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
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.
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
separating party can justifie it self it must be able to plead truly and manifest that the Church from which it departs is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good even all the rules of Faith and Life and due Order which the Christian Religion doth direct and include 3. Beginning with the Quakers I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour and outward expressions of reverence to Governours when Christianity injoins kindness humility courteousness and the due expressions of them to all men and honourable respect to be given to Superiors I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath even in judicial proceedings which if rightly undertaken is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth the maintaining justice preserving rights and ending strife But waving very many blameable errors received amongst them I shall insist on four things which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses vigorously asserted which are of such a nature that those who embrace these Principles and practise according to them may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians Yet in so wild and Enthusiastick a Sect I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions Here I shall observe 4. First Their denial of and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord and in the Holy Ghost And (d) Conc. Nicen Constantinopol the two first General Councils of the Christian Church were in a good part imployed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresie And this Christian Faith is not only contained in and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity that many of those Hereticks who denied the Trinity thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained and his Church from him (e) Just Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. 13. had universally received Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunomius altered the Baptismal form not Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but into the death of Christ And amongst the Arians who owned not the Son to be co-eternal and of the same substance with the Father the form of Baptism was perverted and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop who Baptized into the Name of the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost And before these when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ his followers the Paulianists were injoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19. Nice to be re-baptized since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel in Cod. Ecel c. univ 19. was not into the Holy Trinity which he did not acknowledge And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholick Christian Church believed and into whose Name they were Baptized he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but they who disown the Trinity cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what my self hath formerly been concerned in Almost three and twenty years since some of the chief Quakers being busie in these parts two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions or Positions rather challenging me to dispute with them the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers with more also I then accepted this challenge and we went through all these nine in three days discourse In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarm'd Mr. Smith at Cambridge At that time in the Year 1659 I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead in the presence of George Fox and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of which were contained in a Book written by him and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend which was Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out I even tremble to write the words which the licentiousness of those times gave way to (l) Ishmael c. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer are denied and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness for the Lake and the Pit But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge 6. Sometime after this as if they had a mind to shew themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity I received a paper (m) Directed to them that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead and that the Father is the first and the Word the second and the Spirit the third and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead of Five Queries containing very many branches under them wholly levelled against the Doctrine of the Trinity and subscribed by George Whitehead and George Fox And after I had returned an Answer to these I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed In this paper which I have by me it is declared That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity are Popish terms and names
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
and that they had the right sense Now he who thinks not this a Rule sure enough to reject the then contrary Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as that he must be a great Temporal Prince and such like must own the Pharisees to be rather in the right than our Saviour and his Apostles And yet all these Arguments of our Discourser would here take place even those which concern Translations for at that time the Jews who after the Captivity did not commonly understand the Hebrew did make use of some the Syriack or Chaldee Translations which though of Hebrew Original as much differs from it as our English from the Saxon and others and those very many of the Greek Version which is as much different from the Hebrew as our English is from either of them His § 9 10 11. contain what he would perswade his Reader a Protestant would say against his Discourse which he undertakes to answer These things concern not us who have already returned our own Answer otherwise than to let him know that sober Protestants do not speak so weakly and absurdly as in some things he there represents them § 12. He sayes Some will reply fundamentals are clear in Scripture True indeed some do reply to this purpose and not only Protestants but the ancient Fathers upon the like occasion Thus Origen when Celsus in opposing Christianity urged the obscurity and uncertain sense of Scriptures Orig. lib. 7. cont Cels answers That whatever was useful for their hearers to understand and might confer any thing to the amending of their lives these things the Prophets spake without all covertness according to the will of God But such things as were mystical and matters of higher enquiry and speculation than the vulgar were capable of these things they declared by allegories and dark sayings Austin de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 9. saith Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture are found all those things which contain faith and manners And Athanasius with his Council of Egypt in their Synodical Epistle to Jovian the Emperour tell him That the true and religious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is plain to all being both known and read out of the divine Scriptures and all these sayings include fundamentals being clear in Scripture Against such Answers or Replies he who should first have considered whether his Church had ever given a Catalogue of Traditions in Points de fide or can yet agree to do it which he knows they cannot against himself as well as against reason tells us That a perfect Catalogue of fundamentals was never yet agreed upon and without this all goes to wrack and then he enquires Whether this be a fundamental that Christ is God and Whether this be clearer in Scripture than that God hath hands feet nostrills and passions like ours Concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals though as to matters of meer belief Protestants have oft asserted that the Creed contains them all yet the requiring such a Catalogue in this case from Protestants as it is needless so to a sober Enquirer will seem ridiculous and the only true way to disprove this Assertion is to shew something to be fundamental which is not plain enough in Scripture to be thence believed To put a like case If I should assert That in England may be had all things which are necessary for the convenient subsistence of man would it not be a thing ridiculous to say that till I could distinguish all things necessary for this subsistence from things unnecessary and produce a Catalogue of them this cannot be truly asserted For suppose such an enumeration of things necessary attempted if any thing be omitted which to another seems necessary and is in England or if some thing be inserted which seems not necessary and yet is in England still this assertion of all things necessary for subsistence being here may stand good and can no way be disproved but by shewing that there is somewhat necessary for mans subsistence which cannot be had in England This I suppose this Author did discern and therefore will here venture to instance in a Fundamental not clear in Scripture but I think he will come off with very bad success It is concerning the Divinity of Christ which we own a fundamental and if this Author shall say it is not so plain in Scripture as thence to be believed he must contradict S. John who tells us he wrote for this purpose that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20.31 So that he must either grant that this is so plain in Scripture that there is sufficient evidence there for our believing it or else he must say that when the Evangelist wrote that we should believe him to be the Son of God he had no eye to our believing his Divinity or his being God and he who will so assert will deny this to be a fundamental or else he must say that the Evangelist and the Holy Ghost who inspired him mistook in supposing enough written to declare his Divinity But he here seems to object and elsewhere that some who seem to follow the letter of the Scripture deny this as the Socinians What then This is not for want of evidence in Scripture but from making or devising wayes to avoid this evidence Will this Author say that there was no evidence of there being Angels and Spirits amongst the Jews because the Sadducees who had opportunity of observing all such evidence believed neither Angel nor Spirit And will he say that there was no clear evidence from the Word of Christ and his Miracles that they were from God because the Pharisees and other unbelieving Jews who conversed with him and saw his Miracles and heard his Word yet did not acknowledge them from God Now if this be so clear from Scripture as thence to be believed and that God hath hands feet and passions like ours be not so delivered as I shall shew in answer to his next Discourse where he urgeth this again then I may safely and truly conclude that the Divinity of Christ is much more clear in Scripture than the other Indeed that God hath hands c. like ours I know not of the least intimation of any such thing in the letter of Scripture though it should not be allowed the common and usual Figures of Speech which are intelligible enough to men of Reason since when it speaks of Gods Hand or Arm or the like it plainly shews them not like ours as God said to Job Job 40.9 Hast thou an arm like God and canst thou thunder with a voice like him These two properties therefore of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture notwithstanding all this Author hath jointly objected against it An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture IN § 1. and 2. he layes down his third Property of the Rule
consent in all material things Nor can I imagine that either this Author or any understanding Papist can believe this story for since it appears to be much their design to bring the New Testament and Old likewise so far into question that it might not be capable of being a Rule if they thought in truth that Archbishop Vsher observed so much of various readings as would effectually do this it cannot be doubted they would soon collect and publish such various readings or procure some other to do it unless they do imagine that that was observed by Bishop Vsher which cannot be observed by any other man Now as their not performing this perswades us Protestants that the Papists themselves do not believe this story so it discovers to us that we have no reason at all to believe it our selves Thus having discovered the Doubts moved by this Discourser not to be acute and convictive we conclude that this Property notwithstanding these Doubts doth belong to Scripture that it is defensible against the most acute Adversaries and there is sufficient evidence concerning it to prevail with them An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture § 1. THese two last Properties are Certainty in it self and ascertainableness to us That the latter cannot agree to Scripture is the subject he saith of his foregoing Discourse and depends upon the former its being certain in it self What he urged in his foregoing Discourse I have in mine answered and shall now examine what he writes against the certainty of Scripture § 2. To shew Scripture not certain in it self he tells us the material Characters in Books may be burnt torn blotted out or worn out and this he calls a deep consideration because it would be a disorderly proceeding to lay such a weak means for so main an end as the salvation of mankind These are indeed but vain and empty words which he calleth his deep consideration For doth this Author imagine that there is no certainty in any other Records which are preserved because they consist of matter capable of perishing and where did he learn that nothing which is not of the most unalterable nature in the World must be made the means of mans salvation Let this deep Considerer think whether after the Promise to Abraham of the Messias to come out of Isaac's Seed this Seed could not be a means for the Salvation of mankind because Isaac might possibly have been killed before he had any Seed and all his Children were mortal men and was there not a much greater possibility then of Isaac's death before he had any Seed or of all his Seed after than there now is of all the Copies of Scripture being destroyed And may not the same be urged concerning the Seed of David and Solomon Yea so perniciously dangerous are the assertions of this Authour that they would tempt men to reject the ever-blessed Jesus as well as the Scriptures But dare he say that the life and Ministry of our Lord Jesus could not be a means for the salvation of mankind because he was in our nature lyable to death and to him who only considers this nature it might seem possible he might have died before he had declared all Gospel-Doctrine But this empty and vain consideration of this Author hath its foundation either in imagining the World without a God to order it or at least in supposing that the means of mans salvation must have their effect from the strength of nature and not from God who can use the weak things of the World to confound the Mighty But the Scriptures are not so lyable to be destroyed as any thing else in nature as this Authour falsely asserts Was there but one Copy to be found as it was in Josiah's time if this was in the hands of a professed enemy to Religion there might be fear of the Scriptures being lost if we had no eye to Divine Providence But since there are so many millions of Copies and the number yearly increased and these in the hands of many thousands who would hazard their lives to preserve them there will appear more reason to fear that all the generation of mankind now growing up should perish and die before they come to their full stature and so mankind cease for want of propagation than to imagine that all the Copies of Scripture should be destroyed For as it is certain that in every generation many thousands die in their infancy or childhood so there can be no demonstration nor rational proof that all shall not unless it be by considering the Providence of God and as a Copy of Scripture is in it self much more durable than the life of a man as appears by many Copies written several ages since and these Copies are more capable of lying undiscovered from the eye of an enemy than a man is who must be where he may have food to preserve him so there is as much reason to eye or hand of Providence in preserving Scripture as in preserving mankind For these Scriptures never could be destroyed when there were not such innumerable Copies as now there are When the Jews only had these Oracles of God many learned men are of opinion that Manasseh and some that Amon designed the destroying all Scripture Copies yet there was one left which was found in the Temple and brought to Josiah Antiochus Epiphanes as Josephus relates Antiqu. Jud. lib. 12. c. 7. made the same attempt but could not effect it And after Christ the same was indeavoured by Dioclesian Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 7.20 but such designs prevailed not and yet then there was not probably one Copy of Scripture for some hundreds now Yea further if the case should be such that no Copy of Scripture was to be found it is not impossible with God who could have raised Isaac from the dead if he had been slain by extraordinary messengers to renew the Scriptures if they were not otherwise to be had God hath taken other care by his Providence for their preservation yet those ancient Fathers as Tertullian de Habitu Muliebr c. 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. Irenaeus advers Haeres lib. 3. c. 25. and S. Hierome c. who were of opinion that the Scriptures then written were lost at the time of the Captivity did assert them again restored by Ezra But that Position of the Scriptures then being lost is exploded by the most learned and judicious Papists such as Baronius ad An. 180. Bellarmine and others not only as being an Apocryphal story contradicted in Neh. 8.1 2. but by Baronius in the place cited it is expresly declared not possible that since they had at least as many Copies of Scripture as Synagogues yet none of them should be preserved Much less can they now be lost since it is not improbable that there are now as many thousands of Copies as were then Jewish Synagogues Hence we may observe that
New Testament writing and Eusebius relates that S. Mark carried his written Gospel and preached it in Egypt Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 11. and S. Peter himself made use of S. Paul's Writings and commended them 2 Pet. 3.15 16. and so did all the Ancient Fathers of Apostolical Writings He is bold to say That the Revolters from Primitive method closed with Scripture as the Rule But in truth when the World erred by vain Tradition it was none other than God himself who wrote the ten Commandments and gave the Law of Moses and the Prophets to guide the Israelites And when Pharisaism that great Heresie was maintained by Tradition they who laid Scripture as the Rule against it were none other than Christ and his Apostles who referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and gave forth the Scriptures of the New Testament But he saith Scripture as it is made the Rule of Faith is brought to the vilest degree of contempt and every upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it But who contemns it not Protestants who make it their Rule and they who do will be highly guilty as were the despisers of Jesus who was also contemned and despised of men But is this a cause of contempt if all Heresies pretend to it do they not all pretend to the right worshipping the true God the true following of Christ and owning Christian Religion as well as to the Scriptures and are these excellent things the more contemptible because they pretend to them yet it is false that all Heresies have pretended to Scripture For as some have denied Scripture as it is witnessed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as some have gone to revelation and secret wayes of delivery of Doctrine as the same Authors shew and the History of Simon Magus Basilides Marcion Manes and others evidence so others have pretended to the publick Church-Tradition continued to their time Thus did the Heresie of Artemon in Eus Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 27. who declared That Christ was only man and their Ancestors they said had declared this unto them to be not only that which the Apostles received from the Lord but that which they generally taught and was continued until the times of Victor and that Zephyrinus who succeeded Victor at Rome and in whose time these Hereticks lived corrupted this teaching It seems this Heresie had numerous followers or Attestors in that it is there said in Eusebius it might have had much probability if it had not been contradicted by the Scriptures and the Writings of the Ancient Brethren Yea these very Hereticks did indeavour to alter and corrupt the Scriptures so far they were from making them a Rule He further sayes The many Sects in England flow from this Principle of Scripture being a Rule of Faith and it is a wonder this doth not oblige men to renounce that Principle which is the necessary Parent of such disorders This hath been answered Disc 3. n. 3 4. so far as concerns difference of opinions But that all the Sects in England do arise from this opinion of the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith is very far from truth for First it is certain that some of these Sects do not profess it to be their Rule I suppose he knows there are some of his perswasion that make Tradition their Rule and he knows there are others who pretend to be guided by the Light within them and the way of redressing these Sects is by receiving this general truth Secondly other Sects or Parties of men there are who indeed profess to follow these Scriptures as their Rule but it is not their owning but their not right using them which is the occasion of their error it is their over rashly entertaining their own conceptions without sufficient and unprejudiced inquiry as if they were plain in Scripture and necessary Doctrines when indeed they are not and the true way for healing these distempers is by laying aside such rashness and prejudice resolving to close with that only as necessary Doctrine which upon impartial inquiry appears plain in Scriptures and to use serious diligence in such inquiry and this is to act according to Protestant Principles yea according to the Doctrine of Christ who did not give such direction to the Sadduces who strictly professed to own the Law but denied the Resurrection that the way to be free from their error was to reject that Rule but blamed them as not knowing the Scriptures and declared that therefore they did err and if this was truly heeded all disorderly Sects would be at an end But on the contrary should we reject these excellent discoveries of God because they have been abused by the sin of man to the promoting many Sects where should we leave when Christians imbraced the Doctrine of Jesus and what was delivered by the Apostles many Sects hence took occasion all to pretend to this Doctrine must Christianity therefore be also disclaimed and with much greater reason must not all Controversial Enquiries and speculations in Theology be abandoned because they are the Parents of many Sects and Divisions even amongst the Papists and must not all reasonings and apprehensions be disclaimed because they are the original of so many disputes and different Sects both in Philosophy and Divinity This would be the way to renounce being men and being Christians Thus the rejecting the Scriptures would be taking Poyson instead of Cure yea it would be as if the food used amongst civilized Nations should be prohibited and their civil rights disclaimed because many abuse the former by intemperance to surfeits and Diseases and the latter is the occasion of War Strife and Contention and therefore that men should live only on Acorns and such other Fruits of the Field and without any Possessions as Wild men that they may be thereby out of these dangers Who sees not that temperance and a peaceable spirit would be the best preservatives from these dangers and would make the state of man and of the World excellent and though there might then remain some infirmities in the Constitution either of the Body Natural or Politick yet none so great as would be occasioned by rejecting the course of a civilized life so if the abovementioned Protestant Principles were put in practice there might remain some different apprehensions and opinions yet none such as would be either dangerous or disturbing but as the persons might have Faith and Salvation so both Church and State might injoy their peace and quiet An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it BEfore I come to disprove what is delivered by this Author on the behalf of his way of Tradition it will be requisite first to state the Question concerning Oral and Practical Tradition and to shew what we grant concerning it and what we deny that so it may after appear how far we have cleared the truth of the Protestants Assertion We assert the
is a contingency and notwithstanding the virtue of Tradition might have been otherwise as appeared in the Eastern Churches under Arianism Yea the reason why these Doctrines are preserved intire among the Romanists is probably this that as they have been and are delivered by them from the Scriptures they are also delivered in certain forms of words and in those Creeds which were received from those Ancient Churches and Councils who were not erroneous but agreed to the Scripture Now whereas their Tradition directs to receive what hath been delivered and the things delivered have been some by Councils truly Catholick and other things by erroneous Councils it may well be that Tradition may in some things deliver rightly and yet either omit the delivery of other things or deliver them amiss And if there had been nothing more to have preserved these Doctrines in the Western Church but what was in the necessary virtue of Tradition the Romish Church not here to mention any thing of Arian Popes might have lost these points as well as the Eastern long since did where Tradition lost this virtue of preserving them Now that it may appear how vainly this Discourser would conclude the certainty of Tradition from the things propounded in these Queries I shall mention some parallel Cases to which the substance of what is here questioned may be applied As 1. Concerning Gentilism To follow this Authour I would ask was not the Belief of a God and what things we agree in constantly preserved by Tradition among them now by what virtue did Tradition perform this may we not by the same virtue of Tradition receive what they delivered concerning the way of Gods Worship and would not this Tradition as well have continued all other things if any such had been delivered Thus it would plead for Gentilism 2. How would this plead for Judaism Did not Tradition amongst them continue till Christs time the Doctrine of Circumcision of the Sabbath of Sacrifices and of a Messias and must they not needs be in the right in all other matters of delivery though they were condemned by Christ and his Apostles 3. See how these Queries would plead against all possibility of forgetfulness When I have read a Book over and am certain I rightly remember some clauses in it may I thence conclude that by the same virtue of memory I remember these I should have remembred all other clauses if there had been any and therefore certainly there was no more in the Book than I can remember Or if I should conclude that because I am certain that I remember some passages which happened when I was a Child therefore by the same virtue that these things were delivered to my memory I also remember aright all things then done who would not see that this is a meer vain piece of Sophistry since some things may be more fully understood than others and more heedfully observed the impression upon many occasions more deeply imprinted and the remembrance of them more frequently repeated whence some things may be remembered and others not and the same causes may be assigned in matters of Religion To his 4. Qu. I answer Things may be received as delivered ever when yet there was no ever-delivery which I will manifest in answer to the following § where he would prove the contrary § 3. He layes down this effect The present perswasion of Catholicks that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly which must for its Cause have Traditions Ever-Indeficiency § 4. To prove this he layes his first Principle That Age which holds Faith so delivered cannot change nor know any change of it because no man much less a whole Age can hold contrary to knowledge nor here change without knowledge To this I answer That supposing the abovementioned perswasion this may rise from other causes besides Traditions indeficiency Yea this his first Principle to prove the contrary is very weak For first it is very easie to conceive that mistaken Explications of Points of Faith may be held by a present Generation as having been matters of Faith ever delivered and yet may be really different from the things delivered and so include a change This is the more apt to take place if such explicated points seem plausibly declared and are either abetted by men of great fame or serve an interest and this is as possible as it is for men to be deceived in their conceptions about things not in express terms delivered since it is certain that many points now owned as matters of Faith in the Romish Church were not expresly and in such terms delivered of old yea this Authour acknowledgeth as much p. 206 207. Many such explicated points have in Councils been declared to be de fide though not only against the minds of many who before asserted the contrary but of others who in the said Councils opposed it Secondly to deliver a Doctrine as from Christ where they change or know some change of it is much more probable in the Roman Church than in others if any ignorance possess the Leaders or any interest and private designs take place upon some few of them For since the Tradition which particular persons have received must submit to the determination of a Council◠or else must they be anathematized how easie is it for some point de fide to be innovated if the Bishop of Rome and some few other men of note and fame through mistaken zeal or out of design should indeavour the having such a Point declared as a matter of Faith when he can send what Bishops he please or create new ones and many others may for want of circumspection comply in order to peace as some well disposed Bishops did unadvisedly with some of the Arian devices And in this case though there may be some withstanders yet may they not be numerous and therefore must sit still being overpowerred and will think they ought in the end to consent if they have received this Principle which many Papists imbrace That the determinations of such a Council are to determine their private judgments what is the Doctrine of the Church § 5. His second Principle is No Age could innovate any thing and deliver that thing as received by constant succession For the end of delivering it as so received must be to make the following Generation believe it Now if a whole Age should conspire to tell such a lie yet it is impossible it should be believed since they cannot blot out all Monuments which might undeceive and therefore the following Generation cannot believe unless they will believe what they know to be otherwise This Second Principle is unsound upon the same grounds with the other For as hath been now shewed there may happen such an innovation by the mistake or non-attendance of a considerable number especially in Councils who sometimes are too readily guided by some few eminent leading men who may act either out of mistake or some of
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
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
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
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
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
such circumstances as I forbear to mention And the consideration of this temper may give us some account of the great eagerness and restless earnestness of these erring Parties in propagating their particular Interests 3. Concerning the aiming to gain the applause and favour of Men in the neglect of Duty Our Church in its Rules of Doctrine lays the same stress upon all Duties to God or Man that the Gospel of our Saviour doth without yielding to the Humours of the Profane the Debauched or the Turbulent and Unruly The Romanists suit themselves to all Dispositions they have severe Rules in some of their Regular Societies for the more Serious but they take great care to gratify Wicked and Debauched Persons also with as much Liberty as they can well desire Their Casuists generally declare That an act of Attrition or such Sorrow for Sin as is not accompanied with hatred against it or the true Love of God is at last sufficient with Absolution to remove the guilt of Sin and secure them from Eternal Death But if temporal Punishment remains for them this can only bring them to Purgatory and here they may have considerable help from Indulgences and the Treasury of the Church which are dispensed for Ave-Maries and other Prayers visiting certain places having Masses said for their Souls and by other works without their becoming really holy and good And besides this their feigned Miracles and Revelations their pretended power of Transubstantiating of dispensing the Treasury of Merits in the Church and of justifying them who are not contrite by Absolution seem methods contrived to gain admiration from the People And other Sects make their Interests and seek Reputation by popular Arts and often by promoting or conniving at Uncharitableness Mens high Conceits of themselves and a Temper averse from Unity and Obedience which are things of a very evil Nature And some of their chief Teachers acknowledg that in some things they act against their own Judgments in compliance with their People 4. Concerning Superstitious urging those things as parts of Religion which are not such Our Church owneth no necessary Article of Faith but what is in our Creed nor any Doctrines of Christianity but what are deducible from the Holy Scriptures Our Constitutions for Decency and Rules of Order are established only as such and are withal innocent useful few and agreeing to Primitive Christianity But at Rome a great part of their Religion as they make it consists in acknowledging many things to be de Fide which are neither contained in the Scriptures agreeing with them nor acknowledged in the ancient Church in entertaining various false Doctrines and pretended Traditions with equal reverence to the Holy Scriptures and in using divers Rites as operative of Divine Aid and Grace which God never appointed to that end Our other dividing Parties are too nigh the Pharisaical Doctrine concerning the Obligation of their voluntary Vow against their Duty to Superiours And many of them lay a Doctrinal Necessity either upon disowning Episcopal Authority which hath so great a Testimony of Apostolical Appointment Or in being against Forms of Prayer at least such wherein the People vocally join or in condemning as sinful innocent Appointments decent Ceremonies and suitable Gestures And those who own not these Positions nor condemn our Worship as sinful and yet divide from us must assert other Positions for Doctrines which are equally erroneous and dangerous For if their Principles be agreeable to their Practice they must assert that Men may break the Churches Peace and expose it to the greatest hazards gratify its Enemies and disobey Authority which are great Sins to maintain an opposition to those things which themselves dare not charge with any Sin But this is to aver such Doctrine to be from God which is contrary to his Religion his Nature and his Will and are but the Precepts of Men and it is to strain at a Gnat but swallow a Camel Now if to counterfeit the Seal or Coin or falsely to pretend to the Authority of an Earthly Prince be greatly culpable can it be otherwise to stamp a Divine Impression on things which God disowns 5. Concerning Obedience and Submission to Superiors this Duty is regularly enjoined in our Church both with respect to Private Relations Spiritual Guides and Civil Rulers In the Romish Church there is strict Obedience required in their several Orders to the Superiors thereof in the Laiety to the Clergy and in all to the Pope But this is so irregular that thereby the natural Honour to Parents is much discharged and St. Peter's Precept of Honouring the King is under the name of his Vicar changed into such Positions as when occasion serves may encourage the Deposing and Murdering him And among other Dissenters their Divisions as they are circumstantiated are ipso facto such visible Testimonies of their want of Submission to their Ecclesiastical and Civil Governours that nothing need be added And it is known there were some of these Parties whose Principles allowed them to take Arms against their King and who exposed his Royal Person to Violence and Death 6. Concerning a loose and licentious Life Our Church requires a Sincere Holy Exercise and presseth all the Precepts of our Saviour and the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel and enjoineth the careful observation of our Baptismal Vow But in the Romish Church he that considers the immoral looseness of the Jesuits and other Casuists may wonder that such things should be owned by Men of any Religion much more of them who profess the Christian Religion For instance By our Saviour's Doctrine to love God with all the heart is the great and first Commandment But Azorius asserts Azor. Tom. 1. l. 9. c. 4. That it is hard to fix any time when this Precept of Loving God doth oblige to any exercise thereof with respect to it self but only when it is necessary to Repentance And he roundly saith We are not obliged to any exercise of Love to God when we attain to the use of Reason nor at the receiving any Sacrament not at Confession nor at the approach of Death Filiuc Tr. 22. c. 9. Filiucius thinks this Opinion probable and therefore safe by their Doctrine of Probability but prefers another Opinion which is but little better That we are bound to act Love to God at the time of Death and in some other extraordinary cases if they happen and that ordinarily Men ought to exercise an act of Love to God at least once in five years But I am amazed to think how sparing such Men were of inward Religious Devotion and what Strangers to it And for the practice of Repentance which is another great Duty of our Religion Though Contrition which includes an hating and forsaking Sin and turning to God be acknowledged of good use by them yet Filiucius saith Fil. Tr. 6 c 8. n. 196 197 and 208. Men are not obliged to acts of Contrition every year but once in
c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agrippa declared in his Oration to the Jews And from the time of Julius Caesar the Alexandrian (l) Jos Ant. l. 14. c. 17. Jews enjoyed the freedoms of that City Now from hence it appears that the Jewish Consistories under the Romans retained a sufficient right of Judicial authority and therefore Ananias in this chief Council was to be considered as an Officer in a Court of Judicature acting by a just and competent power and authority 50. The sense of these words I wist not that he was the High Priest enquired into Having spoken thus much concerning the words of the Apostle to Ananias and also concerning Ananias himself and the state of the Jewish Consistories at that time I shall now more particularly consider the sense of that expression v. 4. I wist not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or I knew not brethren that he was the High Priest Some think that the Apostle did not know the person of the High Priest and professed so much as an excuse for himself in his having uttered such words which he would not have done if he had known him to be the High Priest since the Law commands Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people But they seem not to consider that whether the word High Priest be taken in a more strict or more large sense that Law hath no singular and peculiar respect to the High Priest alone and S. Paul did know Ananias to be a Ruler and to sit as Judge and expressed so much v. 3. declaring that he sate to judge him according to the Law And therefore some other sense of these words must be enquired after And that which seemeth to me most agreeable to the whole Context and free from all just exceptions is this that as the word to know oft signifieth to approve regard affect or own so it oft-times signifies to consider duly and to attend to and think on and may be so best taken in this place So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew from whence probably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their original is sometimes rendred in our English Translation to consider as Deut. 8.5 Jud. 18.14 2 King 5.7 and this sense is most agreeable to many other places as Gen. 12.11 Ex. 2.25 Deut. 4.39 chap. 9.6 Judg. 15.11 Ruth 3.4 2 Sam. 24.13 2 Chr. 12.8 chap. 13.5 with many others And among the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observa istud is an usual expression when they require a special attention or observation or a particular notice and consideration to be taken of any thing as is noted by (m) Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 935. Buxtorf And in that sense is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most properly to be understood in many places of the New Testament to denote to consider It appears so used by S. Luke Luk. 2.49 chap. 9.55 chap. 19.22 and also Joh. 6.61 chap. 11.49 chap. 19.10 Ephes 6.8 9. Col. 3.24 chap. 4.1 And if we thus expound these words of the Apostle the sense of these words will be this that he owneth somewhat in his former expression to have been words of sudden surprize and some degree of inadvertency and that being moved with the injury offered to him they fell from him over hastily and he did not on the sudden duly think of attend to and consider the Office and Dignity of the person to whom he spake otherwise he would not have used the least expression which might intimate any degree of unbecoming reflection or disrespect towards a person in Authority since he acknowledgeth this to be his duty not to speak evil of the Ruler of the people while the (n) Joseph de Bel. Jud. l 4. c. 19. gr Jewish Zealots spake and acted insolently against them without any remorse 51. And that there was somewhat in some measure blameable in the foregoing expressions of S. Paul is plainly acknowledged and declared by (o) Adv. Pelag l. 3. c. 1. S. Hierome and by (p) In Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 52. Procopius as I find him cited agreeably to my sense and by (q) Paraph. on Act. 23.5 Dr. Hammond and other worthy men And they who would by no means admit any thing to have been said or done amâ—ss by any of the Apostles might consider that even they were to pray for the forgiveness of their trespasses and that such things as S. Peters rebuking and denying his Master and drawing his sword the Apostles arguing who should be the greatest and their forsaking their Lord when he was laid hold on the desire of the Sons of Zebedee for the chief advancement in Christs Kingdom and their forwardness to call for fire from Heaven S. Peter and Barnabas their withdrawing at Antioch the sharp contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas and some other things ought not to be justified and defended And (r) Orig. cont Cels l. 2. p. 69 70. some of the ancient Christian Writers urged it as an evidence of the integrity of the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures and that they wholly designed to keep to truth and not to pursue any interest in that they did not endeavour to conceal and silence the failings of the Apostles and of their chiefest friends which had never been known to the world in after ages but from their writings Even S. Mark who was S. Peters follower did not omit to express his denying our Lord and S. Luke who was S. Pauls companion recorded this expression of his and his acknowledgement thereupon And a sudden hasty expression which was upon a great provocation and was soon recalled was no fault of any high degree especially considering the right the Apostle had being a Roman to claim satisfaction even from a Governour who should offer him an injury in proceeding against Law as was done Acts 16.37 38 39. and in part Acts 22.25 26 29. 52. Nor is this interpretation which admits some degree of blame in the expression of the Apostle inconsistent as I conceive with the promises of our Saviour to his Apostles The great assistances of the Apostles considered when they should be brought into the Synagogues and before Governours and Kings for his names sake that the Holy Ghost should teach them in the same hour what they ought to say Luke 12.12 and that he will give them a mouth and wisdom which all their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist Luk. 21.15 For 1. It may be considered that due dispositions are requisite for obtaining the benefit of any of Gods promises and his special guidance and therefore a sudden complyance with some hastiness of temper might for the present hinder the fullest obtaining the benefit of that promise As S. Peter after he had asked our Lord whether he should smite with the Sword overhastily undertaking the action before he had received his answer deprived himself at that present of the
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
will discern that such faculties are not like to be very common 14. This prohibition is many wayes evil But such a prohibition is upon many accounts evil First It being a duty and pious practice for men to acquaint themselves with the Holy Scriptures Psal 1.2 Psal 78.5 6. Jo. 5.39 Act. 17.11 it is an opposition to God and goodness to deny them the liberty to do that which pleaseth him and is their duty Secondly Since God gave this as one great gift to his Church that they should have the Sacred Oracles of the Holy Scriptures which they might all acquaint themselves with as our Lord said they have Moses and the Prophets Luk. 16.29 and it is one of the advantages Christ hath bestowed on his Church that they may have the knowledge of the Doctrine of the Gospel as it was dictated by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Ghost as will appear from n. 17. it is high injustice and sacrilegious fraud to deprive the Members of the Christian Church of that excellent good which the will of Christ bequeathed to them and is their right Thirdly The reading the Holy Scriptures being of such excellent usefulness to men as was observed n. 10 11 12. this prohibition is a thing very uncharitable to men Fourthly The ground on which they proceed that the use of the Scriptures if generally permitted is more to the prejudice than advantage and benefit of men when the Holy Spirit himself declares them to be greatly profitable as was observed n. 12. this is to charge the wisdom of God with folly as if in his great acts of favour and kindness he had not wisely consulted the good of man but had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost made such Books publick which if the Church of Rome did not take care that they might not come into the hands of the greatest part of men would do a great deal of hurt to the World And now I need not make remarks to shew how little there is of piety in such things as these 15. The Churches of God of old steered another course The Scriptures were generally allowed to be read by the Jews and ancient Christians from this of the Romanists That amongst the Jews at the time of our Saviours coming and his Apostles preaching the people were not debarred the use of the Holy Scriptures though they were clearly opposite to the Traditions and corrupt Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees may appear from our Saviours putting them upon searching the Scriptures Jo. 5.39 from S. Peter's commending their taking heed to the sure word of prophecy 2 Pet. 1.19 as also from the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily Act. 17.11 and Timothy's having known them from a child 2 Tim. 3.16 16. That the ancient Christians had the Scriptures translated into the several languages of the Countreys in which there were any Christian Churches founded is manifest from the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and Theoderet which have been produced (u) In their Epistle prefixed to the Bible by the Authors of our last English translation In which they particularly mention the Egyptians Indians Persians Armenians Scythians Aethiopians Romans Goths and some others And (w) Ep. ad Phil. p. 23. ed. Usser Polycarp declares to the Church of the Philippians to whom he writes that he trusts they were exercised in the holy Scriptures And (x) de Lazaro Chrysostome exhorts his Auditors that they would diligently read the holy Scriptures at home in their houses and the like is frequently done by S. Austin and divers other the most eminent ancient Writers Nor was the Scripture then forbidden to be read even by children but Eusebius (y) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us how usefully and to what good purpose for the guiding and establishing of â—any Christians in the time of Persecution Origen had been exercised in the holy Scriptures in his very childhood 17. and were so designed of God But we need go no further in this case than to the Holy Scriptures themselves S. Paul directs his Epistle to the Church of Rome Rom. 1.7 To all that be in Rome beloved of God called to be Saints and his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.2 To the Church at Corinth called to be Saints with all that in every place call on the name of Christ and his second Epistle to the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1.1 Now it is plain from hence that he intended they might all know and read the matter of his Epistles and that these and consequently other parts of the Canon of the holy Scripture were not under a prohibition that they might not be read by the major part of Christians And when the hearers of S. Peter at Rome as (z) Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 14. Eusebius relates were not satisfied with hearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Doctrine of the Divine declaration without writing they prevailed with S. Mark to write for them the summ of the Christian Doctrine and leave it with them and this their desire was very well approved by S. Peter But let him who can conceive such strange things suppose that to gratifie their desire of being rightly guided in the Christian Doctrine and for their future instruction when these teachers should remove to another place the Gospel of S. Mark was left with them but under such a prohibition that none might read it or know the particular contents thereof unless he should obtain a particular faculty in writing from S. Peter or S. Mark to that purpose And when S. Peter wrote his Epistles that the Christians even after his decease might have those things always in remembrance 2 Pet. 1.12 13 15. and chap. 3.1 2. it is something hard to imagine how they should be able to make such use of these Epistles as to keep in memory the Christian truth and precepts if they were not permitted to read them or to know the contents thereof And when Saint John's Gospel was written Joh. 20.31 that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing they may have life through his name surely no man can think that what was written for this purpose might not be read for the same purpose by those who were concerned to believe and obtain life 18. Some of the Church of Rome have pretended Pretended reverence reflected on that they shew reverence to the holy Scriptures and treat them as Sacred things with veneration when they take care they may not come into the hands of every common person But a due reverence to any Divine institution is not to forbid it to the generality of Christians but to take care that there be a diligent and pious use thereof Thus a right veneration to the solemn worship of God and the holy Sacraments is not performed in prohibiting Christians to
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
Deity as to acknowledge God to be incorporeal It is observed by (b) Cont. Cels l. 1. p. 13. Origen that Numenius a Pythagorean Philosopher had enumerated those Gentile Nations who asserted God to be an Incorporeal Being And that great expression of Euripides is very plain wherein he calls God one who sees all things but himself is invisible (c) Cl. Alex. Adm. ad Gent. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And agreeable to this is the expression of Orpheus that no Mortal sees God but he sees all 4. No such thing in the Primitive Church The Primitive Christians not only had no Images of God as appears from various expressions of Origen Minutius Felix and other Writers of those Ages but they also greatly condemned any such thing The ancient Council of (d) Conc. Elib c. 36. Elvira took care ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur that that Being which is worshipped and adored should not be painted upon walls which words must needs forbid and condemn the making Images of God And Eusebius speaking of representing the Divine Being by dead matter saith (e) Praep. Evang. l. 3. c. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what can offer more violence to reason And when he spake of the soul of man being the Image of God as being rational immaterial immortal and not subject to hurt and force and that no Figure or Image could be made of this he adds (f) ibid. c. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who can be so mad as to think that the most high God may be represented by an Image made like to a man 5. Some Romanists are not willing to own this general practice But in the Church of Rome the Blessed Trinity is frequently pictured and represented by an Image And though this be a common and publick practice yet some of the Romanists are so unwilling either to defend or to acknowledge it that they deny their having any Images of the Trinity To this purpose (g) Enchir. c. 11. Nulla igiâ—ur ratione dicendum est Christ anos vel colere vel asservare Sanctae Trinitatis vel Patris vel Spiritus Sancti imagines Costerus having shewed from the Scripture that nothing can resemble God adds It must therefore upon no account be said that Christians do either worship or keep the Images of the holy Trinity or of the Father or of the Holy Ghost And saith he when the Father is painted as the ancient of days this is not the image of the Father but a representation of the vision of Daniel or of S. John and the Dove that is painted is not the image of the Holy Ghost but of that Dove in which at Jordan the Holy Ghost descended And to the same purpose speaks an English Catechism said to be Printed at Doway But though these Writers are not willing to defend but would rather conceal what is allowed by their Church in this matter the frequent use of the Pictures of the three persons of the Trinity all together and where there is no decyphering of these visions will not admit that account they give thereof 6. Whereof (h) De Eccles Triumph c. 8. Bellarmine who as I above shewed freely acknowledgeth the practice of making Images of God doth as plainly assert it to be allowable Licet pingere imaginem Dei Patris c. It is lawful to paint the Image of God the Father in the form of an Old Man and of the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove And the Council of (i) Sess 25. Images of God approved by the Council of Trent Trent which in its last Session coucheth several things under few words expresseth its allowance of the picturing God when it orders the people to be taught that the Divinity is not to that purpose represented in a figure as if it could be seen by bodily eyes or could be expressed by colours and figures 7. But such representations are wholly unlike to the infinite and immense Divine Nature They are unsutable to the Divine Nature in which are the perfections of wisdom power goodness truth and purity and other such like And where these spiritual excellencies are in a considerable degree there is indeed a true partaking of the Divine Image and a likeness to God But the resembling him by a corporeal Image is the making a false and a low and mean representation of God which abateth that high reverence which is due to his Majesty And what finite material thing can be thought like to him who is so infinitely above all things of whom the Prophet Esay saith Isaiah 40.18 To whom will ye liken God or what likeness will ye compare unto him And if a man would think himself injured if he be represented in the shape or form of another Being far inferiour to his nature how great an offence may it well be to the Glorious God to be pictured against his express command in the shape of an old man 8. The (k) Catech. ad Paroch de Decal pr. Praecepto Roman Catechism observes two ways whereby the Majesty of God is greatly offended by Images the one if Idols and Images be worshipped as God and the other if any shall endeavour to make the form or shape of the Divinity as if it could be seen by bodily eyes and proves by the Scripture that such a figure of God neither can be made nor may be lawfully attempted And it further acknowledgeth that God to the intent he might wholly take away Idolatry imaginem divinitatis ex quavis materia fieri prohibuit did forbid the Image of the Deity to be made of any matter whatsoever and that the wise Lawgiver did enjoin ne divinitatis imaginem fingerent that they might not frame an Image of the Deity and give the honour of God to a Creature But after all this it requires that no man should think there is any offence against Religion when any person of the most Holy Trinity is expressed by certain signs or figures under which they appeared in the Old Testament or in the New and it is there said that this is done to declare their properties or actions as according to the vision of Daniel the representation of the ancient of days with the Books open shews the eternity and wisdom of God 9. and unfit to represent the Attributes of God But the Divine Attributes and perfections are so infinite and spiritual that they are as uncapable of being represented by an Image as his nature is And the shape of an old man doth directly express nothing of Wisdom or Eternity and such conceptions as may be suggested by the sight of such a Picture are very imperfect and below the Divine excellency since such a Being as is so represented is infirm and decaying and become unfit for action and can see but a little way before him and also is of such a nature as is stained and infected with sin And if such pretended
upon a notion peculiar to himself it is manifest that he was no favourer of Anabaptism because in that very place he both declares the lawfulness of Baptizing Infants as they were Circumcised the eighth day and the profitableness of Baptism to them that die in their infancy and also presseth the practice thereof when the Infant is in any danger But besides all this it seems to me not improbable that these words of Nazianzen have respect to some special case and probably to that which was then very ordinary and usual in the Christian Church concerning such Infants whose Parents were yet unbaptized either continuing Catechumens according to the discipline of the Church or else after their embracing Christianity did long by their own choice and neglect defer their Baptism Of this latter sort he discourseth much in this Oration (l) p. 647. 650 658 660. and oft-times and even in this very place reprehends the fault of many adult persons who neglected Baptism and urgeth them to be Baptized and then proposeth this Question and gives this Answer concerning Infants 12. And there are three things which incline me to think that these words must have respect to some such special case as this I have mentioned besides that this is very suitable to the Scope and Coherence of his Discourse in this place it self 1. Because he doth in (m) p. 448. another place of this Oration perswade to the Baptizing Children even those who are Infants 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and that they should be sanctified while they are Babes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this he recommends to be done before any evil be imbraced as being greatly useful for the future life of the Child 2. In the same Oration he declares his judgement that even Infants dying without Baptism (n) p. 453. should not be admitted to future glory though they would be free from future punishment And therefore it cannot be supposed that he would advise that to be ordinarily done which might run a needless hazard of the loss of future glory to Infants in that case where they were certainly qualified for the receiving Baptism and being benefitted by it as the Infants of Believing and Baptized Parents were But in such a case as that abovementioned where there might be doubtfulness concerning such Infants being in a capacity to receive Baptism he might account that advice he gave to be proper and useful 3. Because the Christian Church did generally admit those who were in the very entrance of their infancy unto Baptism and it cannot well be imagined that so peaceable a man as Gregory Nazianzen was would advise against the general practice of the Christian Church in ordinary cases while yet he professedly allowed the lawfulness and usefulness of that practice 13. Tertullian adviseth the deferring (o) Tertul. de Bapt. c. 18. the Baptism of Infants till themselves be instructed But this place also may I suppose have a good account given of it by considering the state and discipline of the Primitive Church And therefore 1. Pamelius thinketh (p) In Tertul. de Bapt. n. 126. that this might probably be spoken concerning such Infants whose Parents were Infidels but I had rather understand this also concerning those whose Parents were professed Christians but not yet Baptized 2. Tertullian (q) c. 12 13. both in this very Book and elsewhere * de Anima c. 39 40. asserts that Baptism is necessary to salvation and the priviledges of Christianity and to that purpose he applys to Baptism as other ancient Writers generally did those words of Christ Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God And therefore he plainly asserts Nemini sine Baptismo competere salutem And this shews that the advice of deferring Baptism in persons fitly disposed to receive it and further than the just rules of trial fixed in the ancient Church did require was unreasonable and dangerous And this may incline us to think that he intended not to plead for any other procrastinating Baptism so far as his words can be fairly reconciled to this sense And he seems plainly enough to speak his judgment that the Infants of (r) de Anima ubi sup Christian Parents were fitly qualified for Baptism 3. He adviseth also grown persons to defer their Baptism and particularly Virgins (ſ) de Bapt. c. 18. and Widows till they either Marry or were of tried and confirmed constancy But all this seems to require the careful observance of that which the Primitive rules of order established that all those who were born Gentiles and were by Baptism to be solemnly entred into the Christian profession must first give evidence by due and sufficient trial both to themselves and to the Church also that they were stedfastly resolved to be constant and serious practisers of the holy rules of the Christian life And till they had done this he perswades them not to put themselves over forwardly upon Baptism lest they should deceive themselves and the Church too by failing in their practice for as he saith here (t) ibid. omnis petitio decipere potest decipi 14. If any person will contend that Tertullian intended to perswade to a more general delay of Baptism than what this fair account of his words doth admit he must acknowledge also that he adviseth this forbearance as well in the case of the adult as of Infants But though the very long deferring of Baptism was practised by several persons it was generally disliked by all the wisest and best men in the Christian Church Hence the particular Fathers set themselves vigorously to reprove and disswade this practice which was undertaken by several persons upon different accounts insomuch that many chose to defer their Baptism until they had apprehensions of approaching death and then were Baptized in their Beds But the ancient Church gave that publick testimony of its dislike of this practice in that such Clinicks if they recovered were adjudged unworthy to be admitted into any Office in the Ministry not only by the (u) Conc. Neoc c. 12. Council of Neocaesarea but by earlier rules of more ancient observation which were urged by (x) Eus Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cornelius against Novatus And if Tertullians words should be construed as I think they need not be to perswade what the Church so generally disallowed this would only speak him to err but would be far from giving any allowance to this practice And thus having now considered the custom of the ancient Church for the Baptizing Infants we have from thence in complyance with the Scripture a further confirmation thereof and a sufficient evidence that the Primitive Church were not nor durst be so uncharitable to Infants as to debar them of Baptism 15. Thirdly Anabaptism so far as it throughly prevails must utterly rend the peace and unity of the Church and renounce the
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)
Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
know that it is incorrupt as to the faith it contains he may thus be satisfied When he considers that it is Gods Word delivered to the World for their use that they may know him and believe him as we before shewed this common Christian may thence conclude that if he does his best to enquire God will preserve his Word so free from corruption that it shall not misguide him to his hurt And when he further knows that the Church of God hath alwayes had the highest esteem of these Books of any others in the world and the greatest care of them and that there are infinite Copies of them in several Regions of the World both in Originals and Translations which that they all contain in them an agreement in the same matters of truth he hath good reason to believe because it is generally asserted by the best and most learned men this vulgar Christian knows and even the Romanists who design to speak all they can against the certainty of Scripture have never yet dared to affirm the contrary for though there be many various readings yet not such which will mis-guide in any matter of Faith These things will make him more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire than any man can be of the Statutes of the Land or of any Histories or any other Records whatsoever that is he hath the greatest evidence of its integrity that can be of any Writing in the World which had its original some Ages past and infinitely a greater evidence than can be given for Oral Tradition being preserved For if one Record be commonly acknowledged a more certain preservative of truth and in it self less lyable to corruption than common fame much more when so numerous Records or carefully and religiously transcribed Copies all agree Again when he considereth that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were untill the coming of Christ in very corrupt times and amongst very corrupt persons preserved so entire that Christ sendeth to them to learn Religion he hath great reason to judge the New Testament preserved entire since we cannot suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old and there are now abundantly more Copies both Translations and Originals and old Translations speak the agreement of the old Originals whence they were translated and these Scriptures highly valued and publickly read in a constant manner in so many places of the World and all agree in all points of Faith Nor could they possibly be any where all corrupted to one purpose in a way so apparent to sense as words written are since there never was any General Council collected out of all parts of the World to determine any thing concerning the various Scripture readings or the alteration of any Copies if any such had been it is possible there might have been some corruption general if not by confederacy yet by mistake unless the former Copies should yet remain to discover this as it is certain many very ancient Copies and probably more ancient than any General Council yet remain in the World as for instance that written by Tecla in our Kings Library sent from Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople Ad § 6. To the fourth Objection concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the right Translation of Scripture I grant their knowledge of Scripture is by Translations S. Austin observed de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. The holy Scriptures being spread abroad far and wide by the various Tongues of the Interpreters are made known to the Nations for their salvation And a man of mean capacity may be satisfied concerning Translations if he consider that he hath reason to judge that the Original Languages may be understood by men of learning partly because himself by use and observing hath learnt his own Mother-Tongue and therefore hath reason to think that others by the same means may learn other Languages and particularly those wherein the Scriptures were written partly because he thinks it injurious to the Goodness Wisdom of God to imagine that he should give forth a writing to guide the World and that it should be in a Language which was not intelligible and partly because he hears that so many Churches have these Books translated and that even such as this Discourser who would cast and suggest all doubts they can concerning Scripture translated into the common Tongues yet dare they not say that it is not capable of being translated so as to deliver the same matters of Faith yea the Papists themselves both use allow of and many of them endeavour to make new Translations Having gone thus far he may further consider that if it can be truly translated he hath reason to judge that such men who have the common fame even amongst the Learned for men of skill in Languages are best able to give the sense of the words contained in those Languages and he can conclude that whatever God thought requisite for him to know from this Book is so written that such men of Learning are able to give the sense of it and that whatever in any phrase cannot by such be understood is something fit to be further enquired into but not necessary to be now known Yea further he can conclude that he hath reason to conceive that the Translation with us in use doth contain in it the true Doctrine of Christ which is in the Original because he heareth this oft averred by honest and learned men amongst us and because the Papists who are professed enemies to this Translation yet dare not nor do not assert the contrary but raise only some more inconsiderable Cavils about phrases By this I suppose our vulgar Christian satisfied if this Discourser be not with this answer let him consider a parallel case If many English men should purposely go to France to give a description of that Countrey and they take a particular view of all places and write this and all agree together and many thousand others who after go to see it all agree in all material things yea and when many others shall go over on purpose to find fault with this description who yet can find nothing very material to object but only carp at small things will this Author say that all this can signifie nothing to inform him satisfactorily who stayes at home unless he could be able to demonstrate to himself that they indeed were in France as they all agree and that they did see what they wrote Either this is something very considerable and rational to engage assent or else against all reason most English men have confessed that there is such a place as Rome and such a person as is called the Pope when we never saw either it or him Ad § 7. To the fifth Objection concerning printed Copies Before I answer this I shall observe that as it is suspicious in the whole Book here is manifestly evident either a piece of gross ignorance in the Writer or a designed cheat upon his
of Faith That it must be apt to settle and justifie those unlearned persons who rely undoubtingly upon it that this may be done such a person he saith must proceed on such Principles as he takes to be true ones Thus he cannot act in receiving Scripture because as he can himself have no self-evidence of its being Gods Word so it is senseless for men to believe a multitude which sayes it may possibly err in what it tells them Or if here skill in History Language or Fathers may secure them from error this he cannot judge of And principally when he considers that they who pretend to Scripture differ and condemn and persecute each other his reason will tell him that since there is but one truth for want of the light or directive power of that Rule they all but one party and may be that also go miserably astray To this I answer The Principles which he relies on who closeth with Scripture are such as may abundantly satisfie him which indeed will follow from what was said to the former Discourse concerning the rational evidence he hath of the Scripture What he adds that it is senseless to receive Scriptures as Gods Word from the delivery of a multitude who say they may possibly err is if not a senseless yet a very unaccountable Assertion Will he think that nothing can be credited that is seen by the eye because in a mist or some dark place the eye may be possibly mistaken or can there be nothing truly known by the understanding of a man because he who is Master of the best reason may in some things misapprehend if this Author would thus argue he must disclaim all pretences to demonstrations and Science yea and certainty likewise in all things in the World We know in common affairs that all men are capable of being mistaken where they have not sufficient evidence and yet we do not thence discredit the preservation of Records and Charters as if that could be no way assured since we know men are capable here of sufficient evidence to inform them and Protestants are no more fallible nor acknowledge themselves no more fallible than all men are that is they may be deceived where they have not sufficient light and evidence to discern by but where they have this light and discern and receive it there they neither are nor can be deceived and such evidence as we have shewed they have of the Scriptures so that the knowledge thus grounded in Protestants is infallibly certain not from the infallibility of the persons as if they were no where liable to error but from the infallibleness of the clear evidence of truth which whoever receives is certainly as to that thing so evidenced free from error Yet we receive Gods Word not only from the delivery of Protestants but of all ancient Churches who yet were and owned themselves to be men subject to error Yea the Church of Rome and even the Council of Trent who pretend to infallibility do also deliver all the Books we receive but we have no more reason to believe them for this pretence than we should have to believe certainly all that man shall say who hath the confidence to declare his tongue not liable to utter falshood when we can certainly know this very speech cannot be truth There is nothing else in these Paragraphs which hath not been before answered saving what he objects concerning the differences amongst Protestants which do not conclude Scripture which is our Rule either uncertain or not sufficiently clear For there are many things which many men over eagerly inquire after and too rashly determine which it may be God did not think fit to determine in his word though all things requisite and necessary are clear enough and there are many things clear enough in the Scripture to diligent inquirers whilst some err about them by too hastily closing with some conceptions of their own not grounded on sufficient evidence and then too passionately promoting of them and in neither of these cases the Rule is to be blamed but the persons and to one of these heads belong all our differences This same Argument was urged both by Jews and Heathens and particularly by Celsus against Christian Religion as is related by Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. Orig. lib. 3. cont Cels who pleaded that Christian Religion was not to be heeded and believed because they who professed it differed so much from each other or opposed contradicted and blamed each other and many Heresies were spread amongst them To which they returned answer That such differences were common in all cases where men entertained any thing by their judgments if the things were any way eminent and excellent such there was amongst Philosophers who were Gentiles and such amongst the followers of Judaism so that he who would close with this Argument must reject all ways of knowledge and professions of Religion They observed likewise that men will not refuse all Physick because amongst Physicians there are many various opinions nor will Travellers refuse to go in the Kings High-way because some went out of this Road-way to by-paths which bring them to Precipices nor should we for this reject the Scriptures and Christian Religion but more diligently seek into them since it is foretold that there must be Heresies and that the Tares will be with the Wheat To this purpose those Fathers answered for Christianity and the same answer pleads for us But if this Author do indeed believe that there cannot be evidence enough in that Rule where they who profess to follow it are of different opinions let him begin at home and put it into practice and it will ingage those of the Romish Communion to renounce their Rule of Faith since it is plainly evident that there have been many different opinions and high animosities amongst the pretended followers of that Rule not only formerly amongst the followers of different School-men and their different Orders of the Clergy but also more of late amongst the Jesuits and the Priests of other Orders more especially the Jansenists and the same continue to this day To all this I shall add that if by reason of the things objected by this Authour the Scripture be not now sufficient to justifie him in his belief who shall receive it as a Rule then by the same reason were the Beraeans to be condemned who searched the Scriptures to examine the Apostles Doctrine for which S. Luke commends them Act. 17.11 Nor could they justifie Timothy's receiving them from a Child yet S. Paul commends that in him and sayes they were able to make him wise unto Salvation 1 Tim. 3.15 For as they could have no more self evidence of Scripture than we have so they received these Scriptures from men whom themselves believed to be fallible for the Scriptures they received as delivered by the Jewish Church which if they had not judged fallible they could not have given heed to the Apostles Doctrine
which condemned much which was delivered by the Jews and delivered other Doctrines by them not received Yea they must conclude the delivery amongst the Jews certainly false when they believed the Apostolical preaching And even these Jews who delivered these Scriptures did differ from each other and condemn each other which is evident not only in observing the three great Sects of the Jews the Pharisees Essens and Sadduces but also in observing the dissentions betwixt the followers of the two great Jewish Doctors Hillel and Shammai who opposed one another to the death even about the times of the Apostles So that according to this Authors Principles he lays down this was a senseless proceeding of Timothy and the Beraeans and they were no way justifiable Nor can this Author plead that these persons received the Scriptures from the delivery of the professors of Christianity as such though they supposed them also fallible in trying their Doctrines since it is evident they closed with the truth of Christianity by searching the Scriptures and indeed even then there were great contentions amongst the professors of Christian Religion as appears in the Acts of the Apostles concerning the observation of the Rites of the Mosaical Law Since therefore we certainly know that they were justifiable who received and relied on Scriptures as we do and since his Objections to plead against us appear no way rational I may well assert this third Property to agree to Scripture § 3. He propounds the Fourth Property of the Rule of Faith to satisfie Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters which he saith nothing but demonstration can do if they be true to their reason and otherwise their Faith it self would be a vice But if some things here were demonstrable yet it may be the task of a mans life and this rational man would smile at his endeavours who should go about to demonstrate all the difficult things here to be evidenced That the Scriptures are the Word of God having no real contradiction in them that they are contained in just so many Books and are still preserved intire that they are rightly Translated and that this is the sense I answer If by Sceptical be here meant only inquisitive I have admitted this as belonging to the Rule of Faith and do assert that the most inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters may be satisfied concerning Scriptures if they be willing to attend to sufficient evidence and be persons who desiring to have their souls saved would readily chuse that which shall appear the best way to God How all these things here mentioned may be known with sufficient certainty and by plain and natural evidence and without spending a mans life in searching we have shewed in answer to the former Discourse But these things are not indeed plain demonstrations nor are such things as are matters of fact capable of them but of rational testimonies and evidences which are so clear that there can no rational way of doubting remain where this evidence is discerned Doth this Authour think that no man can rationally judge himself to be the Kings natural Subject because he can have no demonstration that he was born in England or other his Dominions will he not eat or take Physick till he can demonstrate that his Food or Physick are proper for his Stomach either he counts a very small rational evidence a demonstration or else daily acts in things concerning his life without it and yet we have much greater security concerning Scripture than a man can have in any case concerning the suitableness of his Food If this rational man be to pass the Seas can he have no evidence of the safety of an Harbour by the Mariners testimony and a long testified experience until he can demonstrate there are neither Rocks nor Quicksands there Obj. But where the soul is concerned there is need of the highest evidence Ans There is in this case need of sufficient evidence to command assent but if it would be folly not to receive such things as may preserve the life on sufficient evidence it is yet greater folly not to receive such things upon sufficient evidence as may make the soul happy S. Austin while a Manichee as he saith Confes 6. ch 4. would have had such certainty of things not seen as of seven and three being ten but at length he considered how many things he had firmly received upon other testimony as concerning places and men whom he had not seen and of what Parents he was born and therefore resolved it was reasonable to close with Scripture upon its so general delivery But let this Author begin at home and he will soon see demonstrations not necessary for satisfaction The Council of Trent Can. 4. De Baptism anathematizeth them who shall say Baptism is not necessary to Salvation and Can. 11. de Sacramentis requires a necessity of the Ministers intention in the Sacrament Can this Authour direct all the members of his own Church to Demonstrations to prove themselves Baptized because it is a matter which concerns their souls If he thinks the testimonies of Parents and Godfathers sufficient yet no rational man will call this a demonstration nor can these prove the intention of the Minister yea how can this Author or any other demonstrate that he was the person who was seen at such a time to be Baptized If he will satisfie himself with the common testimonies of a sufficient number of credible persons in a matter where they were capable of discerning truth this indeed will be a rational assent and more than this cannot be expected but this is not a demonstration but an evidence inferior in many circumstances and those considerable ones to the evidence we have of Scripture He further says he who would know the sense of Scripture must have great skill in Languages Grammar History Logick and Metaphysicks that he may fully understand the phrases scope and things delivered I answer all these indeed are necessary for the full clearing some obscure and difficult Texts of Scripture and therefore some such places may possibly not be yet fully understood and if they be it is only by persons who have all these advantages or by others from them But about the plain and necessary things in Scripture there is need of no more of these helps than such as are natural to every mans understanding He who shall assert Grammar Criticisms c. universally necessary to help men rightly to understand plain words such as in most places are the Gospels and Epistles and many other parts of Scripture must assert That one man cannot understand another nor a child his Father until he have learned several Sciences and so all delivery of words amongst the Vulgar and therewith the Romish Oral Tradition must be utterly impossible to come down in any thing so much as one step either right or wrong so as to be perceptible But he saith his Sceptick may find somewhat to reply rationally or at least
readings are preserved yet according to any of them there is a consent in all the matters of Faith unless there be some manifest mistake in any Copy which may easily be discerned to be the Scribes or Printers error nor amongst all these readings can any point of Christian Faith be so doubted of that it is not capable of receiving sufficient evidence from some Texts And though this Authour would pretend that from these various readings there is an uncertainty in all things in Scripture which is contrary to all reason yet others more knowing and learned Papists are so ingenuous as to grant what I here contend for Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. asserts that the errors of Transcribers in the Old Testament are not of so great moment that the integrity of the Holy Scriptures should be wanting in those things which belong to Faith and Good Manners for the most part saith he the whole difference of the various readings is placed in some little words which either do not at all or do very little alter the sense And ch 7. he declares that he asserts the same concerning the New Testament which he there asserted concerning the Old Indeed before the time of Christ there were more various readings in the Old Testament than there now is in the New as may appear not only from the various Cheri and Ketib and the Tikkan Sopherim and such like which are probably more ancient but also because the Copies used by the Septuagint and Samaritan differed in many various readings from the Hebrew Copies used by the Chaldee Paraphrast which probably were most in use in Christ's time and after received by the Masoreths and yet since they all agreed in the same points of Doctrine Christ and his Apostles both had recourse to them and so perswaded others and we think it is safe for us to follow such examples The Vulgar may here consider our several English Translations which as to expressions have in most Verses some difference and in some few places the one may give a sense somewhat different from the other yet since it is but in very few places where they do not all agree in the sence of the place and where they do not yet none of them do assert any truth of Doctrine which the others either do not assert or do deny the common Christians may hence see that which may make them rather the more secure than doubtful of these truths because the latter Translations though differing in words yet agree in all Doctrines with the former And if there be the same variety of readings in several Translations in other Languages this is no more than is in our English But as for the Originals though there be several various readings yet in comparison of our English Translations but one for many and yet fewer places where the same sense of that Text is not expressed by such readings though in some small difference of words which difference of words was occasioned partly from several of the Fathers citing the Scriptures as is with all men frequent not alwayes in the very same words but words of the same sense from whence many of these various readings in the New Testament had their Original or partly that the Scribes or they who copied the Scriptures might have some mistake where yet the sense remained intire for the most part But he inquires Why may there not have been some various readings formerly in those places which now appear in all Copies we have to agree which various readings may possibly have been blindly determined and so misguide us in the main points of Faith I answer That since there are very many ancient Copies and Commentators and Citations of Fathers which fully accord with our present readings and since there are some ancient Translations as Syriack Latine and others all which agree in the same and since there is an accord in these Books scattered and dispersed over the whole World if there had been any such different readings they must be every where determined before these ancient Copies Commentaries or Citations were written before the ancient Translations were made yea before the Copies of the Scriptures were dispersed into the several Regions of the World and this is to imagine that there must have been some general alteration determined in the great matters of Faith whilst the hand writing of the Apostles was preserved yea even in the Apostles daies which is impossible unless the Apostles to whom Christ committed his truth and their Converts who were numerous and prized this Doctrine above all the World should all against the clear evidence of their own knowledge and the Original Writings of the Apostles then amongst them conspire to corrupt this Doctrine and to falsifie the Records which contain it which to assert is not only highly unreasonable but exceedingly impious and blasphemous nor would it leave Oral Tradition safe How much all this speaks to common sense I shall express in a case which is very parallel Suppose a Jury in any case of concernment should observe an hundred Witnesses produced examined asunder and every one of their attestations written and one by one read to them as to the great matter to be proved every one of them agree fully and not so much as one dissents will they not judge this a sufficient evidence of any thing spoken though in some of these attestations there be some small difference in a word though not at all to add or leave out any considerable sense yea Will they not think the testimony the more firm as to the things attested because they all agree firmly in them though they never met together to conspire so to correct one another that there might not be a syllable different in their words The Scripture certainty of points of Faith is much greater than this since the Copies every one of which gives its attestation are abundantly more numerous and withal the main points of Faith are not only expressed in some one Text of Scripture but in very many places where there is a concurrence in all these Copies which speaks these truths more certainly free from all possibility of error Yet besides all this certainty we have much in the end of Scriptures writing and therein Gods care of it to assure us that it is not corrupt of this we spake somewhat in the former Discourse What he speaks of Bishop Usher observing so many various readings in the New Testament which he durst not Print for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt This relation manifests it self to be such a story as I think neither this Author nor any man of reason either Protestant or Papist can believe upon serious consideration if he withal judge Bishop Vsher to have been a very knowing man No understanding Protestant can believe this because he knows that Protestants freely inquire after various readings and never the more doubt of Scriptures because there appears so full a
know the definitions of the Council of Trent especially such a way as he intimates p. 211. it is not hard for Protestants to find For to run to the Printed Books which contain the Acts and Canons of that Council here presently appears the multitude of little actions both in the Printing and first Copying If he shall tell us they receive the Canons of that Council or any other not as they are in Books but by Oral Tradition I shall then examine whether there be not the same and greater difficulty about such Tradition For it is certain that there are as many mistakeable little actions in speaking a word as in writing it every tittle requiring the pause in the voice and every letter pronounced being a distinct framing of the Organs of Speech and both experience and reason will tell a man that he may more frequently mistake in speaking a word than in more leisurely writing it by a Copy since speech is more quick and admits not of so long consideration for every little action as writing doth and every man knows that where there are many phrases and sentences there may be somewhat sooner omitted in speaking where he hath no outward help for his memory than in transcribing where the memory is perfectly relieved by the Copy before him So that in the way of Oral Tradition besides the several little actions of the Organs of Speech there are other little actions of the Memory more lyable to the error than the eye is in viewing a Copy Hence it will appear that this Authors perswading men in this § 4. to account Scripture not to be certain in it self is built upon this foundation That God hath not indowed man with so much wisdom and discretion as to guide his speech or hand so as to speak or write intelligibly or according to his meaning or intention And this is as much as to say That men cannot converse with one another and that no truth can be delivered from one to another no nor falshood neither and he who will be perswaded to this will not be a Protestant nor a Papist neither a man of any Religion nor of any Reason § 5. He tells us If it were certain that there was care taken for the faithful transcribing the Scripture much might be said thence for its certainty but as it is capable of many mistakes so especially in the New Testament experience testifies there hath been no such diligence by the divers readings of the several Copies and thousands of corrections of the Vulgar edition His Objection to disprove the use of care especially in the New Testament must be first answered and then we shall evidence that there hath been abundant care What he speaks of the Vulgar Latin which is the Translation in request in the Romish Church and made use of by many others the thousands of corrections he mentions speaks that Church none of the best preservers of Records But after all these corrections was there any point of Faith or Manners wherein after the corrections it differed from what it was before the corrections if it differed in none then such various readings do not declare the Scriptures even in that Translation in any thing to misguide in discovering whatever concerns Faith or holy life though such various readings should remain But if the Vulgar edition did differ in any such matter of Faith or holy life this would condemn the Roman Churches Tradition which hath professed to own and receive what ever was in the Vulgar both before its correction and since and so must differ from what it was in that point of Faith or Manners Touching various readings in the Original Copies and almost all if not all Translations it is evident there is no difference in any point of Doctrine nor considerable in words and phrases And though it be impossible to prove concerning every single Copy that it was faithfully transcribed by giving an account of the manner how it was done yet there remains an abundant rational proof that the Copies of the Scripture and particularly of the New Testament have been generally written with much fidelity because the several Copies which may yet be seen written in several Countries and in divers Ages shew such an agreement in them all and in the Ancients citations of them that they speak one thing the same truth and with so very little variation of any word that to a diligent attender this speaks much of care attention and diligence in transcribing To all this I add that it is certain that the Ancients were very industriously accurate in their transcribing Books and made it a great point of conscience to be attentive in it even in other Books and no doubt more especially about the holy Scriptures and did to their Copies subscribe their Names that it might be known by whom they were written What exact diligence the Ancients used in transcribing Books may be observed from an instance related by Eusebius Eccles Hist lib. 5. c. 20. concerning a Book of Irenaeus at the end of which Irenaeus wrote thus I adjure thee who shalt transcribe this Book by our Lord Jesus Christ and by his glorious presence when he cometh to judge the quick and the dead that thou compare what thou shalt transcribe and amend it diligently according to this Copy whence thou shalt transcribe it and that thou shalt likewise transcribe this Oath and put it in thy Copy And this he saith he thought profitable to put in his History that in this thing they might have example of the care and diligence of those ancient and truly holy men If such care was to be taken of Irenaeus's Works surely no less of the holy and Divine Writings § 6. He goes about to shew That Scripture cannot be certain as to its sense especially to the Vulgar where he repeats that Arts and Sciences are necessary to understand the Letter which was before said by him and is above answered Disc 3. § 7. and need not here be repeated He further tells us That an acute Scholar can blunder the conceptions of the Vulgar concerning Scripture and give them a seeming clearer interpretation of his own In many points of Controversie and difficult Texts we acknowledge a Scholar may do so but it is no way necessary that the Vulgar should be able to determine them and be firmly setled in the knowledge of them but in matters of Faith more plainly discovered it is otherwise If he thinks they may be perswaded by a Scholar to think any other sense more clear than that which offers it self and is obvious in such phrases as these That Jesus is the Christ that he was born of the Virgin and died for us and such like he must find men of much lower capacities than Protestants are and indeed such as cannot understand the meaning of what that Scholar shall speak since he cannot speak plainer words and then I know not how they can be perverted by him yea such
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
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
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
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
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
of the Apostles and Evangelists the common delivery by word of mouth which Theophilus had heard of concerning matter of Christian Religion was not so certain as the Evangelical writing and therefore this Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God Joh. 20.31 if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith S. Paul would not have told his Philippians Phil. 3.1 To write the same things for you is safe unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment nor yet would this be safe for them unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment which could not be unless it was a Rule of Faith Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times when the Apostles were deceased S. Peter declares 2 Pet. 1.12 I will not be negligent to put you alwaies in remembrance of these things though you know them v. 15. I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth signifies to make a short comprisal of things for the help of memory Now if this was the design of S. Peters Epistle it will necessarily follow that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory is best secured by the Written Word of God otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance And lest if this Apostle had said no more of this subject any might have objected that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition he himself directly shews that this is the advantage of his writing and the end of both his Epistles 2 Pet. 3.1 This second Epistle beloved I write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance And Jesus himself said to the Jews If you believe not Moses writings how shall you believe my words John 5.47 SECT II. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith NExt his search after Scriptures this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith I might here mind him that others of his Church have delivered that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule Nicol. de Cusa a Cardinal of the Roman Church lib. 2. de Concordant Cath c. 6. sayes That the manner of the General Councils was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle where they were assembled And a little after he adds Matters of Faith were first treated of The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures But to examine his Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran which was no ancient Synod being above six hundred and forty years after Christ They say We all confirm unanimously and consonantly consonanter not consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the holy Fathers adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have taught These words are delivered indeed by that Synod but if that Synod be enquired into this will make little for Oral Tradition This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin against the Monothelites in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers S. Ambrose Austin Basil Cyrill Hippolytus Epiphanius Chrysostom Justine Athanasius Hilary Nyssen Nazianzen Leo and others with reference to whose words the Synod added We all confirm c. Where it is observable they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers and this is no way of Oral Tradition nor any thing rejected but highly approved by Protestants Yea here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council own that as Catholick Doctrine which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers and eminent Writers in other Churches which is not this Discoursers way And it is further observable that these sayings of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith but are owned by them as Truths unto which they all agree whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus we all confirm their Doctrines cannot signifie that they make these their Rule but that they consent with them in the things alledged and confirm their saying to be truth And this Protestants will do as well as the Synod of Lateran But that we may enquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod it is observable that none of the Fathers Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites who denyed two wills in Christ refer to any Oral Tradition but very many to several grounds of Scripture For instance Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod that Christ said According to the form of God I and my Father are one but according to the form of a servant I came not to do my own will but his who sent me where he plainly manifests two wills Again from Leo He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will and operation of his Divinity of his will wrought Miracles whence he testifies saying As the Father raiseth the dead and quickens them so the Son quickneth whom he will by his created will and operation he who is God above nature as man willingly underwent hunger thirst reproach sorrow and fear and this again the Evangelist testifies saying he went into an house and would have none know but could not lye hid and again They went through Galilee and he would not that any should know And again he would go into Galilee also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink So S. Austin Ambrose Cyril c. in their testimonies read in this Council to prove the humane will of Christ urge farther If it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt My soul is sorrowful to death Now is my soul troubled And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia declared in this Council that the testimony of Cyrill of urging those Texts was for the perfect refuting those Hereticks S. Austin is likewise produced thus glossing concerning Christs Humane Nature If we say he was not sorry when the Gospel saith My soul is exceeding sorrowful if we say he did not eat when the Gospel saith he did eat the worm of rottenness creepeth in and there will be nothing left sound then his body was not real nor his flesh real but
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
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
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
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
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times