and Modern Art of War Folio Mr. Tanner's Primordia Or The Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described Octavo A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet Octavo Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the ancient Church by Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and the Encroachments of that upon other Sees especially Constantinople Octavo Dr. John Lightfoot's Works in English in two Volumes Folio Mr. Selden's Janus Anglorum Englished with Notes To which is added his Epinomis concerning the ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom never before Extant Also two other Treatises written by the same Author One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods Now the first time published Folio Jus Regium or the Foundations of Monarchy in general and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland maintain'd against Buchanan Napthali Dolman Milton c. By Sir George Mackenzie His Majesties Advocate in Scotland Octavo Several Discourses viz. Of Purity and Charity Of Repentance Of seeking first the Kingdom of God By Hezekiah Burton D.D. Published by John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo FINIS
be proved Yea evident it is that among the most eminent Fathers who lived not long after the Apostles daies there are acknowledged some errors and they were not alone in them but had many partakers and followers Cyprian erred about re-baptizing Justin Martyr Papias Irenaeus Lactantius and others were in the error of the Chiliasts and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors and in Clemens Alexandrinus and much more in Tertullian and Origen So that though this ground if the others all hold may help us to know the great points of Religion yet it can be no security to all the truths of God from the multitude of Believers The second ground is of the time nature with the former which concerns only the chief truths of Religion in the generality of Christians For the faithful could not while free from error believe this which is an error that the want of understanding any truth of God was the way to damnation for S. Paul saith expresly that they must receive the weak in the faith and God hath received him and God is able to make him stand Rom. 14.1 3 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth which they had evidence was of God was likewise dreadfully dangerous which would ingage them to hold fast all the truth they had received upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them yet would not the same inforcements lie upon them to shew the necessity either of their own knowing or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect and milk for the weak Yet I also assert that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel in the Apostles daies who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation who had capacities of understanding them but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes And the love of God and his truth would excite all the faithful as they had opportunity both to indeavour to know all truth of God and also firmly to receive and declare it but this will not free them from all ignorance or capacity of erring The third ground is many waies imperfect and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand for first it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers or to the greatest number of the Church visible but alas how evident is it that in all Ages the causes of hope and fear have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ as well as corrupting the practice of Christians and they who reject a good Conscience are in a ready way to make shipwrack of the Faith what possible security can be given that those Motives hopes and fears are a firm security to preserve Doctrine Secondly though it is not to be doubted but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears who had this Doctrine delivered to them yet considering that such pious men if considered as Fore-Fathers might have careless and wicked Children or as Priests and Teachers might have careless and irreligious Successors there must needs appear very great danger that in any family or place this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued by the prevalency of such hopes and fears Nor is this only a Notion since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresie and promoted it and taught it to their Children And since it is evident that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church there can be from this ground no rational security given that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful to deliver faithfully according to what they had received because it appears they did not act as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do His last ground likewise is unsound for in the way of Tradition all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable not only because as is abovesaid much may be undelivered by the truly faithful and much perversely delivered by the corrupt and much mistaken but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition For first we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles or without such a form if they deliver the Apostles very words it cannot be doubted but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it since the same words must needs signifie the same things But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery as the Rule of Faith pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth But a delivery without a form of words is only a delivery of what is conceived judged or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation and this is a way liable to error because it relies on the skill of every Generation or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner to every succession of deliverers Now as it is not certain that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth so for certain Controversies and Disputes they shew in many things that mens apprehensions are not unerrable Secondly if it had been certain that some in the late past Generations did deliver all truths fully yet in the way of Oral Tradition it cannot be known evidently who they are and which is that true Tradition for all men acquainted with Church History know that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church as about the Religious use of Images in the
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times