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
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
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
it a very high guilt which excludeth so much obstinacy against God And his Apostles were not only defamed by the false Apostles but Diotrophes also prateth against them with malicious words 3 Joh. 10. 14. Now both Ministers in the Church and Governours in the Kingdom are also established by Gods Authority and an honourable deportment towards them is strictly enjoyned by the Sanctions of his Law neither to Secular nor Ecclesiastical Governours When our Saviour sent forth not only the Apostles but even the Seventy Disciples he declared unto them Luk. 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me And the authority of secular Governours is so great that the powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation And so far as the laws of God prevail on the minds and tongues of men they will check and silence rash and defaming expressions against them S. Paul mentions this as one of those precepts of the law which lay a strict obligation upon Christians under the Gospel Act. 23.5 Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people Yea the commands of God will not allow so much as an uncharitable thought Eccl. 10.20 Curse not the King no not in thy thought 15. Tertullian gave a true account of the rules of Christianity and of the temper and spirit of the ancient primitive Christians of his age who endured heavy sufferings when he declares that (i) Apol. c. 36. ad Scap. c. 2. our Religion allows not us to desire act speak or think evil toward any much less towards Governours This contrary to the primitive Christian simplicity whom we must honour and reverence as appointed by God But it is a just matter of lamentation that the divine authority of Governours is little regarded among many men who profess Christianity which is a great testimony that true Religion and a sense of God is not duly entertained That in our age a very great part of men are forward rashly to censure and speak dishonourably both against secular rulers and the Bishops and Ministers of the Church is a thing so plain and obvious that observing men cannot but take notice of it and pious and good men are heartily grieved at it And this misbehaviour towards the pious Bishops of the Church was also many ages since observed and complained of and the ill effects thereof were in some measure provided against by the Canon of a (k) Concil Constant c. 6. General Council when discords and divisions prevailed in the Church And such calumnies as Balsamon there observeth Satan doth much endeavour to soment and cherish 16. Thus Corah and his company were forward with presumptuous confidence but agreeable to the presumption of Core to speak against Moses their chief Ruler and Aaron the Priest slandering and opposing them and this pleased the Congregation of Israel who were too ready to comply with them But this was so provoking to God and so pernicious to the Israelites that there were many exceeding severe punishments inflicted by God upon the Israelites for these offences For Numb 16. the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up Corah and his company the fire from the Lord consumed those men who intruded themselves into the office of the Priest to offer Incense and a dreadful plague brake out upon the Congregation and destroyed suddenly fourteen thousand and seven hundred but was stayed by Aarons making atonement And these things are so far written for our examples that where-ever the like sins are committed under the time of Christianity they are as evil and destructive as they were under the law of Moses since the Gospel gives particular precepts for the honouring Superiours and threats upon the neglect of them and S. Jude declares concerning such disobedient persons who swerved from the true Spirit of Christianity and despise dominion that they perished in the gainsaying of Core Jude 11. 17. Fourthly 4. Men of the sweetest and meekest behaviour are roughly dealt with by virulent tongues Our Saviour was a person of admirable meekness but neither did this preserve him from detraction and calumny He had no proud and haughty carriage he injured no man by word or deed nor gave them any just provocation It is frequent in the world that words and actions of strife and contention do kindle more strife though they ought not so to do If a storm be begun one wave will raise another but in a perfect calm to see the Sea grow boisterous of it self is somewhat unusual And whereas a fiery fierceness of temper is apt to kindle heats and disturbances it was observed in the writings of the Jewish Authors that the result or end of meekness (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is welfare peace and quiet and so it frequently is both to mans self and to them with whom he converseth but it was much otherwise in the practice of the Jewish Nation towards him who was the great pattern of meekness gentleness and patience 18. Indeed it is sinful for any Christians Licentious expressions not justified when occasioned by provocations to give way to their passions and unbecoming expressions though they meet with provocations These provocations are temptations laid before them but their Religion teacheth them to beware of and reject temptations and not to yield to them and suffer themselves to be overcome and prevailed upon by them Even when the Israelites provoked Moses so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips it went ill with him Psal 106.32 33. And when S. Paul was smitten contrary to the law Act. 23. he in that case acknowledgeth the obligation of this duty Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people And the Doctrine of Christianity obligeth its Professors to love their enemies to bless them which curse them and to pray for them who despitefully use them and persecute them The precepts of some of the (m) Plat. in Crit. Maxim Tyr. Diss 2. Ethnick Philosophers went so far as to condemn the returning injuries to them from whom we receive wrong and some rare instances there are among Pagans of some who declared they would and others who actually did treat them with much kindness who had greatly injured them But the doctrine of our Saviour appeareth to have gone higher than the rules which their wisest men prescribed in enjoining as a necessary duty the exercise of love kindness doing good unto and praying for our enemies 19. But that Religion which will not allow of passion and reviling where there may be some considerable occasion given will much more detest it in such cases where there is truly no such occasion but are more unreasonable when without any occasion given For this most clearly shews such men to be much more hurried and commanded by a swelling
the place which God chuseth under the New Testament What is urged by Innocentius the Third hath no infallible evidence as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testament and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy continues established under the Gospel And it may be wondered that such a thing should be affirmed if it were not to impose on others when the Book of Deuteronomy contains many things concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices and other Jewish Feasts and in that is that particular permission of divorce which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel Deut. 24.1 Mat. 19.8 9. and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy 11. In the same Epistle as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.3 and tells us that Paul that he might expound the plenitude of power writing to the Corinthians saith Nescitis quoniam Angelos judicabitis quanto magis secularia Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels how much more the things of this life or things secular But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians bid directly concern the Church of Corinth And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World or the Church as he did not it would appear from this place to be as much if not more fixed in S. Paul and the Church of Corinth as any where else and it must needs be hard to prove that S. Paul in these words declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome both over Corinth and all the World when he said Know ye not that we shall judge c. 12. What light the two great Luminaries give to the Popes power But that proof which passeth all the rest which is urged in the same decretal Epistle is from Gods making two great Luminaries the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night from whence it is there inferred that the power of the Bishop of Rome is as much above all Secular power as the Sun is above the Moon And it may be also hence collected that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal as was declared hence by (b) v. Addit ad Pâ—de Marc. de Couc S. sâ—â—p l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth Now from hence it may appear that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis may be as effectual though it be nothing to the purpose as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy And this is such a wonderful Argument that so far as the strength of it will reach it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome to be ordained of God before the coming uf Christ and even before any promise made concerning the Messias and before the fall of man but that this was established before Adam was created and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of the World And therefore if this authority be rightly applied it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest antiquity of this power in the Church of Rome and deriveth its original much higher than most men have been aware of and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority conveyed unto S. Peter when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams but not to be seen by mens eyes in the first springing forth of their light 13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer And it can scarce be imagined that they who laid down these testimonies as a foundation to support the Papal power could have any other design than to delude and impose upon the great ignorance of the World And if it be a wicked and abominable thing for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate or to counterfeit the Kings broad Seal to serve his interest it is far worse to design to deal falsly in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God and to the greatest rights of men and the publick interest and peace of the World And I think no men ever spake more wildly about these things than the Popes themselves have done the extravagancy of their pleas bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims 14. Thirdly I observe Observ 3. The high Papal power was unknown to the ancient Roman Bishops that the pretence of this high Papal power which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms hath this manifest mark of an encroachment usurpation and innovation in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome never knew any thing thereof but did profess and own their subjection to Emperours and their Authority The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers And it may be sufficient here to note that I have (c) Christ loyalty B. 1. ch 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great in another place shewed that Leo the Great submissively owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority and that with respect to the external administration of matters Ecclesiastical And it is manifest from the Writings of Gregory the Great that he both submissively behaved himself towards Mauritius the Emperour as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord and that he thought he ought so to do When Mauritius declared his desire that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory and John Patriarch of Constantinople (d) Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus his Lord whom God had constituted and owns himself to be his Servant and such language is very frequent in his Epistles and lets the Emperour know that in that matter in which the cause of God was also concerned he would do what on his part could be done To Gregory the Great Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord and in this case he saith Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam praebeo Which words shew sufficiently that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperour but acknowledged his owing subjection to him And when Mauritius had made a Law that no person in any publick Secular Office should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders and that no Souldiers might be admitted into Monasteries Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperour concerning this Law expressing his good liking and approbation of the former part but with much (e) Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100. earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part as being contrary to God and Religion And in the close of that Epistle he acquaints the Emperour that in subjection to his commands he had
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
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
expressions in the present Roman Breviary They apply themselves to S. Peter (l) Br. Rom. Jun. 29. in Hymn Peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita Qua cunctis coelum verbo claudis aperis Loose the bonds of our sins by that power which is delivered to thee whereby by thy word thou shuttest and openest heavent to all men And to all the Apostles they direct their prayers on this manner (m) Br. Rom. in Commun Apost in Festo S. Andr. Qui coelum verbo clauditis Serasque ejus solvitis nos à peccatis omnibus Solvite jussu quaesumus Quorum praecepto subditur Salus languor omnium Sanate aegros moribus nos reddentes virtutibus Ye who by your word do shut up Heaven and loose the barrs thereof we beseech you by your command loose us from all our sins ye to whose command the health and the weakness of all is subject heal those who are sick in their life and practice restoring us to vertue I am apprehensive that many may think these instances the less blameable because the expressions of them have a manifest respect to the commission and authority which Christ gave to his Apostles in the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of remitting and retaining sin and the other Apostles are here owned to have the power of the keys as well as S. Peter But that our Saviours Commission to them referred wholly to the Government of his Church upon Earth is sufficiently manifest from those words both to S. Peter and to all the Apostles whatsoever thou or ye shall bind on earth and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth And though the Apostles are eminently exalted in the glory of the other world yet to acknowledge them in Heaven to acquit or condemn all men and to receive them into Heaven or exclude them from it by their command and by that power which is committed to them must include an owning them to be the full and compleat Judges of the quick and the dead 8. And since the Romish Church asserts all their Bishops to derive and enjoy the same authority which was committed to S. Peter and if this be not only an authority upon earth but in the future state then all their deceased Popes and much to the same purpose may be urged concerning all Priests must still enjoy the same heavenly power which they ascribe to S. Peter though there is great reason to fear that divers of themselves never entred into Heaven To these other numerous instances might be added of their prayers to the Blessed Virgin and to other Saints for grace pardon protection and to be received by them at the hour of death and such instances have been largely and fully produced by some of the worthy Writers of our own Church and Chamier and other Protestant Authors and particularly by Chemnitius in his Examen Conc. Trid. 9. But when Cardinal Bellarmine discoursed of these supplications to the Saints he particularly instanced in some as that to the Virgin Mary Tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe do thou defend us from the enemy and receive us at the hour of death but will have them all to be understood as desiring only the benefit of their prayers But because the words they use do not seem to favour this sense of his he tells us (n) Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatitud l. 1. c. 9. Notandum est nos non agere de verbis sed de sensu verborum It must be noted that we dispute not about the words themselves but about the sense and meaning of them Now I acknowledge it fit that words should be taken in their true sense being interpreted also with as much candor as the case will admit Yet I shall observe 1. That it cannot well be imagined that when they expresly declare their hopes of obtaining their petitions to the Saints by their command and by their power which is committed to them which is owned sufficient for the performing these requests as in the instances I mentioned no more should be intended than to desire the assistance of their prayers and this gives just reason to suspect that more is also meant in other expressions and prayers according to the most plain import of the words 2. That though some of the Doctors of the Roman Church would put this construction upon the words of their prayers yet it is manifest the people understand them in the most obvious sense so as to repose their main confidence upon the Saints themselves and their merits This may appear from the words I above cited n. 3. from Cassander who also tells us that (o) Cass Consu t. de Mer. Interc Sanct. homines non mali men who were none of the worser sort did chuse to themselves certain Saints for their Patrons and in eorum meritis atque intercessione plus quam in Christi merito fiduciam posuerunt they placed confidence in their merits and intercession more than in the merits of Christ 10. The invocation of Saints and Angels will appear the more unaccountable No such practice in the Old Testament by considering what is contained in the holy Scriptures and the ancient practice of the Church of God In the Old Testament there is no worshiping of Angels directed though the Law was given by their ministration and that state was more particularly subject to them than the state of the Gospel is as the Apostle declares Heb. 2.5 In the Book of Psalms which were the Praises and Hymns used in the publick Worship of the Jews there is no address made to any departed Saint or even to any Angel though the Jewish Church had no advocate with the Father in our nature which is a peculiar priviledge of the Christian Church since the Ascension of our Saviour That place in the Old Testament which may seem to look most favourably towards the invocation of an Angel Gen. 48.16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads is by many ancient Christian Writers not understood of a created Angel But however it is to be observed that these words were part of the benediction of Jacob to the Sons of Joseph Now a benediction frequently doth not exclude a prayer to the thing or person spoken of but a desire of the good expressed with an implicite application to God that he would grant it Thus in the next words Gen. 48.16 Let my name be named on them and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac which contain no prayer to the names of his Fathers or to his own So Isaac blessed Jacob Gen. 27.29 using these expressions Let People serve thee and Nations bow down unto thee And this Clause of Jacob's Benediction is well paraphrased by one of the (p) Targ. Jonath in Gen. 48.16 Chaldee Paraphrasts Let it be well pleasing before him God that the Angel c. But the Holy Angels themselves declared against the giving to them any
Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops did unanimously declare their judgment for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined And that this Council did sit after Cyprian had received the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen Bishop of Rome is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius Now though all these Bishops were in an error in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null and that they ought generally to be Baptized when they returned to the Church yet it cannot be supposed that they were so obstinately resolved in their error as to reject the infallible evidence of truth When many of these very Bishops who lived to understand their error did as (y) Dial adv Lucifer S. Hierome testifies disclaim and reject it and that Cyprian himself did so as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin though it was not certain But hence it appears that since Stephen's determination was slighted and opposed by such eminent Bishops both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church who sincerely designed to embrace the truth no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop And if Stephen did so generally declare against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos c. he erred on the one hand as they did on the other and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way requiring some sort of Hereticks who kept the substantial form of Baptism to be received upon their former Baptism and that others should be baptized when they returned to the Church 12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only but by the summoning General Councils which with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them had been a very needless and vain thing if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned And in the four first General Councils the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church and all of them desired and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ and contradict themselves fifth General Council was managed perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome 13. Fourthly Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles of which several instances are given in this Chapter that Church ought not nor cannot be owned infallible by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so Besides this I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted what others of them at other times have affirmed The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth was revoked by (e) Clement in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth as scandalous and dangerous And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals is owned by Innocentius the Third but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility than its being contradicted in what it delivers by that evidence which is certainly infallible And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion than such a false pretence as this which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery and a contrivance to raise a very high veneration thereof 14. Secondly Of Indulgences and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby I shall consider the pretended power of securing offenders from Purgatory or releasing their souls out of it partly by the Priests Masses and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church which he hath power to dispense For the Romanists tell us that as there is in sin a fault and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life by way of satisfaction it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory And thus a model is contrived and drawn up to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin without amendment Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect that by reason of it God sometimes punisheth persons and Families even after true repentance and receiving the person into his particular favour and such were the judgements on Davids House after his Murther and Adultery And I esteem the practices of sin and vice to be so hurtful that though they be sincerely repented of if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences according to the quality of their transgressions This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church was performed before the Church gave Absolution which oft included the severe exercises of divers years and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian And if in danger of death such penitents were reconciled who had not compleated their penitential exercises (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4 Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered these must afterwards be performed And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin their high value for the favour of God and the priviledges and Communion of the Church and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities rather than to forfeit them 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory though God never revealed any such thing nor did the ancient Church believe it I shall not here engage in that dispute but shall only observe that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal since the body which is so great a partaker in and promoter of the sin is wholly freed from all these punishments and rests quietly in its
subject besides that of this particular Congregation 6. But First This is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures declare and all the ancient Churches of God agreeably thereto have practised concerning the right order and Government of the Church What is more evident in the Scriptures than that the several Churches of Christians were under the Authority and Government of the Apostles themselves which is sufficient to manifest that it was no Institution nor intendment of Christ that particular Churches should not be subject to any Superior Ecclesiastical Authority Nor was such Governing Authority peculiar to the Apostles themselves but was by them thought requisite to be committed to the care of others Hence for instance Titus was in Crete appointed by Saint Paul to ordain Elders in every City and to set in order the things which were wanting Tit. 1.5 and other expressions of his Governing or Episcopal power are contained in divers expressions of that Epistle But it must be a strange strength of imagination that can inable any man to conceive that when Crete was a Country almost three hundred miles in length and so greatly peopled that it was very anciently called Hecatompolis as having a hundred great places or Cities within its Territories and Titus was to ordain Elders in every City yet all these should make up but one particular Congregation unto which the power of Titus should be confined 7. And concerning the Authority of Councils it is manifest that upon occasion of some Judaizing Teachers disturbing the Christian Church at Antioch the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. met together and gave their authoritative decision concerning Circumcision and other Jewish Rites not to be imposed on the Gentile Christians any further than they particularly injoined This may well be called a General Council since it not only pronounced a decisive determination concerning the Universal Church expressing what the Gentiles were not to admit or were obliged to practise and on what terms the Jews were bound to admit and not scruple Communion with the Gentiles but also had in it such persons who being Apostles had an undoubted universal Authority over the whole Church And whereas the decision of the Apostles themselves alone and their Authority had been of it self abundantly sufficient to lay an obligation upon the Christian Church in that particular case the Apostles notwithstanding this took in with them the Elders of the Church to debate and consider of this matter Act. 15.6 which is a sufficient evidence that the Apostles did allow such Elders or Church-Officers as they established in the Church to have a power in Councils to order and determine what related to the affairs of the Church by Synodical Authority for otherwise the Apostles would never have joyned them with themselves to this purpose 8. And S. Paul was so forward and zealous to require a general obedience to the decision of this Council that in his Ministry he delivered to the Cities where he preached the decrees for to keep which were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem Act. 16.4 And here that expression of his delivering these Decrees as not only ordained of the Apostles but of the Apostles and Elders also deserves to be considered as thereby laying a more clear and manifest foundation for the Authority of future Synods and Councils of the Officers and Bishops of the Christian Church And it may be further observed that case in which S. Paul rebuked S. Peter Gal. 2. was his not acting according to the rules of this Council and a complying further with the Jewish Rites and the favourers of the Circumcision than was here determined and not being ready to own that liberty of the Gentile Church which was contained in this Synodical decision 9. And consonant hereunto the ancient Christian Churches did all along greatly reverence the authoritative decision of Catholick Councils and Synods the Canons of which are so well known to all men of ordinary reading that he must be a man greatly ignorant of Ecclesiastical affairs who knows nothing of them And in several General and Provincial Councils and in those Canons particularly taken into that ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles or into the Codes of the Universal Church of the Western Church or the African Church many things were established by them for the peace unity and order of the Church and especially for the promoting purity therein and the degrees of the punishment by suspension deposition excommunication and the continuance thereof upon the offenders are there plainly determined to be a Rule for the several Churches to act by And in these ancient Councils when there was great occasion for such heavy sentences the most eminent Officers or the Bishops of those most renowned places in the Christian Church were deposed or excommunicated by their Synodical Authority and not by their own particular Church Thus was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch deposed by the Council at Antioch Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople by the General Council of Ephesus and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria by the General Council of Chalcedon to which multitudes of other instances may be given And in particular Churches the great and eminent authority fixed in Bishops though the Canons allowed but one Bishop in the greatest City with its precincts is sufficient to shew that the particular Congregations in that City had no such Independency of power and Government So that this branch of Independency opposeth the Apostolical order and the constant practice and sense of all primitive Christian Churches from the Apostles 10. Secondly This notion of Independency lays a foundation for perpetual confusion and division in the Church and subverts the precepts for Christian Unity For according to this Principle so far as concerns power and authority any company of men may set up for themselves apart and multiply Sects and distinct Communions and none having any Superior Government over them these parties and divisions may be perpetuated and subdivided to the scandal and Reproach of Christianity and no way left for any authority in the Christian Church to check and redress them So that this notion is perfectly fitted to serve the interest of Schism and discord and to heighten and increase but is as fully opposite to the Unity and honour of the Christian Religion For if we should admit for the present the scanty and imperfect notion of Schism which Dr. O. (p) Review of Sch. against Mr. Cawdr c. 8 9. hath framed that it is needless divisions of judgement and discord in a particular Congregation when departing from it is no Schism if the guilty party should so far unchristianly foment such discords as to deserve the censure of that Church and shall withal proceed so far as openly to separate and depart from it they have by this means according to this notion after a strange and admirable manner set themselves free and clear both from sin and censure For when they have thus openly separated from
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)
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
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
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
the Wicked and Evil-doers Even in Aaron's blessing the People God declared that he himself would bless them And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing which cometh upon them who serve him The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless in turning Men from their Iniquities to such he begins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing Mat. 5.3.4 Luke 24.50 51 and this also was the last action he perform'd immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications For when not only the Apostles but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came Mat. 10.12 13 Luke 10.5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace being according to the usual Jewish Phrase a comprehension of all Blessing our Saviour tells them that if the Son of Peace be there their Peace shall rest upon it if not it shall turn to them again The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation Ordination receiving Penitents Matrimony and to dying Persons but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome Hier. adv Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World to be performed by the Bishop only And in our Administration thereof the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God 3. They who receive this Ministry are to guide the Church and Christian Society that its Members may please God not forfeit his Favour or provoke his Displeasure The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church who are the chief Governours thereof and the things established by their consent and agreement The Church of God is a most excellent Society and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God Titus 1.7 and such publick Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof and also of establishing Order and Decency and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power yet the directive part and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Presidents Hence Inferiours are required to obey them that are over them and submit themselves and Titus was sent to Crete to order the things that were wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7 17.24 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2 and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter to take care of the Church of God And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship to them also belongs the setting apart and consecrating Places for the publick Service of God But because there can be no security for Order where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity which is in it self desirable and ought to be observed not only with respect to the secular Sanction but together therewith in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods which hath in all Ages from the Apostles been honoured in the Christian Church of which the observation of the Canons of the several Councels and Codes is an experimental Evidence And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Act. 16.4 5. Act. 21.18 24 26. Act. 8.14 And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. And to that other Council Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council And since Christians being established in the Truth is of great use both to their own and the Churches Peace in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines and to require submission to the Truth they declare This was done in the Synod of the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision and in the four first general Councils concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of the Mediator And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine when managed aright have been deservedly reverenced in the Church since one end of God's appointing these Officers is that we should be no more Children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture and the Catholick and Primitive Church Besides these things all particular Officers of the Church in their charge are to watch over those committed to them as much as in them lies with special regard to the Sick and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion John 21.15 it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders of casting them out of the Church and of restoring them again upon Repentance This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour Mat. 18.18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven There is indeed a late Objection made that these words speak not of binding and loosing Persons but Things and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and loosing of Things not of Persons meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allow'd But besides what may be otherwise said I think it sufficient at present to observe that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words which if interpreted by it will import 1. That the power of binding and loosing hath a considerable respect to such things as the Cases Offences and Penitent Performances of persons
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
(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
defamed as acting by Beelzebub Nor was this wicked and blasphemous slander only some rash sudden unadvised words of some inconsiderable persons but the Pharisees saith S. Matthew Mat. 9.34 and the Scribes saith S. Mark Mar. 3.22 passed this censure upon him and what was thus spoken at one time was repeated and declared again at another Mat. 12.24 And we may discern by this instance how easily the greatest calumnies may be propagated by a zealous and eager party from one age to another and from one place to another For the Jews in after ages still embraced for truth this impudent falshood which is taken into their (u) v. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 12.24 Talmud which contains a collection of the main body of their Traditions and Opinions And this wicked and contumelious aspersion of our Lord though contrary to the highest evidence was also endeavoured to be spread abroad among the Pagan Gentiles insomuch that (w) Orig. cont Cels l. 1. Eus Dem. Ev. l. 3. c. 6. divers Christian Writers thought fit to refell the same and to shew the manifest contradiction which this carried to the piety of our Saviours Religion to the nature of his precepts to the works which he did and to the Spirit and practice of his followers all which include a manifest opposition to the evil one 18. At other times they charged him with being a Samaritan and having a Devil and being a Samaritan Joh. 8.48 The name of Samaritan was fixed on him to promote a popular hatred The Samaritans rejected the true worship of God at Jerusalem and depraved and corrupted Religion and oft manifested a great hatred towards the Jews They frequented Mount (x) Joseph Ant. l. 13. c. 6. Gerazim as the place of their Worship in opposition to Jerusalem and their despising the true Worship of God at Jerusalem is observed in the (y) Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.20 Talmud and sufficiently in the holy Scripture it self And for the countenancing their depraved worship the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch as it is now extant hath corrupted the law and hath put in the word Gerazim in the place of Ebal where God commanded an Altar to be made and Sacrifice to be offered Deut. 27.4 5 6 7 8. Now the name of a Samaritan being odious to the Jews they call our Saviour a Samaritan not as if they thought he was so by his birth for they admitted him to the Jewish worship as a Jew and knew his nearest relations to be Jews but they would hereby declare that he had equally corrupted Religion and deserved to be as much hated as the Samaritans were And to this purpose was he thus aspersed though his custome was to attend the Jewish Synagogues Luk. 4.16 and he carefully served God according to the precepts of his Law But as if this foul calumny was not sufficient they further added that he had a Devil or that he in whom alone the Godhead dwelt bodily was possessed by the evil one And this wicked slander was intended to raise the highest prejudice of the people against him and to keep them far enough from being directed by him And therefore they said Joh. 10.20 he hath a Devil and is mad why hear ye him 19. And it may be observed And in like manner our Reformation Bishops and Ministry have been aspersed with Popery how the carriage of many men among us towards his Ministers the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England doth too nearly resemble this behaviour which I have mentioned of the Jews towards our Lord himself Certainly one of the great works the Devil contrives to uphold in this last Age of the World is the gross corruption of Popery Our Clergy and Bishops were very instrumental in the Reformation and casting out of Popery those of our Church Preach and Write against Popery so as to make the clearest discovery of the falseness of their doctrine and the sin of their practices These have confuted and baffled them the most effectually and with most convictive evidence These have plainly laid open in the face of the world the folly evil and mischief of many considerable things asserted and maintained by the Church of Rome and have thereby raised the indignation of the Romanists themselves who look upon these men to be their most formidable adversaries and they are indeed the great bulwark against Popery And yet because these men are not so weak and rash as to run beyond the bounds of truth and sobriety into other unreasonable errors they must needs be clamoured on as friends to Popery And other men who talk indeed against Popery with great noise and are real and earnest in what they say and some few of them have done useful service herein by many who are indeed eager against it but most of them speak with much weakness and many mistakes whereby they give great advantage to their adversaries these must be accounted the chief and main enemies to Popery when for the generality of them the Romanists themselves have no great fear of the Writings and Arguments of such opposers And from these our excellent Reformation meets with virulent censures 20. I doubt not as many Jews were against the Devil but among the Jews in our Saviours time there were many besides him and his Disciples who talked much against the Devil and did indeed hate him though in many things through their misguided zeal they greatly served his interest And that the Jews had some among them who sometimes cast out Devils is not to be doubted from what we read in the Scripture of the Jewish Exorcists and of our Saviours appeal to the Pharisees Mat. 12.27 By whom do your children cast them out (z) Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. de bel l. 7. c. 25. Josephus takes some notice of their Exorcisms but what he writes is of such a nature concerning the driving away Devils by some Herbs and charms that they who pretended to act against the evil one by these methods did seem rather to comply with him But that some of the Jews both before and after the coming of our Lord did cast out evil Spirits by the power and in the name of the God of Abraham and the God of Israel is asserted and acknowledged by (a) Justin adv Tryph. Iren. adv Haeres l. 2. c. 5. Justin Martyr Irenaeus and other ancient Christian Writers But their undertaking was far from being sufficient to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan nor were they always successful and effectual in lesser cases When the Sons of Sceva a Jew and chief of the Priests undertook to cast out a Devil the evil Spirit prevailed against them and they were not able to stand before him But it was he whom the Jews aspersed as complying with the Devil who did abundantly more against him than they all were able to do and he spoiled principalities and powers 21. And besides all this though the singular and sinless
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
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
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
an act of detestation of sin in which he hath no thought of his future course of life But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts as that great one of loving God to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors and mainly to insist on those which have the publick allowance and establishment of the Church 10. Secondly Another obstacle to a pious life 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures which I shall consider is the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety which is the use of the Holy Scriptures The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Letters and Messages which God sends to men to invite them to him and guide them in their way and then surely they to whom and for whom they are sent ought to know and read them both out of Reverence to God and out of respect to themselves (n) de Tempore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures that they teach us knowledge and right understanding and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world unto the love of God and observes how greatly efficacious they are to the promoting piety in very great numbers and that they were designed for our Salvation 11. The Scriptures greatly promote piety These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life and were so accounted of in the ancient Church Herein is comprized the Will and Counsel of God declared by the Holy Ghost himself And the precepts and holy rules there proposed the promises declared the threatnings denounced the judgements executed on the disobedient and the blessings bestowed on the obedient are great incitements to piety and are of the greater force and weight as they are contained in the Scriptures because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them And the end for which they were written is for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 And the punishments there recorded which were inflicted on evil doers were for ensamples and written for our admonition 1 Cor. 10.11 These holy Books the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of and they so highly esteemed this priviledge that rather than they would deliver up these Books to their persecutors the best Christians chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings and of such (o) Baron Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent lubentissimo animo mortem oppetiverunt almost an infinite number of those who with the greatest readiness of mind chose death rather than to deliver up the Holy Books And they who did deliver them were accounted grievous offenders and called Traditores the name given to Judas who betrayed our Lord and of these as (p) Advers Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith there were many of all ranks both Laicks and Clergy 12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent advantage to promote piety and the happiness of men that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit declares the blessed and good man to delight himself in the law of the Lord and to meditate therein day and night Psal 1.2 And this makes him so to increase and be fruitful in good works that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water which brings forth his fruit in due season And the excellent use of this Divine Law is described Psal 19 7-11 in converting the soul making wise the simple and other great benefits Yea they are of such manifold and compleat use for the good of man that the Apostle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation and to be profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to every good work 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. And they have that mighty efficacy to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men that our Lord acquaints us that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets would not be perswaded though one arose from the dead Luke 16.31 13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scripture to the generality of their Communion as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books (q) Conc. Trident Sess ult prope sin which was ordered by the Council of Trent and was compleated about the end of that Council but the confirmation thereof was referred to the Pope by the Decree of that Council and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth In this (r) Indic Reg. 4. How far vulgar Translations are prohibited in the Roman Church Index it is declared That since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue be permitted generally without distinction there would thence from the rashness of men more hurt arise than advantage in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor he may grant to them the reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt but increase of faith and piety which faculty they should have in writing But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them may not obtain the absolution of their sins unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller who shall sell or otherwise procure such Bibles to them who have not a faculty And from this Index the substantial part of this rule is expressed in (Å¿) Panstrat Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier and somewhat more at large in the Book of t Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit (e) Ledes c. 15. De scripturis divinis quavis lingua non legendis and is mentioned in some English Writers It is therefore condemned as a very heinous and mortal crime without all these cautions to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue though it be in a version of their own And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike the use of such Bibles are in the Romish Communion as their own Writers declare it may thence be concluded that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing which others must not expect to obtain And upon further consideration of what difficulties may be expected in the gaining this faculty and the procuring the consent of those by whose authority and with whose advice it must be obtained any reasonable man
divers of the Romish Communion (g) Cassand Consult de mer. interces Sanctorum They pretend that they only desire their prayers But 1. It is unknown to us that they know our desires advocationis Christi officio obscurato Sanctos atque imprimis Virginem Mariam in illius locum substituerunt that the Office of Christs Advocateship being obscured by them they substituted the Saints and principally the Virgin Mary in his place 4. But the most considerable men who write in defence of this practice declare that they only invocate the Saints to obtain the assistance of their prayers but First If this was true and no more was either intended by the Church of Rome or practised by its members yet there is no assurance that particular Saints departed know our particular wants and supplications and desires and much more may they be unacquainted with that inward devoutness and pious temper of soul which doth qualifie men for the obtaining the favour of God and his heavenly blessings And a wise man would not think it reasonable to place any considerable dependance in a special case upon the care and assistance of such a friend who is at a distance from him and of whom he hath no sufficient ground of confidence that he knows any thing either of his need or of his special desire from him The ways assigned by the Romanists to declare how the Saints departed are acquainted with things here below especially so far as to discern the special motions of the minds of all particular persons are but expressions of great words without evidence and the speculum Trinitatis may as well serve to shew that the Angels in glory were from the beginning of their confirmation in happiness acquainted with all things future by seeing the face of our heavenly Father when yet our Lord declares they knew not the time of the day of Judgement as that the Saints in glory have such a clear understanding of things and persons in this world Now if they understand not our requests and desires supplications directed to them are not only imprudent but an abuse of Religious Worship by employing a considerable portion of it and of our devotion therein about that which at least signifies nothing but is wholly useless and to no purpose And to perform acts of Religion upon the uncertain supposition of this being true of which we can have no certain knowledge and there is much to be said against it is to shew our selves too forward to run the hazard of being guilty of this miscariage 5. And whereas God and his Gospel doth instruct men Our Religion gives no direction for such prayers in the parts and duties of Religion but hath given neither direction nor encouragement to the invocation of Angels or Saints departed or to perform any Religious Worship to them it is no duty incumbent on men to make such addresses to them and in this case concerning the object of Religious worship it is not their due to receive what is not our duty to perform And we may reasonably fear lest God should account our giving such honour to those glorified creatures in Heaven as to acknowledge them to know the desires of the hearts of men and addressing our selves to them thereupon to be a misplacing that honour which is only due to himself and our blessed Saviour and this might bring us under his displeasure And when I consider how frequently the Apostle desires the prayers of the Christian Churches on earth and directs them to pray for one another and to send to the Elders of the Church to obtain their prayers I cannot but think that he would have been as forward to have directed Christians to seek for the prayers of Saints departed of which he speaks nothing if he had accounted that to be lawful and useful and from hence it may seem highly probable if not certain that the Souls departed do not understand and are not particularly affected with the requests and desires of men here below Besides this though I conceive holy Angels may be frequently present in the Assemblies of the Christian Church I cannot think it allowable though I had special assurance of their presence at any particular time to direct the acts of publick worship in that case sometimes to God and Christ and sometimes to them in the same gesture of adoration and especially in the use of such words of address to the Angels however they be understood as may fitly be applied to Christ For this would give too much of that homage to the Servant which is due unto the Lord. 6. 〈◊〉 greatly honour the Saints departed But we who do not direct our prayers and Religious supplications to Saints departed have a high honour for them endeavouring to follow their good examples praising God for them and hoping to be hereafter with them in the mansions of glory And since their goodness and love is not diminished but increased by their departure and they are still members of the same body I esteem them to have affectionate desires of the good of men upon Earth and especially of pious men who are fellow-members with them And I account it one great priviledge that I enjoy from the Communion of Saints that by reason of membership with the same body I have an interest in the Religious supplications of all the truly Catholick part of the diffusive Church Militant upon Earth and in the holy Services of the triumphant part thereof in Heaven I can also willingly admit what (h) Cyp. de Mortalitate Magnus illic nos charorum numerus expectat parentum fratrum filiorum copiosa turba adhuc de nostra salute sollicita S. Cyprian sometimes expresseth that departed friends have a particular desire of the good of their surviving relations and what in another place he recommends (i) Epist 57. ad Cornel. The Papists do directly pray for blessings to the Saints that departing Christians continue their affectionate sense of and prayers for the distressed part of the Church on Earth But upon the foregoing considerations this will not warrant Religious addresses to be directed to these Saints 7. Secondly The petitions used in the Romish Church in their supplications to the Saints do plainly express more than their desiring them to pray for them I shall not insist on the high extravagances in divers Books of Devotions and in the Offices formerly used in some particular Churches as that in the Missale sec usum Sarum to the Virgin Mary (k) In Nativit B. Matiae Potes enim cuncta ut mundi Regina jura Cum nato omnia decernis in soecla Thou canst do all things as the Queen of the World and thou with thy Son determinest all rights for ever which with many expressions of as high a nature place a further confidence in the Saints and expectation from them than meerly to be helped by their prayers But I shall instance in two or three
acts of Worship and refused to receive any such both under the Old Testament Judg. 13.16 17 18. and the New Rev. 19.10 ch 22.9 Yea the Apostle cautions against the worshipping of Angels Col. 2.18 and the ancient Church prohibited it by her (q) Conc. Laodic c. 35. nor in the New Canons 11. And in the Gospel God himself whose right it is to direct and appoint in whose name we should approach unto him hath directed us to come to him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and hath encouraged us thereto by promising that what we so ask he will give Joh. 16.23 and that our Lord himself will do what we so ask Joh. 14.13 14. And that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him and he ever lives to make intercession for them Heb. 7.25 And what further encouragement need be given or desired But not a word is spoken to direct us to any deceased Saint or to any Angel to make any of them our Intercessor And this is the great encouragement proposed to us in approaching to God that having a great High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens Jesus the Son of God and who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace Hebr. 4.14 15 16 and that if any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous 1 Joh. 2.1 And in the Precepts our Saviour gives to guide our Prayer and Worship he directs us to referr them only to God Matt. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Luke 11.2 when ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven 12. And though S. Stephen suffered Martyrdom in a short time after our Saviour's Ascension and S. James whose Martyrdom (r) Annal. Eccl. an 44. n. 2. Baronius places in the forty fourth year of Christ and the Blessed Virgin also in all probability died before the writing of any part of the New Testament nor in the Primitive Church Yet in all the New Testament where there are such frequent expressions of praying to and calling upon God with Supplications to our Blessed Saviour there is not the least intimation of any adoration or invocation to these eminent Saints or any others who were departed And yet S. Paul assures us that some of the Brethren who were Witnesses of our Saviour's Resurrection were fallen asleep before the time of his writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 15.6 And it hath been at large observed and proved by sufficient evidence that no genuine Writer of the first Centuries hath any thing in him to express or favour invocation of Saints This is shewed by (ſ) in Letter of Invocation of Saints the Bishop of Lincoln for the first three hundred years and (t) Voss Thes Theol. Disp 10. Vossius speaks of three hundred and seventy After which time some expressions were used which made way for this practice but yet no such thing was brought into any publick Liturgy for some hundred years after 13. It may be here added that if we consider the Saints they invocate Of the Canonization of Saints besides what Objections may be made against particular Persons it may be noted that the general Worship given to Saints hath respect to all those who are Canonized by the Roman Bishop And there is no sufficient reason to believe that all such are truly Saints The form of Canonization declares the Person canonized (u) Sacr. Cerem ut Sanctum à Christi fidelibus venerandum that he is to be worshipped of Christians as a Saint That none may receive publick adoration but they who are canonized by the Pope is owned by (w) De Sanct. Beat. c. 19. Bellarmine who also declares that (x) ib. c. 9. it is to be believed that the Pope doth not erre in Canonizing But he who believes the truth of this must frame an higher notion of the Papal Infallibility than that Cardinal hath given us For he tells us (y) de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. it is a thing agreed betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks that the Pope as Pope and joined with all his Council may err in matters of Fact and such as depend on the information and testimony of men He tells us indeed in the same place that in propounding matters of Faith or enjoyning rules of Duty and Practice he cannot err But since no matter of Fact is more lyable to mistake than to discern whether a person be eminently and sincerely holy or no especially as they proceed in the Church of Rome where the Testimonies concerning their working Miracles are of great moment in this case it may therefore according to the Cardinals own position be thought at least doubtful whether the Pope may not mistake in judging a Man to be truly a Saint and then it may seem hard to believe that all must needs be Saints whom he declares to be such by Canonization 14. Of denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Laity A Second Instance I shall here consider is That they at Rome debarr the people of the Cup in the Holy Communion which was manifestly one part of that Holy Sacrament as it was instituted and commanded to be received by our Saviour And therefore this contains an Opposition to what was established by Christ In the Church of Rome both the Laity and the Clergy except in ordinary Communions only the person consecrating or as they speak the conficient Priest receive only the one element in the Eucharist and not the other of the Cup. And though the Council of (b) Sess 22. in fin Trent wholly waved the determining this Question concerning the Cup Whether it might be granted to any of the Laity And referred this wholly to the prudence of the Pope who hath still continued the former use in one kind yet that Council freely declared their sense concerning the Doctrines and Rules of Duty referring to the Sacrament Here it declares that (c) Sess 21. c. 1. the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate are obliged by no Divine Precept to take the Eucharist in both kinds and that it cannot be doubted salva fide but that the Communion in one kind is sufficient to Salvation and that whole Christ and the true Sacrament is taken under either kind alone and therefore they who so receive are deprived of no grace necessary to Salvation And they so declare these things with others concerning the Sacrament that if any person shall speak contrary thereto even to say that the Catholick Church was not moved by just or sufficient reasons in ordering the Laity and Clergy who do not consecrate to communicate only under the Species of bread he shall be under an Anathema and they also forbid all Christians for the future ne de iis aliter credere audeant that they do not dare to believe otherwise of
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
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
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
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
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
is not and how far the methods they use can be called selling I shall not be curious to dispute Their Authors grant that a Priest is bound (w) M. Bec. Sum. Th. P. 3. Tr. 2. c. 25. p. a. qu. 10 12. ratione stipendii upon account of his stipend specially to offer and apply the Sacrifice to him that gave the stipend applying to him also illam portionem satisfactionis that portion of satisfaction which that Priest hath a power to distribute And in their Indulgences there hath been oft expressed the Condition of raising moneys if that were to be imployed in the regaining the Holy Land or the subduing Hereticks or enemies of the Roman Church To which purpose in the Bull of Innocentius the Third to promote an expedition into the Holy Land to those who should give moneys according to their ability (x) Urspergens Chr. p. 329. he grants full pardon of all their sins and to them who would also go in person over and above in retributione justorum aeternae salutis pollicemur augmentum he promiseth an increase of eternal happiness in the reward of the just And these are very great and liberal proposals especially being assured upon such terms as may be performed by men destitute of true and serious piety But that which is most to be considered is what is ordinarily practised and generally known to be intended and designed in the grants of these Indulgences especially when they are annexed to certain places as to the Lateran and Laureto and many others For those persons are not accounted to come regularly and in such a manner as is proper for such as expect to receive such great benefits unless they bring along with them such oblations as are suitable to their state Of this nature Horatius Tursellinus throughout his five Books of the History of the Cell and Church of Laureto takes notice of divers instances of Princes Cardinals Noble men and Women Cities and divers persons of great fame who when they came in peregrination thither some of them offered golden Crosses and Crowns rich Rings and Shrines bedecked with costly Jewel and other things of great worth and value of which by reason of the high worth and value of them he gives at least two hundred particular instances when others also offered according to their ability coming thither in a daily concourse The like kind of devotions are upon the same account paid at Rome upon the like occasion especially every twenty fifth year being the year of Jubilee and in other places also though not in so high a degree 20. Besides the gainfulness of this contrivance and a method to raise an high admiraetion of the Papal power which was unknown to the Primitive Ages it is hugely adapted to advance the high esteem of the Papal power in all them who promise themselves any advantage thereby For if our Saviour was justly and greatly admired for healing diseases and casting Devils out of the Bodies they possessed and the Angel's opening the Prison doors and bringing forth S. Peter was deservedly esteemed a work of wonder how admirable must the power of the Pope be accounted who by a word speaking can secure thousands from or bring them out of the pains and Prison of Purgatory and hath its effect upon the souls of men and at such an unknown a distance Indeed some of their Authors speak doubtfully of the Popes power in Purgatory telling us that (y) Laym Theol. Mar. l. 5. Tr. 7. c. 7. n. 1 3. he can give Indulgences to them certainly to wit by offering to God satisfactions for them per modum suffragii with prayers that he will deliver their fouls but that this hath no certain and infallible effect and God is not bound to do what he requires since this case is not within the Papal Jurisdiction for quicquid solveris fuper terram whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth gives limits to the Jurisdiction of the Pope But others speak confidently of the effect and (z) de Ind. l. 1. c. 14. Bellarmine's doubt whether Indulgences are profitable to the dead ex justitia condigno out of justice and desert or whether it be ex benignitate Dei solum ex congruo out of Divine benignity only and from congruity Both these ways neither of which the Cardinal dare reject do render the Popes Authority admirable and if the latter way could be proved true so far as it imports what the Pope doth herein to be highly favoured of God which it cannot be so long as the Gospel Covenant is in force I should account this more available than the pretence of desert and proper worth But notwithstanding these differences in their notions they who doubt of the certain effect of Indulgences to deceased persons to deliver them out of Purgatory acknowledge their efficacy whilst applied to living persons to keep them from it and account the other at least very likely 21. It is also a Politick Contrivance Indulgences out of policy reserved to the Pope alone to reserve the pretence of this Authority to the Pope alone to set free souls out of Purgatory For if there were any such thing as Purgatory and any such Treasury in the Church of Satisfactions and any power left to the Church to dispense these at pleasure to them who want a share in them in all which the Roman Church runs into strange exorbitancies there can be no reason to appropriate this power to the Pope unless we will call a device of Policy to exalt the dignity of the Roman See a Reason Their Writers grant that other Bishops may give to the living some Indulgences but this (a) Laym ubl sup c. 4. n. 2. to the souls departed and with respect to Purgatory they make peculiar to the Pope And both their private Authors and the Bulls of Indulgence themselves found this Authority in the power of binding and loosing and of remitting and retaining sins which indeed contains an excellent and great authority which deserves to be better understood but is grossly abused in the Roman Church and therefore in this special case every Priest hath as much a right to claim this authority as the Pope himself since he can do altogether as much in this case The order of Priesthood is acknowledged to be the highest order in the Ecclesiastical Offices by the great Patrons of the Papal power and is so declared in (b) de Ord. Sacram. p. 323. the Roman Catechism they grant the Priest to have a power to offer propitiatory Sacrifices for the quick and the dead and own him to have such a power of absolution as thereby to put persons with Attrition into a state of grace and to deliver them from eternal destruction and give them a title to eternal life But that the power of delivering souls out of Purgatory by the Benefit of Indulgences may still be reserved to the Pope they of the Church of Rome declare that 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
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
here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may
difficult all Protestants do prepossess themselves with such truths as they have learned by plain Scriptures or other certain evidence and therefore know no difficult Text can be so interpreted as to contradict any such truth Here the vulgar Christians do suppose many times that to be the true sense of such places which they have received from those they judge able and faithful but such a sense of such Scripture they do not own as a necessary Point of Faith but admit it as most probable untill themselves be able fully to search and then if they discern this a true exposition they will receive it upon their own knowledge but if they find it a mistake they will lay down that former apprehension and will entirely be guided by what they see is the true sense of Scripture And persons of great abilities to make the best search into the sense of more difficult Texts do not prepossess themselves with any particular sense of such Scripture but are every where entirely guided by that which appears the best evidence to recommend any sense as knowing that it is not our interest or benefit that this or that opinion or interpretation should be true in things doubtful but our great concernment is to own that which is and God hath declared to be the Truth § 6. He enquires how we can demonstrate concerning any place of Scripture that it is not altered and that not is not inserted or left out I answer this as to any matters of Faith is discovered sufficiently by what we shewed to prove the Scriptures preserved entire in the foregoing Discourse Yea the common principles of Reason and Conscience in man will evidence to him in many necessary truths that if not was left out or put in they could never have been from God That God is Eternal Powerful Good and to be worshipped of his creatures that he treats man with great mercy that men must be holy and righteous that God will judge the World such things as these appear so evident that man where-ever he hears them cannot but acknowledge them to be true and from God and that the contrary cannot be so But further the consent of all Copies in several Countreys is in this case an abundant rational evidence especially considering that these Writings were dispersed into all Countreys presently after they were first written and so no miscarriage in the Faith could be in those first Copies taken from the Original of what this Author moves his doubts which would not have been easily discovered and reformed either by the surviving Apostles or by the Original Writing or Autographa of the Apostles and Evangelists which doubtless being of such high esteem in the Church were some time preserved Now since at the first dispersing of these Copies they did contain the Apostles Doctrine entire the constant agreement of all Copies sufficiently prove the same continued still especially considering that the Copies which all appear to have this agreement were written in several Ages long since past and in several Countreys And that to imagine not left out or foisted in in the matters of Faith in all Books generally and publikly and daily read by Christians must suppose 1. That they all every where in so many Countreys should conspire to falsifie the Faith of Jesus which they appeared to value above their lives and by this Tradition would be corrupted but yet Scripture in all these Books could not unless 2. They should falsifie all the ancient Copies which yet by the very writing appear to have nothing rased out or foisted in And this is a much higher certainty than Josiah could have of his own Copy yea than can be had of any passage in any Historian ancient Law or Record and if this we have said did not generally satisfie the Cavils propounded all History old Laws and Records must be rejected because there can be no such appearance of so great evidence that in any sentence not was not left out or foisted in And so all matters of Fame or Tradition must be disbelieved till he can demonstrate that they had not their original from the reading some Writings which have the same liableness to mistake with other Writings and that not hath not been put in or left out in the Oral delivery And how much his Reader will be beholden to him for such conceits as these we may gather from his own words Disc 9. § 4. where speaking of humane testimonies he tells us amongst the most extravagant Opinionasters none was ever found so frantick as to doubt them and should any do so all sober mankind would esteem them stark mad But as hath been proved this Author would here lead his Reader such a way as himself saith all sober mankind will esteem him mad if he follow him If this be not enough I shall add that the Primitive Christians owned such a tryal of Scriptures incorruptness as fully sufficient for them to rely on and to confound all who opposed it And even this Argument of this Author though urged with greater confidence was that with which several of the Hereticks from the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian to S. Austin opposed the Christians amongst which I shall now only mention the Manichees out of S. Austin who declares that whilst he was a Manichee Confess l. 5. c. 2. he was somewhat shaken by hearing a dispute between Helpidins and the Manichees but the Manichees afterwad privately told him The N. Testament was corrupted and there was no uncorrupt exemplar produced but this did as little satisfie him And after he became an opposer of the Manichees Contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 1. he urgeth against them Scripture testimony to which Faustus answers That this Scripture testimony was not right To which Saint Austin replies If this answer be esteemed of any weight what written Authority can ever be opened what holy Book can ever be searched cap. 2. he demands proof of Faustus what Books ever read otherwise and c. 3. urges All Books new and old have this testimony all Churches read it all tongues consent in it therefore put off the cloak of deceitfulness And in Epist 19. he saith he read the Scripture which is placed in the most sublime and celestial height of Authority being certain and secure of its truth but saith he the Manichees contend that many things in the Scripture are false yet so that they do not ascribe falshood to the Apostles who wrote them but to some which have corrupted the Books but because they cannot prove this by any ancient Copies he saith they are overcome and confounded by the most manifest truth But our Discourser saith It is certain there are many various readings yea so many in the New Testament alone observed by my Lord Usher that he durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt We acknowledge there are several various readings but this speaks the greater security of this Rule because though all these
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
alwaies preserved from alteration and change yea even at Rome notwithstanding this way of delivery wherein the following Generation have received their Language from their Fathers yet if they who conversed there in the Apostles times were now alive they would discern such alteration of speech and even in speaking mens names that they would not be able to understand their present language and if they can shew no greater security for the delivery of their Doctrine than of their Language that also may be as much changed notwithstanding their help of Tradition And it may be further observed that those Languages which in this way of Traditional Learning are grosly corrupted and even lost such as Hebrew Greek and Latin yet in Books and Writings they are faithfully preserved which shews Writings more sure keepers or preservers of words and civil things than this way of Tradition is It would be needless to shew that in Writings and civil behaviour there is as great variation in some few successions of Generations for this is sufficiently known to all observing men § 3 4. He applies this to Christianity and saith So Children get by degrees notions of God Christ Saviour Hell Virtue and Vice and are shewn how to say Grace and Prayers afterwards they become acquainted with the Ten Commandments Creed Sacraments forms of Prayer and other practices of Christianity the actions and carriages of the elder guiding the younger to frame their lives to several virtues by the Doctrine delivered in words as Faith Hope Charity Prayer c To this I answer That Children do indeed by degrees learn the Notions of God c. But this Tradition alone is not that which guides them here but also the Scriptures and Ancient Writers are of great use as they inable the Teachers of the foregoing Generation to guide them more faithfully Indeed in the way of this Tradition alone some general signification of words which concern matters of Faith may probably be delivered as that God signifies him whom we are to worship reverence serve and obey and such like But more particular notions of these matters of Religion as they may be sometimes preserved aright so where is no other way of preservation than this Tradition they may be very corruptly and dangerously delivered It is certain that Noah knew the true God and taught his Children concerning him and in his daies and since their Posterity increased to great multitudes and yet having only this way of Tradition they were so far corrupted in their knowledge of God that they owned Creatures yea the lowest of Creatures for God and thereby lost the knowledge of the true God and yet even the Gentiles who worshipped other things instead of God pretended that this they received by this way of Tradition and this was their great Argument why they should not receive Christianity because their Ancestors had delivered to them that way of Worship they then used in Heathenism Clemens Alexand. in his Admonition to the Gentiles brings them in speaking thus We must not reject those things which were delivered to us from our Fathers and almost all the Fathers who write against Gentilism industriously shew the vanity of this their plea. The saying of Prayers and Grace aright depends much upon the preservation of the true Notions of God and Christ and the knowledge of Duties and Promises and therefore if there be any corruption in the delivery of those things it is like to be also in the performance of these actions of Prayer and saying Grace in which case will the carriages and practices of the elder Christians be corrupted But he sayes they learn the Creed ten Commandments and forms of Prayer The Creed is indeed a good preservative of the chief Articles of our Belief Had it not been for this Form and some other like it received in the Church which because written and in stinted words is more of kin to the way of Scripture delivery than to other delivery by Oral Tradition it is like these points of Faith might have been rejected or lost among them who only hold unto the way of that Tradition The ten Commandments are likewise a sure preservative of that which God requires in them from man but these are the words of Scripture Neither the Creed nor the ten Commandments concern the Controversie of Tradition as it is disowned by Protestants otherwise than to observe the way whereby the certainty of them is conveyed unto us and thus we do assert that we are more certain of the Creed by its being committed to Writing and comprized in a fixed form of words and being every way agreeable to Scripture than any can be by way of delivery from Father to Son only by word of mouth in all successions of Generations and the same certainty we have of the ten Commandments by their being in the Scripture Records and being likewise delivered in writing which is the way which even Papists make use of as well as others What he adds of Sacraments and forms of Prayer these are like to guide men aright where the notions of Religion concerning them are preserved intire but if there be a corruption in Religion these things as soon as others may be depraved as indeed they are in the Romish Church where though the Creed and the Commandments do deliver much truth yet are they somewhat perverted by Traditional Expositions nor can they secure from the delivery of many other corruptions In § 5. He desires us to consider How the Primitive Faithful were inured to Christianity e're the Books of Scripture were written or communicated We know this then was by the preaching of the Apostles among them who had the inspiration of God to guide them and were unerrable deliverers and yet even they in this preaching made very great use of the Books of the Old Testament to prevail with men to receive the Doctrines of Jesus But I shall further mind him that the Christians at Rome in the Primitive state of that Church before they had any written Scripture of the New Testament thought it requisite for the inuring themselves to Christianity to obtain some Writings Apostolical concerning whom Eusebius writes thus At Rome the light of Religion did so shine upon the minds of these hearers of Peter that they thought it not sufficient to content themselves with once hearing him nor with the unwritten Doctrine of the Divine preaching but with all manner of perswasions they did earnestly desire Mark who followed Peter that by writing he would leave them a memorial of that Doctrine which was then delivered to them by words nor did they desist until he did perform it and this was the cause of the writing that which is called The Gospel according to Mark. He likewise relates That when the Apostle knew what was done by the revelation of the Spirit he was pleased with the forwardness of the men and by his Authority confirmed the Writing that it might be read in the Churches
it be followed it can convey Christs Doctrine down to the Worlds end as will appear if any consider that if Protestants have Children who believe and practise as their Fathers brought them up they will be Protestants too and so forward from Generation to Generation I answer Tradition framed according to a notion which would free it from all the above said imperfections would be indeed evidenceable as to its ruling power to every capacity but this is not such a Tradition as can be expected to be found in the World But if any man consider of such a Tradition as is in the World in case he be confident of the true delivery of the sense of the foregoing Generation yet it will not be evidenceable as to its ruling Power unless he can be satisfied that the foregoing Generation did certainly hold the truth in all points Persons who have little knowledge may possibly believe this without supposing it at all doubtful But they who know how uncertain the way of Tradition is and what corruption of Doctrine was in the Jewish Church what Prophecies of Apostasie under the New Testament and what great defections were reproved in many particular Churches in the Apostles times as the Churches of Galatia and the Church of Sardis and others will see that they can have no other certainty of the former Generation where their Fore-Fathers lived being in the right unless they make use of some other trial besides a knowledge that they professed Christianity than an over-weening esteem of their own Relations which may be an affectionate but not a rational ground of perswasion and by this means the perswading virtue of Tradition may be prevalent but its ruling Power cannot be evidenced Indeed where there is no better help than Tradition it may lead to error in one place if it lead to truth in another and so is no where certain thus it did perswade the Heathen to refuse Christianity because their Fathers delivered other wayes of Gentile Worship which I suppose is part of that vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers mentioned by Saint Peter 1 Pet. 1.18 Yea God himself complains Jer. 9.13 14. They have forsaken my Law which I set before them and have walked after the imagination of their own heart and after Baalim which their Fathers taught them Protestants acknowledge the practice or belief of Fore-Fathers to be a considerable Motive to perswade either to judge or do as they judged and did until by inquiring into the Rule it shall discover any error therein and then it is to be declined Yet withal he who understands that his Fore-Fathers did keep to a fixed Rule in preserved Records hath thereby the more reason to rely on their judgment as a strong Motive to perswade him and this is the case of Protestants § 9. He proceeds to shew That the third condition of the Rule of Faith agrees to Tradition that is it is apt to justifie unreflecting persons that they proceed rationally while they rely on it because it is a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers in things they were taught and practised all their lives Nor can any deceit be suspected in such multitudes who all agree in a matter of fact appear to speak seriously and practise as they speak especially since Parents will be apt to teach their Children things good and true I answer Where there are many testifiers capable of giving testimonies surely it would be a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers but where what evidence they give supposeth such innumerable contingencies which though possibly they may all have happened right yet it is a thousand times more like they have not this testimony is far from any tolerable satisfaction But in the present case none can give testimony but only concerning the last Age nor concerning that with absolute certainty They cannot testifie what is necessary here to be known to wit that all Ages were free in every Succession from unfaithfulness of memory that they forgat no truth that they all had right understanding to err in none and a liking of it to imbrace all truth and a sufficient care not to add any explications which might vary from the truth nor to deliver any thing upon opinion which they did not certainly know to be truth and withal that every Age did commit the whole truth to the next Generation If any one of these fail in any one succession all security of their knowledge is gone and a former Generation proceeding upon Tradition cannot testifie all this and therefore cannot be a multitude of knowers This way of Tradition must therefore suppose all things right in the Roman Church but will not prove them so Can there be any likelihood now of the certainty of Oral and practical Traditions bringing down truth since before the Flood where the Successions of Generations were not many and many of them lived together and had an Adam cast out of Paradise as a visible token of Gods vengeance against them who were negligent in Religion yet it is certain there was great corruption at that time And after the Flood they worshipped other gods though they had the argument of the deluge to make them more careful both to deliver and receive the true Religion after Moses's time they had the Motive of the terrible presence upon Mount Sinai and many wonderful judgments and after Ezra's time the Argument of the Captivity to make them careful in Religion and yet in all these times they miscarried But he tells us no deceit can be suspected here I answer if there be so many waies of failing otherwise what if there be no design of deceiving but indeed it is not a thing impossible that there should be a designed forsaking the truth in the Church which in the way of Oral Tradition will eventually include deceiving Is it not possible that men who profess Religion may so far gratifie the Devil and their own vain imaginations as to forsake the truth they know in great matters of Faith and to practise and live contrary to it and to promote that which they know is contrary to truth Else what mean such complaints as these Jer. 11.9 10. A conspiracy is found amongst the men of Judah and among the Inhabitants of Jerusalem They are turned back to the iniquity of their fore-fathers which refused to hear my words and they went after other Gods to serve them Is not a conspiring to refuse Gods Word and to serve other Gods a designed rejecting the truth Yea I further demand what account can possibly be given of the high corruptions among the Jews all along from Moses to Christ unless a designed rejecting the truth especially in such cases as these That they who had seen Gods wonders in Egypt and had heard the commandments delivered on Mount Sinai should say to Aaron Arise make us Gods Exod. 32.1 If this was not done wilfully and against sufficient knowledge then we must imagine
that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai yet knew not the first or second Commandment Yea after many severe judgments to shew how necessary the observation of Gods Commandments were yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges and of many of the Kings of Israel could this be for want of knowledge when the Law of God was among them which would teach them otherwise Yet if this Authour shall think it was of great ignorance this will as much destroy his way of Tradition since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand to make it knowable And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests and their serving Baalim which their Fathers taught them was of long continuance § 10. He asserts by way of Answer to an Objection That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture because setting aside Traditions help this only depends on skills judgements and fancies and not on certain sense either for the meaning or letter of Scripture Touching the letter of Scripture we set not aside the help of Tradition but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to relie on and I have in former Discourses shewed that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture both as to letter and sense Yea the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths than the sense of Tradition can be because though the words be supposed equally intelligible whether written or spoken it is more evident that the words found in Scripture are such as contain the sense of Scripture than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition Because it is certain that in many concerning points there are many things delivered by several in the Church which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions so that it will be hard if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar to understand what words in many points he may doubt of do truly express the sense of the Church unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings such as either Scriptures Canons of Catholick Councils or Liturgies or the like the former as this Authour too much rejects so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other which the Vulgar are not capable of searching Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture or by Oral and practical Tradition let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soonest close with The case is by him in this § very unfaithfully propounded Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight or upon the judgment or opinion of a thousand men for as we have shewed it is not only skill and opinion that Protestants do ground upon but delivery of Records and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of they would be the more swayed by the appearance of several persons who assert that they have heard many say that they heard many others say that they received from others and they from others by hearsaies at the fortieth or fiftieth hand or by others who shall produce plain Records and those preserved safe in several Courts which all agree in testifying it was otherwise Or if the Question be about any Legacy if the one party brings such hearsaies abovementioned and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court and evidence that in the same manner it was inrolled in several other Courts is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind But in this § 10. he further adds The Vulgar have reason to believe there was such an one as King James or Queen Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition but if you pump their common reason about the Authority of the Statute Book you shall find them at a loss Concerning King James or Queen Elizabeth they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it and that it is not capable of a mistake nor could any interest be supposed to devise this nor can mens conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition as was observed in Answer to § 7. But to put the case more like this of discovering which is more justifiable of believing Scripture or Tradition I demand whether as to all considerable actions atchievements or constitutions under these Princes it be more rational to relie on what appears in common fame concluding that nothing is considerable which was not there preserved or to apply our selves to some good Historians especially if we could be certain we could find such as had a certain knowledge of all such things and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing concerning all these things This security we have concerning the Scriptures since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith delivered to the World by Jesus Christ and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness Concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man or the Statutes by him collected they can thence conclude that as far as they can be assured that it was his Work and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge so far they are assured of this Books Authority as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgment in them who own it as such But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches that they were able and faithful and their Books faithfully written both from our Saviours approving them to dispense his Gospel and his Church receiving them as such dispensers even in these Writings and God himself bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost So that we are as sure concerning Scripture as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil made approved and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power and thereby Enacted that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England Here it would be a madness to doubt So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture but not to Oral
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
detection of his falshood that they are not agreeable to Tradition and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori § 1 2. HE propounds How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any and tells us he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse But he saith the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless for if they had not faulted the Rule but only pretended men had failed it they might have deluded the World with some colour that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly but if they fault the Rule they judge Tradition ever stood our friend and would overthrow them else they had no more efficacious way to ruine us than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times when they pretend we fell might be easily discovered To answer this its requisite first to understand the meaning Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever I conceive signifies thus much whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation in the same way as they were thence delivered and also whether they have effectually performed this And if this could be proved Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith The proof of this is highly necessary when he hath to do with Protestants because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition because they know it such as cannot be probably expected to be long held to nor can ever be demonstrated or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists relie on we delude not but with truth and evidence assure the World that we desert them only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness it is not necessary for us to know or declare since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors partly by the writing of Fathers who shew what Doctrine they received and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles Now when we give evidence that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose and some Renouncers may be manifested yet since neither Protestants nor Papists can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations and whatever may be known by History upon the Principles of this Discourser must not be believed especially since this is neither the only way nor the best way to shew Primitive Doctrines disowned I may well conclude that the proposal it self is both needless and unreasonable Will this Authour assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers was a Tradition truly derived from Noah unless the person or persons can be named to him who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses until the Authours of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out or could not our Saviour and his Apostles condemn such Traditions unless they first declared the Authors of them Doth he think it would be reason or madness if a temperate man in a sick state should say to his Physician I am sure I was in health and have indeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in and therefore until I can have evidence given me what time and by what act my Distemper began I will not be perswaded but that I am still in health Or if an house that was once firm and strong now is cracked or decaied or burnt down can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned and by what means and when it was set on fire and by whom And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down or in its ashes think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decaied or burnt if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these in purchasing such houses and therefore I have the more reason to suspect that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times by which he interprets himself to mean times which had a vicinity to the Apostles as if Protestants did indeed grant that Popery as it now is was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles whereas this Discourser cannot but know that Protestants do generally assert that though some corruptions might creep into the Church soon after the Apostles daies yet in the chief points of Controversie between Protestants and Papists we do assert that for the first six hundred Years the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions and in many things very long after and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original § 3 4 5. He tells us That such is Gods goodness that the Rule of Faith hath that in it which obligeth the generality not to desert it That Tradition is actually indefectible he undertakes to demonstrate à priori from proper Causes and à posteriori from a now-a-daies experienced effect His grounds for the former are these First the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled in the hearts of great multitudes in several parts of the World Secondly this Doctrine was by all those believed to be the way to Heaven and the deserting it the way to damnation whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable ingaged them to adhere to it Thirdly hopes and fears strongly applied are causes of actual will Lastly this was feasible the things were knowable and within their power Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition I now come to examine these four grounds Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly setled in multitudes and very great numbers that is so much of the Christian Doctrine as was requisite for them to know or all the great and most necessary Christian truths but that all matters of Faith or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles was firmly fetled in all the faithful can never
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
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
the case of many great and famous actions in the world which are now buried in oblivion or upon misinformation condemned but would have been honourably esteemed if they had been truly known And here the Tradition of the Turks concerning the precepts of Mahomet which were liable to mistake would probably have been lost if they had not been preserved in a written Alcoran And the Traditional evidence of this very Alcoran containing his Doctrine is much inferior to the Tradition of Christians for the Scriptures containing the Doctrine of Christ for even from the beginning of the reception of the Turkish Alcoran their Tradition hath not procured it so full approbation but that the Persians who profess themselves Mahometans deliver another Alcoran different from that of the Turks which they declare to contain the true precepts of Mahomet whereas Primitive Christians have as with one mouth all acknowledged that the Scriptures of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists contain the Doctrine of Jesus Christ written by Divine inspiration Now to apply all this to the Doctrine of Christ It is certain 1. that many things delivered by him are capable of misunderstanding and not so easily intelligible as Mahomets existence is which is evidenced by the many mistakes in all Ages and disputes amongst true Catholick Christians as well as Papists about Doctrines of Religion 2. The Doctrine of Christ is likewise lyable to be perverted thus as in the time of the Old Testament the precepts of God were much corrupted by the Scribes and Pharisees who made void the Commandments of God by their Traditions so under the New Testament have many Hereticks grossly perverted this truth and many extravagant Opinionists have strangely blended it with their own misconceptions whence many errors are gone forth into the world 3. Nor can it be proved that in the way of Oral Tradition considered without Scripture all things delivered by Christ are continued in the Church for since in the multitude of Christs words not written by the Apostles or Evangelists the Romish Church cannot say that her Tradition hath preserved any how can the certainty of this Tradition be reasonably imagined so great as to secure a preservation of every Doctrine Now let us again observe that all these Considerations have the greater advantage against the certainty of Tradition by considering with them the many successions of Generations for matters of Faith if but once a little mistaken in one Generation since they must with these mistakes be delivered to the next Generation they may then be more mistaken and so by degrees very considerable mistakes and great corruptions may come in in points of Faith and as to omission of delivery of some truth if it be continued in several Generations yet if it be not impossible that any one Generation as to any truth should neglect the delivery it will in so many successions be very probable that some one hath failed But in the way of Scripture evidence the words are the same which were then delivered and the same words are no more capable of mistakes and corruptions in Doctrine than they were at the first nor are they less delivered to us now than they then were I may now infer from what is abovesaid that the belief of Mahomets existence may be continued by Tradition and yet it may not preserve the whole Body of Christs Doctrine § 4. He observes That humane authority or testimony is such that none are so mad as to doubt them but he that considers Joh. 3.16 1 Cor. 3.9 Mat. 6.26 will be convinced that the wayes of Providence to bring about mans salvation are so much above all others that others in comparison scarce deserve the name of a Providence We own Christianity much more certain than other Histories and things but that the preserving its certainty depends much more on Scripture than on Tradition is evident partly from reason because in a set form of written words a change cannot be so easily made without plain discovery as it may be where there is no such set form of words and partly from considering matters of fact whereby it may appear that Hereticks and opposers of the truth have more corrupted and spread corruptions of Christian Doctrine by their false delivery than ever they could corrupt and spread any corruptions of the Scripture-writing § 5 6. We will touch of the advantages superadded to nature It is natural for every man to speak truth unless some design hinder but true Christian hearts are much more fixt to Veracity § 7. Original corruption leads men to violate Veracity by an undue love of Creatures but Christianity working an overpowering love of Spiritual good leaves mans disposition to truth free § 8. The hopes and fears of Christianity as much exceed others as eternity doth a moment and are so held by all yet other Motives bring down matters of fact truly as the Reigns of Kings Wars Eclipses c. but that Christian Motives are more prevalent than all others appears by considering the Martyrs and Persecutions In answer to this I first observe that what he hath here laid down as a high security to the Churches Tradition makes nothing at all so much as seemingly for the securing all or any of its members from mistakes and misapprehensions nor for the preserving the weak from being deluded by others subtilty All it seems to plead against is intentional deceiving without which there may be much error But yet even this design of deceiving may with many in the Church much prevail notwithstanding all indeavoured to the contrary by this Discourser Where Christianity takes full possession in the power of it it will ingage such men to truth and the love of Heavenly good and the minding of Spiritual hopes and fears but how many are there who profess Christianity who oft speak falshood and are tempted to sin by undue love of Creatures and do not guide their lives according to the hopes and fears Religion sets before them Therefore these things cannot assure us of preserving men from perverting truth or neglect of delivering it much less from ignorance and mistake And as in other matters of History many things are delivered amiss in the common fame but best in the allowed Records so it is also in Christianity § 9. The Ceremonies or Oaths tendered to Officers in a Commonwealth to ingage them to be true to their Trust have no proportion with the Sacraments of the Church applied to Christians that they may not prevaricate from the Faith of Christ These are indeed exceeding high obligations which lie upon Christians But besides that it is no waies credible that all Christians judged themselves hereby obliged to deliver in the way of Oral Tradition all matters of Faith directly as they received them by the same Tradition I say besides this its certain it obliges men as much to the purity of the Christian life as to hold fast the verity of the Christian Doctrine wherefore when it is certain
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
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
the Doctrine delivered by this Discourser or by Protestants Yet further these words of Tharasius confirming the Letters of Adrian then read we may observe how those Letters also as they were recorded by that Council agree with the Protestant Doctrine Now Adrian in that Epistle to Constantine and Irene which Tharasius refers to exhorts them to acquiesce in the Tradition of the Orthodox Faith in the Church of Blessed Peter and Paul the chief of the Apostles and to imbrace it as it hath been done by other Emperours honouring their Vicar with all their heart For these chief of the Apostles who did begin the Catholick Orthodox Faith did command their Faith to be preserved by writing as by Laws enacted even to all them who should succeed them in their Seats and so saith he our Church doth keep it Yea as to the Question in hand then about Images Adrian there urgeth Arguments from Scripture with such expressions as this As the holy Scripture hath it so let us have it and after his arguments from Scripture adds wherefore it is not to be doubted and then indeavours to shew the consent of Fathers Whence it is evident Adrian urged the Emperors to close with the delivery of the Church of Rome because then that Church did keep to the written Laws of the Apostles and by this means preserved their Faith and Scripture he follows to put things out of doubt this was then as appears the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and if that be it which will please this Discourser let him take it and follow it In Act. 3. of this Council this Discourser cites these words We receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church But is this enough for this Authors purpose 1. Is every thing that is received and venerated made a Rule of Faith 2. Must these Apostolical Traditions needs be Oral Tradition Or did the Apostles deliver nothing in Writing These words are in an Epistle of Theodore of Jerusalem to that Council which was by it approved but in that Epistle as throughout this Council they pretended to the Scriptures and Doctrine of the Fathers cited from their Writings to ascertain them of the Doctrine of the Apostles as to the then disputed point concerning Images Yea that we may know what in that Epistle was meant by Apostolical Tradition it is more plain in the end of that Epistle in these words Whereas therefore it is sufficiently plain that the Scripture receiveth them wherefore it is lawful Whence though this Council was erroneous in the decision of the Controversie then in the World for ought hath been yet produced it doth not appear to have been in the same error with this Discourser concerning the Rule of Faith His next testimony from this Council is Act. 7. where the Council have these words We walking in the Kings High-way and insisting upon the Doctrine of our holy and Divine Fathers and observing the Tradition of the Catholick Church in which the holy Spirit dwells do define But what if the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church meant by them was not Oral but written As for the Fathers testimonies its plain they were not received by Oral Tradition but were such as were found in their Writings and were thence cited both in the Letter of Adrian in the second action of that Council and in the testimonies produced Act. 4. As for Tradition it is observable that in the definition of this Council in which are the forecited words they declare that they receive the Churches Traditions whether in Custome or in Writing but then they declare things so received by them to agree to the Gospel and all such customs of the Church if truly such will Protestants as heartily receive as this Council These things they might observe though they did not make them a Rule of Faith And that the Tradition they relied on as the ground of their Faith was chiefly the holy Scriptures may appear probably because in the beginning of the fourth Action where they produce the grounds of their Tradition they first urge several Scriptures Exod. 25. Numb 7. Ezek. 41. Heb. 9. and others and after them the Fathers Writings but it appears more certainly in the seventh Action where is their Synodical Epistle to Constantine and Irene in which they urge many Scriptures to prove the truth of what this Council defined and then say These to wit Scriptures being so confessedly and without all doubt we believe these things to be acceptable and pleasing to God Whence it appears that the Rule by which they did without all doubting believe was the holy Scriptures and what else is a Rule of Faith So that they principally relied on the Scriptures and in consent with them on the written Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and the customs of the Catholick Church And this is that Protestants will not disclaim but allow as a Rule though they will keep better to it than this seventh General Council as it is called did Lastly From the first Action of this Council he cites these words which were spoken by Basilius of Ancyra as part of a recantation of his former opinions and seem to be allowed by that Council They who contemn the Writings of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church and bring for their excuse and inculcate the words of Arius Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus saying unless we were sufficiently instructed out of the Old and New Testament we would follow the Doctrines of the Fathers and of the six holy Synods and the Traditions of the Catholick Church let him be accursed And so will Protestants say They who contemn the preaching of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church against Arius and those other Hereticks which preaching and Tradition did declare it self grounded and was truly grounded upon Scripture imbracing and venting the words of these Hereticks which we know were against Scripture though these persons pretend Scripture to be on their side which we know is not let him be accursed Nor from these words will it follow as he would have it that it was ever the pretence of most execrable Hereticks to decline Tradition and pretend sufficient light from Scripture the contrary to this hath been by me shewed and will be further manifested These words do not speak it the constant practice of Hereticks to pretend to Scripture but only speak of some certain Hereticks whose time is defined to be betwixt the sixth and seventh General Councils for if they had not lived after the sixth Council they could not have declared why they did not follow the six General Councils and if they had not lived before the seventh General Council their words could not have been there produced But such words as these of those Hereticks which decline the true Tradition of the Church founded in Scripture and satisfie themselves with empty pretences of Scripture Protestants will condemn Yet lest the gloss upon these words
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.
c. 18. Cyril relates that when the Metropolitans and Bishops had disputed with Nestorius and had clearly shewed out of the Divine Scripture that he was God whom the Virgin bare according to the flesh and therefore evidently concluded him to err he was full of anger and exclaimed in his manner wretchedly against the truth So that it seems the Metropolitans and Bishops who opposed Nestorius made Scripture their Rule as the Protestants do but the Nestorians then were not for these written words as their Rule but for what is written in mens hearts in which the Nestorian assertion may claim some kindred with our Discourser To observe further what Rule of Faith was made use of against Nestorius we may understand it from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria who as he was the chief opposer of Nestorius so was he highly approved of by this Council of Ephesus for his appearing against Nestorius and also by Coelestine Bishop of Rome as appears in his Letters directed to him Tom. 1. Conc. Eph. c. 16. Cyril concerning the right Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria shews that his Book may be of use to reduce some from error and by various Arguments and demonstrations of the Divine Scriptures to strengthen them in the Faith who are nourished in the Doctrine of truth in that whole Book propounds Doctrines from the several Books of the New Testament against the Doctrine of Nestorius And I suppose it will be granted that that which in such a case of Heresie arising would stablish in the Faith and reduce to the Faith must be established upon and have evidence from the Rule of Faith In another Treatise of his to the same Empresses of the same subject he tells them The Scriptures are the Fountains which God spake of by his Prophet Isaiah saying Draw the waters out of the wells of salvation Wholesom Fountains we call the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and a little after The speeches of the Holy Fathers and their Sanctions wisely stir us up that we should observe diligently what is most agreeing to the holy Scriptures and should with a quick sense contemplate the truth hidden in the Divine letters The same Cyril in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople declared his expectation that Nestorius would have returned from his perverse opinions and would with reverence imbrace the Faith delivered by the holy Apostles and Evangelical Writers as also by the whole holy Scripture and sealed that it might receive no damage by the voices and oracles of the holy Prophets Is not this to make Scripture a Rule of Faith I might add much more from Cyril and what shall be spoken concerning Coelestine who wrote to the Ephesine Council and approved it will further shew the Rule of Faith at that time owned by the Roman Church Therefore I shall here only subjoin one testimony of the whole Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Tom. 4. Conc. Eph. c. 17. wherein they related That the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been read in the Council which the holy Synod did approve by its judgement because it was in the whole agreeable to the Divine Scriptures and the Exposition of Faith which the holy Fathers put forth in the great Synod of Nice We here meet with their being guided by Scripture and the former decisions founded upon it but the Rule of Oral Tradition or any other unwritten Rule was to this Age a perfect stranger SECT VIII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon HAving sufficiently evidenced the Rule of Faith at the time of the first General Council against Arius who denied the Eternal Divinity of the Son of God and of the second against Macedonius who denied the Lordship of the holy Spirit and of the third against Nestorius who divided Christ into two Persons I now shall briefly inquire what was owned as this Rule at the time of the fourth General Council against Eutyches who denied that Christ had two natures wherein Dioscorus was also condemned Now Eutyches was opposed by many Catholick Bishops and more especially was opposed and condemned by Pope Leo. But the Rule by which these Bishops as well as this General Council did condemn him was the holy Scriptures Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in an Epistle of his extant amongst Leo's Epistles Ep. 6. saies There were some who knew not the Divine readings dispraise the Fathers and desert the holy Scripture to their own perdition such an one saith he was Eutyches amongst us Amongst the Epistles of Leo Ep. 53. is extant an Epistle of Eusebius Bishop of Millain and the Council assembled with him wherein that Synod declares their assent to the Faith contained in Leo's Epistle sent to the East because the brightness of light and splendor of truth did shine in it by the assertions of the Prophets Evangelical Authorities and the testimonies of Apostolical Doctrine Leo himself by whose means the Council of Chalcedon was called in which the errors of Eutyches were more fully censured in his tenth Epistle writing of the Eutychians sayes That they fall into this folly because when they are hindred by any obscurity in attaining the knowledge of the truth they have not recourse to the Prophetical voices the Apostolical Letters and Evangelical Authorities but to themselves And a little after of Eutyches he speaketh thus That he knew not what he ought to think of the incarnation of the word of God nor was he willing to gain the light of understanding to labour in the holy Scriptures And in the same Epistle cites and urges many Scriptures against Eutyches with such expressions as these He might have subjected himself to the Evangelical Doctrine in Matthew speaking He might have desired instruction from the Apostolical Preaching reading in the Epistle to the Romans ch 1. He might have brought holy diligence to the Prophetical pages and have found the promise of God to Abraham c. with other Scriptures in the like manner produced These testimonies of Leo evidence that he owned the holy Scriptures to be the best way to come to Faith and be stablished in it and is not this to be a Rule of Faith Yea he further observes that the neglect of them were the cause of swerving from the Faith To come to the Council of Chalcedon it self In its second Action this tenth Epistle of Leo was read and they declared they all believed according to that Epistle At the same time was read the Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius which as it was read in and approved by the third General Council Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. ch 3. So being in Chalcedon read they declared They all believed as Cyril did in which Epistle he shews that we must not divide Christ into two Sons nor make an union of Persons for the Scripture saith The Word was made Flesh which is nothing else but he did
letters are Barbarians as to our speech Cap. 5. He saith Tradition being thus in the Church let us come to that proof which is from Scripture and so spends several Chapters in shewing the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles out of Scriptures From what hath been observed it is evident 1. That the Hereticks Irenaeus dealt with were in some thing of the Spirit of this Discourser that is only for their own Tradition and would neither be tryed by Scriptures nor any other Tradition but what was amongst themselves as our Discourser will disown tryal by Scriptures and by what was delivered in the Fathers Writings or Councils Cor. 14. and from all other Churches but the Roman Church Cor. 13 17. 2. That the reason why he so much insisted upon Tradition was because these Hereticks as they denied Scripture so they pretended to the best Tradition which way of his arguing speaks not Tradition the Rule of Faith but of considerable use in this case even as if we should dispute with a Pagan who owns not Christian Revelation concerning the truth of Christian Religion the using rational Arguments against him will shew that we count them very useful in this case but will not conclude that we own reason and not revelation for a Rule of Faith so if a Christian shall urge the Doctrine of the Old Testament as sufficient and certain against the Jew it would be a vain consequence to inferr that he makes this only and not the New Testament-Revelation the Rule of his Christian Faith 3. That Irenaeus did not think the urging the present Tradition of the Church sufficient against those Hereticks but thought it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Churches Tradition and this Doctrine of the ancient Church he evidenceth sufficiently from the writings as also from the verbal testimonies of them who were famous in the ancient Church and Protestants are as ready as any to appeal to the ancient Church and had we such a man as Polycarp who conversed with S. John we would receive his testimony as far as Irenaeus did But having only ancient Writings which Irenaeus thought sufficient in the case of Tradition we readily appeal to them 4. That when Irenaeus saies the Apostles Tradition is manifest in the whole World lib. 3. c. 3. or lib. 1. c. 3. though there be divers tongues in the World yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same That is the Church in the whole World believes and delivers the same Faith He speaks this against those Hereticks about those great Articles of Faith That there is one God and one Jesus Christ c. as himself expresseth lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 3. c. 3. for even in the time of Irenaeus there was not in all the World an agreement in all Doctrines since Victor Bishop of Rome and Irenaeus did not agree in this whether it was Lawful to Excommunicate the Asian Churches for their different observation of Easter Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 6. Now is this any consequence That Doctrine which teacheth one God c. against those Hereticks was generally continued in the Church till Irenaeus his time which was not two hundred years after Christ therefore all Doctrine must certainly be preserved without corruption in the Churches Delivery above sixteen hundred Years after Christ though we certainly know that besides Protestants other Churches do not now deliver the same things 5. When he said Ought we not to have followed Tradition if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures He saith not we ought to do so now they have left them but rather in these words intimates the contrary But now more directly to see his opinion of the Rule of Faith consider these words of his lib. 3. c. 1. The Gospel they then preached they after delivered to us by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith And then shewing how the Evangelists have delivered to us by Writing saith If any man assent not to them he despiseth even Christ the Lord and the Father and is condemned of himself and resisteth his own salvation Lib. 2. c. 46. Wherefore since the holy Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical clearly and without ambiguity and as they may of all be heard declare c. they appear very dull who blind their eyes at such a clear discovery and will not see the light of preaching C. 41. Having therefore the truth it self for our Rule and the testimony of God being openly manifest we ought not to reject the firm and clear knowledge of God If we cannot find the solution of all things in Scripture we must believe God in these things knowing that the Scriptures are perfect being spoken by the word of God and his Spirit Lib. 4. c. 66. Read more diligently the Gospel which is given us by the Apostles and read more diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and every Doctrine and every passion of our Lord set forth in them Lib. 3. c. 11. The Gospel is the pillar and firmament of the Church and the Spirit of life wherefore it is consequent that it hath four pillars he hath given us a fourfold Gospel which is contained in one Spirit If then according to Irenaeus men may believe by the Scripture and that is the pillar and foundation of Faith and they that seek may find all Doctrine in it which is there clear and manifest is not this enough to shew he makes it a Rule of Faith If not we have observed him calling it by the name of a Rule also and declaring that none but the Barbarous Nations did then receive the Faith in an unwritten way SECT XI What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith ANd first in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where in the begining of his Prooem having observed that some who profess themselves to believe in Christ differ in so great things as concerning God our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost by which words he manifestly refers to such Hereticks as Irenaeus before him treated of Such were Montanists Valentinians Marcionists c. he begins to lay a Rule he will proceed by in the words referred to by this Author Let the Ecclesiastical Preaching delivered from the Apostles by order of succession and remaining in the Church to this time be preserved that only truth is to be believed which in nothing differs from the Ecclesiastical Tradition This is his Rule he will proceed by in these Books by which in opposition to those Hereticks he means the Churches delivery of truth which was chiefly contained in the Scriptures as I shall evidence first because he useth promiscuously the phrases of Ecclesiastical Preaching and Scripture frequently in this Prooem and excepts against the Book called The Doctrine of Peter as being no part of it and in the end of the same Prooem declares that therefore he who would treat of these things to know what is truth in
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
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
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
Offices it is the Ministry of Reconciliation II. The Persons to whom this Ministry is committed that is to Vs III. The Divine Authority by which it is founded I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry And because it is an holy Function committed to some particular Persons by God himself the main Business thereof cannot consist in speaking or doing such Things as may be said or done by other Men but in the discharge of a special Office And an Office tho it requireth Abilities in them who undertake it yet is chiefly conveyed by Commission and Authority It is possible that Corah or some other of his Company might be as well acquainted with the Rites of Sacrificing and the way of ordering the Incense as Aaron and his Sons were but if they not being called of God thereto will invade the Priesthood they must bear their Sin Wherefore I design to discourse here of the chief and proper Charge and Business of the Gospel-Ministry which must include the Dignity thereof And here I shall shew 1. What is contained in it in four Heads 2. What must be rejected from it 1. As God's Officers they are to prepare Persons for receiving the Blessings of the Gospel And because the Wrath of God will come on the Children of Disobedience and the way to be happy is by the Faith of Christ and becoming holy and good the Officers of the Christian Church by a peculiar Authority are publickly to declare the Doctrines of Faith and the great Certainty and Evidence thereof to make Men well-grounded Christians and the Directions and Rules of holy Life together with the great Motives which tend to persuade the practice of them They are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Teachers and the Instruction of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appears as anciently as from Justin Martyr to be one part of their publick Performances in the Church Just Mart. Apol. 2. And the Practice hereof is commended in the Scriptures and the ancient Writers as early as Ignatius exhorting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Polycarp to exhort and persuade all Men for their Salvation And these Instructions are to be accounted of greater moment because delivered by those to whom God hath granted his Commission as the declaring the Law or giving a Charge by a Judg or particular Officer is more than the Discourse of a private Person The Flock of Christ ought to have such a respect to the Shepherds he hath appointed as to think it their Duty to be taught and guided by them Since our Saviour declared not only concerning his Apostles but even of the Seventy Mat. 10.40 He who heareth you heareth me and more generally with a Note of Remark concerning all those who are sent by him Luke 16.16 Joh. 13.20 that he who receiveth them receiveth him To this Head also belongeth another part of Ministerial Power in preparing Men for God's Blessing which was more remarkably exercised under the vigour of Primitive Discipline in enjoining particular Rules for and examining the Probation-State of the Catechumeni who from Paganism embraced Christianity and of them who for their Offences came under the then severe Discipline of Penitents This Authority the Apostle made use of in this Epistle concerning the Incestuous Corinthian 2 Cor. 2.6 7. declaring his Grief and Punishment to have been sufficient and this was Baron an 57.1 58.36 Illyr Praefat. ad Ep. Pauli as both Baronius and Illyricus think in the next Year after the Sentence of his Excommunication was inflicted And besides the present Interest of Ministerial Power with respect to Rules of open Discipline it is of great use for them who have exposed their Souls to great Dangers and also for disquieted Minds in such Cases as press their Consciences to take the particular Counsel of their Guides whom God hath appointed to watch for their Souls Heb. 13.17 Which might be a great Help to secure some from their growing Perplexities and others from running on in Viciousness or turning aside unto Delusions 2. This Function contains an Authority from God to receive Persons under the Terms of Reconciliation and to bless them in God's Name As they are Stewards of the Mysteries of God they have a peculiar Right to dispense to his People his holy Sacraments as signal Pledges of his Grace and Favour Hereupon they who receive Baptism at their hands being duly qualified for it receive thereby Remission of Sins become Members of Christ and Heirs of Salvation And as St. Paul was directed to be baptized and wash away his Sins so the Christian Church hath generally acknowledged Baptism to be Acts 22.16 Clem. Alex. Paed. l. 1. c. 6. as Clemens Alexandrinus expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Laver to make us clean from our Sins And the ordinary dispensing Baptism is a proper Act of the Ministerial Power both in that Christ gave commission to his Apostles to baptize and especially because this is a particular Exercise of the Keys in receiving Members into the Church of Christ and is also the dispensing the Symbol of Remission of Sins which is included under that Commission of Christ Whose soever Sins ye remit they are remitted unto them John 20.23 In the Holy Communion also the pious and penitent Christian receiveth at the hands of him who by his Office dispenseth it the Mystical Body and Blood of Christ and a Testimony of God's Favour and Blessing And because this Sacrament is the Application of Christ's Sacrifice offered for the Remission of Sins a devout humble and penitent Person doth hereby receive Pardon to which purpose St. Ambrose Qui manducaverit hoc corpus De Sacrament l. 4. c. 5 6. fiet ei remissio peccatorum And again Debeo illum Sanguinem semper accipere ut semper mihi peceata dimittantur Which Words speak the receiving the Body and Blood of Christ in this Sacrament to include Remission of Sins And the dispensing and consecrating this holy Sacrament must needs be proper to the special Officers of the Christian Church since no Man without God's particular Authority can dispense and consecrate the Pledges of his Grace and of Remission of Sins as tendred from him The pronouncing Absolution by them to whom the Gospel giveth this Authority doth also from God tender and apply Remission of Sins to the Pious and Contrite by virtue of our Saviour's Words Whose Sins ye remit they are remitted but by no means to the Disobedient and Neglectful The Augustine Confession declareth Absolution to be highly esteemed quia est Vox Dei mandato Dei pronunciatur Conf. August cap. de Confes as being the Voice of God and pronounced by his Command In like manner the giving a Benediction or Blessing by them whether generally in the Publick Service or more particularly in some special Offices is an Application of the Blessing of God by his Authority unto the pious Christian Numb 6.27 but not to
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
real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and
despising the Blessings which he tenders by those Institutions Wherefore since Episcopal Ordination hath been of so general Practice from the Apostles in the Church of God and is regularly established and continued in this Kingdom no Man in this Church with respect to Order Unity and Apostolical Institution can reasonably expect that God will ever own him as his Officer in the Ministry of Reconciliation unless he be admitted thereto by such Ordination And private Christians both out of Duty to God and out of respect to their own Safety may not so esteem of any who oppose themselves against this Order because of the Danger under the New Testament of perishing in the gainsaying of Core And let every Person whosoever he be be wary how upon any pretence whatsoever he undertakes to execute any proper part of the Power of the Keys unless he be set apart thereunto by regular Ordination And now I shall conclude my Discourse with three Inferences First This gives us an account whence all that Opposition and Difficulty doth arise which the Ministration of the Gospel and the faithful Servants of God therein do meet with The Devil will use his utmost Power by all his Methods to hinder so good a Work as this Ministration is intended for Hence the Holy Jesus and most of his Apostles met with opposition even unto Death And as all the Persecutions of the Christian Church had an especial eye upon the Clergy so that violent one under Dioclesian Eus Hist l. 3. c. 12. for the first Year fingled them only out to be the Subjects of his Fury These are the ordinary Mark against whom all the Churches Enemies shoot their poysoned Arrows envenomed from the Malignity of the Old Serpent And when the Evil One cannot proceed by open Violence he oft makes use of Instruments to fix slanderous Censures and Calumnies upon the Officers of Christ to render their Ministration the less prosperous and successful in the World Insomuch that their Devoutness in Religion is by some upbraided with Ceremoniousness and their consciencious Observance of due Order and Averseness to Faction is branded with the odious Term of Popery and their embracing the necessary Reformation of the Church is by others stigmatized with the infamous Names of Heresy and Schism Thus our Saviour was called Beelzebub himself accused of Blasphemy and his Doctrine of Heresy Besides these things the vicious and scandalous Practices of too many who profess the Truth the various Schisms and other manifold Corruptions in the Doctrine and Practice of Religion and I wish I might not add the undue Proceedings of some Patrons in conferring Ecclesiastical Preferments are all of them dangerous Methods made use of by the Evil One to hinder the attaining the great Ends of this Ministration Secondly I now address my self to you my Reverend Brethren It is a weighty Charge a Business of great Importance that we are called unto and as we are Stewards of the Living God it is required of us that we be found faithful And for the putting us in mind of that serious Care and Diligence which we are to use in our Ministry I know not how to speak otherwise so well as by recommending the serious and frequent considering that useful Exhortation in the Book of Ordination And let us particularly look well to our own Paths for tho the Excellency of God's Ordinances doth not depend upon the Instruments yet if a Blemish appears in any of our Lives it becomes a great Prejudice to the Designs we should carry on among Men and will open the Mouths of our Enemies and if there be a Judas among the Apostles the Devil is ready to make a special use of him to his purposes But let us observe that Rule which but a few Verses after my Text the Apostle tells us was the Practice of himself and other Officers of the Christian Church Giving no Offence in any thing that the Ministry be not blamed but in all things approving our selves as the Ministers of God 2 Cor. 6.3 4. Thirdly Let every one in their places lay to their helping-Hand to promote the Success of this Ministry upon themselves and others Wherefore let every Man who lives under the Dispensation of the Gospel reject all Wickedness of Life and exercise himself unto Godliness and so he will certainly advantage himself and probably others by his good Example And let all those who have the management of the Authority of the Church in their hands indifferently check the Neglect and Contempt of the Publick Service of God and all other Viciousness and Evil which comes within the Limits of their Authority and countenance and encourage all real Vertue Goodness Holiness and Religion And those Parish-Officers who stand charged upon their Oaths to give an account of Offences which is noted by our 26th Canon to be the chief Means whereby publick Offences may be reformed and punished and whose Miscarriage is there severely censured let not them sinfully neglect their Oath and their Duty the right Discharge of which may tend to the Glory of God the flourishing of the Church and Religion and the bringing Men into the Ways of Happiness And because the Apostle proposeth that humbling Question concerning the Ministerial Charge Who is sufficient for these Things Let us earnestly implore the Help and Grace of God to assist us and succeed our Ministrations to the great Good of Men. And let every devout Christian join his fervent and frequent Prayer to this end and purpose That he who hath committed to us this Ministration would bring all those who partake thereof unto true Holiness of Life here and eternal Happiness hereafter through the Merits of Jesus Christ our Lord To whom with the Father and the Holy-Ghost be all Glory for evermore Amen A SERMON Preached at NORWICH March 2. 1678. JOEL 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart IN the foregoing part of this Prophecy there is a dismal appearance of things concerning Judah a heavy threatning of sad Calamities therein both by Famine and Sword in the first Chapter and former part of the second The dreadfulness hereof is represented according to an usual Prophetick Style as if God was making the whole Fabrick of his Creation to totter v. 10. The Earth shall quake before them and the Heavens shall tremble the Sun and Moon shall be dark and the Stars shall withdraw their shining And this great Calamity was like to be the more sad because of the terror of God's Vengeance going along with it v. 11. The Day of the Lord is great and very terrible and who can abide it In such a case as this these words which our Church directeth to be read at the beginning of Lent which is now near and which are of excellent use at all times are the beginning of the Prophetical Direction for their help and recovery from this sad Condition and such a Remedy as recovereth one gasping
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
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
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
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