when it is the method that all men use they that can satisfie the Understanding and they that cannot And is there any thing more ignorant than to think a method or way of proof is nought because some men use it to good purposes and some to bad And is not light a glorious covering because the evil spirit sometimes puts it on Was not our Saviours way of confuting the Devil by Scripture very good because the Devil us'd the same way and so it was a way common to discourses that have in them the power to satisfie the understanding and those which have no such power Titius is sued by Sempronius for a farm which he had long possess'd and to which Titius proves his title by indubitable records and laws and patents Sempronius pretends to do so too and tells the Judge that he ought not to regard any proof of Titius's offering because he goes upon grounds which himself also goes upon and so they are not apt to be a ground of determining any thing because they are Common to both sides The Judge smiles and inquires who hath most right to the pretended grounds but approves the method of proceeding because it is common to the contrary pretender And this is so far from being an argument against my method that in the world nothing can be said greater in allowance of it even because I prov'd upon principles allowed by both sides that is I dispute upon principles upon which we are agreed to put the cause to trial Did the primitive Fathers refuse to be judged by or to argue from Scriptures because the heretics did argue from thence too Did not the Fathers take from them their armour in which they trusted And did not David strike with the sword of Goliath because that was the sword which his Enemy had us'd David prov'd that way apt to prevail by cutting off the Giants head But what particularity of method would I. S. have me to use shall I use reason To that all the world pretends and it is the sword that cuts on both sides and it is us'd in discourses that can and that cannot satisfie Shall I use the Scriptures in that I. S. is pleas'd to say the Quakers out-do me Shall I use the Fathers The Smectymnuans bring Fathers against Episcopacy What shall I bring I know not what yet but it ought to be something very particular that 's certain Shall I then bring Tradition will Oral tradition do it I hope I. S. will for his own and his three or four friends sake like that way But if I should take it I. S might very justly say that I take a method that is common to those discourses which have in them power to satisfie the understanding and those which have no such power Whether this method is us'd or no in discourses satisfactory let I. S. Speak but I am sure it is us'd of late in some discourses which are not satisfactory and the name of one of them is Sure footing And do not the Greeks pretend tradition against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory the procession of the Holy Ghost the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome whether right or wrong I inquire not here but that they do so is evident and therefore neither is it lawful for me to proceed this way or even then to call my book a Dissuasive For it is plain to common sense that it can have in it no power of moving the understanding one way or other unles there be some particularity in the method above what is in others which it is certain can never be because there is no method but some or other have already taken it And therefore I perceive plainly my book is not any more to be called a Dissuasive till I can find out some new way and method which as yet was never us'd in Christendom And indeed I am to account my self the more unsuccessful in my well meant endeavours because I. S. tells us that he sees plainly that in the pursuit of truth Method is in a manner All I. S. hath a method new enough not so old as Mr. White and he desires me to get such another but nobis non licet esse tam beatis and I am the less troubled for it because I. S. his Method is new but not right and I prove it from an argument of his own For saith he it is impossible any controversie should hover long in debate if a right method of concluding evidently were carefully taken and faithfully held to Now because I see that I. S. his method or new way hath made a new controversie but hath ended none but what was before and what is now is as likely as ever still to hover in debate I. S. must needs conclude that either he hath not faithfully held to it or his way is good for nothing Other things he says here which though they be rude and uncivil yet because he repeats them in his Sixth way I shall there consider them altogether if I find cause The fourth Way THis fourth mine hath as good luck would have it nothing of demonstration nor is his reason founded upon the nature of the thing as before he boasted but only ad hominem But such as it is it must be considered The argument is this That though I produce testimony from Fathers yet I do not allow them to be infallible nor yet my self in interpreting Scripture nor yet do I with any infalliable certainty see any proposition I go about to deduce by reason to be necessarily consequent to any first or self evident principle and therefore I am certain of nothing I alledge in my whole book The sum is this No man is certain of any thing unless he be infallible I confess I am not infallible and yet I am certain this must be his meaning or else his words have no sense and if I say true in this then fallibility and certainty are not such incompossible and inconsistent things But what does I. S. think of himself is he infallible I do not well know what he will answer for he seems to be very neer it if we may guess by the glorious opinion he hath of himself but I will suppose him more modest than to think he is and yet he talkes at that rate as if his arguments were demonstrations and his opinions certainties Suppose his grounds he goes upon are as true as I know they are false yet is he infallible in his reasoning and deducing from those principles such feat conclusions as he offers to obtrude upon the world If his reason be infallible so it may be mine is for ought I know but I never thought it so yet and yet I know no reason to the contrary but it is as infallible as his but if his be not it may be all that he says is false at least he is not sure any thing of it is true and then he may make use of his own ridiculous speech he
things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
show love and faithfulness to our equals to our inferiours counsel and help favour and good will bounty and kindness a good word and a good deed The Scripture hath given us Commandments concerning our very thoughts to be thankful and hospitable to be humble and complying what ever good thing was taught by any or all the Philosophers in the world all that and much more is in the Scriptures and that in a much better manner And that it might appear that nothing could be wanting the very degrees and the order of vertues is there provided for And if all this be not the high way to salvation and sufficient to all intents of God and the souls of men let any man come forth and say as Christ said to the young man Restat adhuc unum there is one thing wanting yet and let him shew it But let us consider a little further 5. What is or what can be wanting to the fulness of Scripture Is not all that we know of the life and death of Jesus set down in the writings of the New Testament Is there any one Miracle that ever Christ did the notice of which is conveyed to us by tradition Do we know any thing that Christ did or said but what is in Scripture Some things were reported to have been said by Christ secretly to the Apostles and by the Apostles secretly to some favourite Disciples but some of these things are not believed and none of the other is known so that either we must conclude that the Scripture contains fully all things of Faith and Obedience or else we have no Gospel at all for except what is in Scripture we have not a sufficient record of almost one saying or one miracle S. Paul quotes one saying of Christ which is not in any of the four Gospels but it is in the Scriptures It is better to give then to receive and S. Hierom records another Be never very glad but when you see your Brother live in charity If S. Paul had not written the first and transmitted it in Scripture we had not known it any more than those many other which are lost for not being written and for the quotation of S. Hierom it is true it is a good saying but whether they were Christ's words or no we have but a single testimony Now then how is it possible that the Scriptures should not contain all things necessary to salvation when of all the words of Christ in which certainly all necessary things to salvation must needs be contain'd or else they were never revealed there is not any one saying or miracle or story of Christ in any thing that is material preserv'd in any indubitable record but in Scripture alone 6. That the Scriptures do not contain in them all things necessary to salvation is the fountain of many great and Capital errours I instance in the whole doctrine of the Libertines Familists Quakers and other Enthusiasts which issue from this corrupted fountain For this that the Scriptures do need a Suppletory that they are not perfect and sufficient to salvation of themselves is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the great Fundamental both of the Roman religion and that of the Libertines and Quakers and those whom in Germany they call Spirituales such as David George Harry Nicholas Swenckfeld Sebastian Franc and others These are the men that call the Scriptures The letter of the Scripture the dead letter insufficient inefficacious This is but the sheath and the scabberd the bark and the shadow a carcase void of the internal light not apt to imprint a perfect knowledge in us of what is necessary to salvation But the Roman Doctors say the same things We know who they are that call the Scriptures the Outward letter Ink thus figur'd in a book J. S. in Sure scoting and in 4. Append. Unsensed characters waxen-natur'd words not yet sensed apt to blunder and confound but to clear little or nothing these are as bad words as the other and some of them the same and all draw a long tail of evil consequents behind them 1. From this Principle as it is promoted by the Fanaticks they derive a wandring unsetled and a dissolute religion For they supplying the insufficiency of Scripture by an inward word which being onely within it is subject to no discipline reducible into no order not submitted to the spirits of the Prophets and hath no rule by which it can be directed examin'd or judged Hence comes the infinite variety and contradictions of religion commenc'd by men of this perswasion A religion that wanders from day to day from fancy to fancy and alterable by every new illusion A religion in which some man shall be esteem'd an infallible Judge to day and next week another but it may happen that any man may have his turn and any mischief may be believ'd and acted if the Devil get into the chair 2. From this very same Principle as it is promoted by the Papists they derive a religion imperious interested and tyrannical For as the Fanaticks supply the insufficiency of Scripture by the word internal so do the Roman Doctors by the authority of the Church but when it comes to practice as the Fanatick give the supreme power of teaching and defining to the chief Elder in the love so do the Papists especially the Jesuits give it to the Pope and the difference is not that the Fanaticks give the supreme judgement to some one and the Papists give it to the whole Church for these also give it but to one man to the Pope whose judgement voice and definition must make up the deficiencies of Scripture But because the Fanaticks as it happens change their Judge every moneth therefore they have an ambulatory religion but that of the Roman way establishes Tyranny because their Judge being one not in person but in succession and having always the same interest and having already resolved upon their way and can when they list go further upon the stock of the same Principles and being established by humane power will unalterably persist in their right and their wrong and will never confess an Error and are impatient of contradiction and therefore they impose irremediably and what they please upon Consciences of which they have made themselves Judges Now for these things there is no remedy but from Scripture which if it be allowed full perfect and sufficient unto all the things of God then whatsoever either of these parties say must be tried by Scripture it must be shewed to be there or be rejected But to avoid the trial there they tell you the Scripture is but a dead letter Unsensed Characters words without sense or unsensed and therefore this must be supplied by the inward word says one by the Pope's word in Cathedrâ says the other and then both the Inward word and the Pope's word shall rule and determine every thing and the Scriptures will signifie nothing but as under pretence of
have been puzzled to unriddle the words of transubstantiation and hyperdulia and infallibility and doctrines ex Cathedra and fere de fide and next to heresie and temerarious and ordo ad spiritualia and S. Peters chair and supremacy in spirituals and implicit faith and very many more prophane or unhallowed novelties of speech which have made Christianity quite another thing than it is in it self or then it was represented by the Apostles and Apostolic men at first as the plain way of salvation to all succeeding ages of the Church for ever But be it as it will for he will neither approve of Scripture language nor is he pleased that I use any handsome expressions for that is charged upon me as part of my fault only to countenance all this he is pleased to say that all these are but division upon no grounds and therefore to grounds and first principles I must be brought and by this way he is sure to blow up my errors from the foundation that 's his expression being a Metaphor I suppose taken from the Gunpowder treason in which indeed going upon Popish grounds they intended to blow up something or other that was very considerable from it's very foundations To perform this effect I. S. hath eight several mines all which I hope to discover without Guido Faux his Lanthorn The First Way HIS first Way is That I have not one first or self evident principle to begin with on which I build the Dissuasive but he hath that is he says he hath for he hath reproved that oral tradition on which he and his Church relies is such a principle He thought it may be he had reason then to say so but the Scene is altered and until he hath sufficiently confuted his adversaries who have proved his self evident principle to be an evident and pitiful piece of Sophistry his boasting is very vain However though he hath failed in his undertaking yet I must acquit my self as well as I can I shall therefore tell him that the truth fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of faith and manners is the principle that I and all Protestants rely upon And although this be not a first and self-evident principle yet it is resolved into these that are 1. Whatsoever God hath said is true 2. Whatsoever God hath done is good 3. Whatsoever God intends to bring to pass he hath appointed means sufficient to that end Now since God hath appointed the Scriptures to instruct us and make us wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect certain it is that this means must needs be sufficient to effect that end Now that God did do this to this end to them that believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God is as evident as any first principle And let these Scriptures be weighed together and see what they do amount to John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for therein ye think to have eternal life The Jews thought so that is they confessed and acknowledged it to be so and if they had been deceived in their thought besides that it is very probable Christ would have reprov'd it so it is very certain he would not have bidden them to have used that means to that end And if Christ himself and the Apostles did convince the Jews out of the Scriptures of the old Testament proving that Jesus was the Christ if Christ himself and the Apostles proved the resurrection and the passion and the supreme Kingdom of Christ out of the Scriptures if the Apostle proved him to be the Messias and that be ought to suffer and to rise again the third day by no other precedent topic and that upon these things Christian religion relied as upon it's intire foundation and on the other side the Jewish Doctors had brought in many things by tradition to which our Blessed Saviour gave no countenance but reproved many of them and made it plain that tradition was not the first and self evident principle to rely upon in religion but a way by which they had corrupted the Commandment of God It will follow from hence that the Scriptures are the way that Christ and his Apostles walked in and that oral tradition was not But then to this add what more concerns the N. T. when S. Luke wrote his Gospel in the preface he tells us That many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us Christians and that he having perfect understanding of all things viz. which Christ did and taught from the very first did write this Gospel that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed Now here if we believe S. Luke was no want of any thing he was fully instructed in all things and he chose to write that book that by that book Theophilus might know the truth yea the certainty of all things Now if we be Christians and believe S. Luke to be divinely inspired this is not indeed a first but an evident principle that a book of Scripture can make a man certain and instructed in the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. To the same purpose is that of S. John These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20. 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name The end is salvation by Jesus Christ the means of effecting this was this writing the Gospel by S. John and therefore it is a sure principle for Christians to rely upon the word of God written by men divinely inspired such as Christians believe and confess S. Luke and S. John to be Hear S. Luke again Acts 1. The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach untill the day he was taken up No man then can deny but all Christs doctrine and life was fully set down by these Evangelists and Apostles whether it were to any purpose or no let I. S. consider and I shall consider with him in the sequel But first let us hear what S. Paul saith in an Epistle written as it is probable not long before his death but certainly after three of the Gospels and divers of the Epistles were written and consequently related to the Scriptures of the old and new Testament Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of 2 Tim. 5. 14. knowing of whom thou hast learned them And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Now I demand Does I. S. believe these words to be true Are the Scriptures
their interests or their lusts out of faction or as they are mislead and then report it accordingly These and a thousand things more convince us of the easiness of being deceived by Oral tradition of doctrines which can insensibly and unavoidably be chang'd in great differences and mistakes but can never suffer any considering Person to believe that mouth delivery is a better way of keeping records than writing in a book So that now I wonder that I. S. is pleas'd to call traditions certainty the first principle of controversie the pretence of it is indeed the mother and nurse of controversie for in the world there is not any thing more uncertain than the report of mens words How many men have been undone by mistaken words And it is well remembred that in the last unhappy Parliament a Gentleman was called to the Bar for speaking words of truth and honesty 1641. but against the sense of the House The words were spoken in a great assembly before many witnesses curious and malicious observers spoken at that very time and yet when the words were questioned they could not agree what they were and consequently the sense of them might be strangely altered since a word the misplacing of a word an accent a point any ambiguity any mistake might change the sense well upon this accident the Speaker call'd to a Gentleman whom he had observed to write the words and to him they appealed and he told them that which I supposed was said but wholly differing from them that speak it the traditionary part of the Parliament All the rest which I. S. says in his first Way is nothing but a strange and arrogant bragging which as it is inconsistent with the modesty of a Christian so it is an ill sign of a sober and wise conviction for if he had demonstrated the certainty of Oral tradition he needed no such noises they that speak truest make the least stir and when they are at peace in the truth of the thing they are pleas'd it is well and so they leave it to prevail by it's native strengths But after all this noise made by I. S. why is he so fierce to call me to first and self evident principles Does any school of Philosophy do so in their Systems and discourses Are there not in every Science divers praecognita things to be presupposed and believ'd before we can prove any thing Is it reasonable when I reprove any vitious person for dishonouring God and dissuade him from his wicked courses that he should tell me he will not be dissuaded by my fine words but if I will go to principles and first grounds he will hear me and I must first prove what dishonouring is and how God can be dishonoured and whether it be only by fiction of law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by way of condescension it is so said and yet after all this I must prove that God does care at all whether the Man say such things or no or lastly I must prove that there is a God before he can suffer me to reprove him upon such ungrounded discourses Theology and the Science of the Scriptures supposes divers grounds laid down before and believ'd and therefore it were a wild demand that in every book we should make a Logical systeme or a formal analysts of all our discourses and make a map describing all the whole passage from the first truth to the present affirmative But if I. S. will but consider what the Design of the Dissuasive was and that the purpose of it was to prove that the doctrine of Popery as such is wholly an Innovation neither Catholic nor Apostolic there was no need of coming to any other first grounds but to shew the time when the Roman propositions were not Catholic doctrines and when they began to be esteemed so These things are matters of fact and need no reduction to any other first principles but the credible testimony of men fit to be believed But yet because I will humor I. S. for this once even here also the Dissuasive relies upon a first and self evident principle as any is in Christianity and that is Quod primum verum And therefore if I prove that the Roman doctrines now controverted were not at first but came in afterwards then I have built the Dissuasive aright and now I have pointed it out and have already in part and in the following book have more largely done it therefore I hope I. S. will be as good as his word and yield himself absolutely confuted But because there are some other reasons inclining me to think he will not perform his promise and particularly because of the ill naturedness of his own principles that I may use his own expression in in his postscript yet if I have fail'd in my proofs it is not for want of clear and evident principles but of right deductions from them and therefore he is mistaken in his first way of mining and whether there be any defect in any thing else will be put to trial in the sequel In the mean time the Lion is not so terrible as he is painted The second Way IN the next place I shall try his second mine and believe I shall finde it big with a brutum fulmen and that it can do no hurt but make a noise and scare the boys in the neighbourhood For now though in the first way he blam'd me for relying upon no first and self evident principle in the second he excludes me from all right of using any unless I will take his He says I have no right to alledge Scriptures or Fathers Councils or reason history or instances But why I pray T is done thus All discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds That is his first proposition what he makes of it afterwards we shall see In the mean time he may consider that though all his discourses suppose that certain on which they build because his Geese are Swans and his arguments are demonstrations yet there are many wiser discourses which rely upon probable arguments And so does a moral demonstration and such a great wit of France Mr. Silhon supposed to be his best way of proving the immortality of the soul. Now this is nothing but a coacervation of many probabilities which according to the subject matter as not being capable of any other way of probation amounts to the effect of a demonstration And however this Gentleman looks big upon it the infallibility of the Church of Rome is by the wisest of his own party acknowledged to rely but upon prudential motives and he is a mad man says Artistotle who in some cases in which yet a man may discourse wisely enough looks for any more than arguments of a high probability But what does I. S. think of arguments ad hominem do they suppose that certain which they build upon or if they do not can there be no good discourses made upon them what
partly and shall in the sequel largely make good In the mean time whether it be principle or conclusion let us see what is objected against it or what use is made of it For I. S. says it is an improv'd and a main position But then he tells us the reason of it is because No heretic had arisen in those days denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write expresly for them but occasionally only Let us consider what this is no heretic had arisen in those days denying these points True but many Catholics did and the reason why no heretics did deny those things was because neither Catholic nor heretic ever affirm'd them Well! but however the Roman controvertists are frequent for citing them for divers points Certainly not for making vows to Saints not for the worship of images nor for the half Communion for these they do not frequently cite the Fathers of the first 300. years It may be not but for the ground of our faith the Churches voice or tradition they do to the utter overthrow of the Protestant cause They do indeed sometimes cite something from them for tradition and where ever the word tradition is in Scripture or the Primitive Fathers they think it is an argument for them just as the Covenanters in the late wars thought all Scripture was their plea where ever the word Covenant was nam'd But to how little purpose they pretend to take advantage of any of the primitive Fathers speaking of tradition I shall endeavour to make apparent in an inquiry made on purpose Sect. 3. In the mean time it appears that this conclusion of mine was to very good purpose and in a manner confess'd to be true in most instances and that it was so in all was not intended by me Well! but however it might be in the first three ages yet he observes that I said that in the succeeding ages secular interest did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous and many things more that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively And is not all this very true He cannot deny it but what then why then he says I may speak out and say all the Fathers after the first three hundred years are not worth a straw in order to decision or controversie and the Fathers of the first three hundred years spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of my own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it There is no great hurt in this If the Fathers be gone my Dissuasive may go too it cannot easily go in better company and I shall take the less care of it because I have I. S. his word that there is a part of it which relies upon the Fathers But if the Fathers be going it is fit we look after them and see which way they go For if they go together as in many things they do they are of very good use in order to decision of controversie if they go several ways and consequently that Controvertists may eternally and irrefutably bring sayings out of them against one another who can help it No man can follow them all and then it must be tried by some other topic which is best to follow but then that topic by it self would have been sufficient to have ended the Question Secondly If a disputer of this world pretends to rely upon the authority of the Fathers he may by them be confuted or determin'd The Church of Rome pretends to this and therefore if we perceive the Fathers have condemned doctrines which they approve of or approve what they condemn which we say in many articles is the case of that Church then the Dissuasive might be very useful and so might the Fathers too for the condemnation of such doctrines in which the Roman Church are by that touchstone found too blame And where as I. S. says that the first three ages of Christianity medled not with the present controversies it is but partly true for although many things are now adays taught of which they never thought yet some of the errors which we condemn were condemn'd then very few indeed by disputation but not a few by positive sentence and in explications of Scripture and rational discourses and by parity of case and by Catechetical doctrines For rectum est Index sui obliqui they have without thinking of future controversies and new emergent heresies said enough to confute many of them when they shall arise The great use of the Fathers especially of the first three hundred years is to tell us what was first to consign Scripture to us to convey the Creed with simplicity and purity to preach Christs Gospel to declare what is necessary and what not And whether they be fallible or infallible yet if we find them telling and accounting the integrity of the Christian faith and treading out the paths of life because they are persons whose conversation whose manner and time of living whose fame and Martyrdom and the venerable testimony of after-ages have represented to be very credible we have great reason to believe that alone to be the faith which they have describ'd and consequently that whatever comes in afterwards and is obtruded upon the world as it was not their way of going to heaven so it ought not to be ours So that here is great use of the Fathers writings though they be not infallible and therefore I wonder at the prodigious confidence to say no worse of I. S. to dare to say that as appears by the Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them infallible nor useful Nay that this is my fourth Principle He that believes Transubstantiation can believe any thing and he that says this dares say every thing for as that is infinitely impossible to sense and reason so this is infinitely false in his own Conscience and experience And the words which in a few lines of his bold assertion he hath quoted out of my book confute him but too plainly He tells us so saith I. S. the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation Do not I also though he is pleas'd to take no notice of it say that although we acknowledge not the Fathers as the Authors and finishers of our faith yet we owne them as helpers of our faith and heirs of the doctrine Apostolical That we make use of their testimonies as being as things now stand to the sober and the moderate the peaceable and the wise the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory to them that know well how to use it Can he that says this not acknowledge the Fathers useful I know not whether I. S. may have any credit as he is one of the
Glossator falsly applies to all the works of the Fathers against the mind of the Fathers themselves quoted by Gratian in the ninth distinction and against the sense of Gelasius himself in that very chapter which he refers to in the fifteenth distinction It may be I. S. had not so much to say for his bold proposition as this it self comes to which if he had ever seen he must needs have seen in the same place very much to the contrary But that not only the Fathers themselves have taught him to speak more modestly of them than he does and that divers leading men of his Church have reprov'd this foolish affirmative of his he may be satisfied if he please to read Aquinas Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur sacra doctrina ex necessitate argumentando Primâ parte q. 1. part 8. ad 2. arg authoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabiliter Now I know not what hopes of escaping I. S. can have by his restrictive terms the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such for besides that the words mean nothing and the testimony of Fathers is the testimony of Fathers as such or it is just nothing at all Besides this I say that Aquinas affirms that their whole authority and therefore of Fathers as such is only probable and therefore certainly not infallible But this is so fond a proposition of I. S. that I am asham'd to speak any more of it and if he were not very ignorant of what his Church holds Lib. 1. adv haeres c. 7. he would never have said it Lib. 7. loc Theol c. 3. n. 4. c. But for his better information I desire the Gentleman to read Alphonsus a Castro Melehior Canus and Bellarmine De verb. Dei lib. 3. c. 10. Sect. Dices It is not therefore the constant doctrine of the Romanists that the Fathers are infallible for I never read or heard any man say it but I. S. and neither is it the avowed doctrine of that Church unless he will condemn all them for heretics that deny it some of which I have already nam'd and more will be added upon this occasion Well! but how shall we know that the Fathers testimony is a testimony of Fathers speaking properly as such for this doughty Question we are to inquire after in the pursuit of I. S. his mines and crackers He says in two cases they speak as Fathers 1. When they declare it the doctrine of the present Church of their time 2. When they write against any man as an heretic or his Tenet as heresie It seems then in these the Fathers testimony is infallible Let us try this 1. All or any thing of this may be done by Fathers supposed such but really not so and if it be not infallibly certain which are and which are not the writings of the Fathers we are nothing the neerer though it were agreed that the true Fathers testimony is infallible Or 2. If the book alledged was the book of the Father pretended and not of an obscure or heretical person yet it may be the words are interpolated or the testimony some way or other corrupted and then the testimony is not infallible when there is no absolute certainty of the witnesses themselves or the records and what causes there are of rejecting very many and doubting more and therefore in matters of present interest and Question of Uncertainty and fallibility in too many is known to every learned man and confessed by writers of both sides 2. It is very seldom that any of the Fathers do use that expression of saying This or this is the doctrine of the Church and therefore if they speak as Fathers never but when these two cases happen the writings of the Fathers will be of very little use in I. S.'s way 3. And yet after all this if we shall descend to instances I. S. will not dare to justifie what he says Was Justin Martyr infallible when he said that all Christians who were pure believers did believe the Millenary doctrine Certainly they were the Church for the others he says were such as denied the resurrection But was Gennadius or else S. Austin fathers and they infallible in the book de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis in which he intends to give an account of the doctrine of the Church I. S. Seems to acknowledge it by affirming a saying out of that book to have been then de fide which because it had been oppos'd by very many of the fathers he had no reason to affirm but upon the witness of Gennadius putting it into his book of Ecclesiastical doctrines and he afterwards calls it the testimony of Gennadius delivering the doctrine of the Catholic Church Pag. 315. It is there said that all men shall die Christ only excepted that death might reign from Adam upon all Hanc rationem maxima Patrum turba tradente suscepimus This account we have receiv'd from the tradition of the greatest company of the Fathers If this be a tradition delivered by the greatest number of the fathers then 1. Tradition is not a sure rule of saith for this tradition is false and expresly against Scripture and 2. It follows that Tradition was not then esteemed a sure rule of faith for although this was a tradition from so great a troop of fathers at he says it was yet there were in his time alii aeque Catholici eruditi viri others as good Catholics and as learned that believ'd as S. Paul believ'd that we shall not all dye but we shall all be chang'd and however it be yet all that troop of fathers he speaks of from whence the tradition came were not infallible for they were actually deceiv'd Now this instance is of great consideration and force against I. S. his first and self evident principle concerning oral tradition For all that number of fathers if the rule of faith had been only oral tradition would horribly have disturbed the pure current of tradition and of necessity must have prevailed in I. S. his way or at least the contrary which is the truth and expresly affirm'd in Scripture could never have had the irrefragable testimony of oral tradition But thanks be to God in this the Church adher'd to the surer word of Prophecy the Scripture prov'd the surer rule of faith But again S. Austin or Gennadius says That after Christs resurrection the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and that going forth from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies This he delivers as the Ecclesiastical doctrine and do the Patrons of Purgatory believe him in this to be infallible for my part I think S. Austin is in the right but I think I. S. will not grant this to be the avowed and constant doctrine of his Church The second case in which they speak as Fathers is when they write against any man as an
heretic or his tenet as heresy But this is so notoriously false as nothing is more and it is infinitely confuted by all the Catalogues and books of the fathers reckoning the heresies where they are pleased to call all opinions they like not by the names of heresy Haeres 90. Philastrius writes against them as heretics and puts them in his black Catalogue who expounds that of making man in the image and likeness of God spoken of in Genesis to signifie the reasonable soul and not rather the Grace of the Holy Spirit He also accounts them heretics who rejected the LXX and followed the translation of Aquila which in the Ancient Church was in great reputation Some there were who said that God hardned the heart of Pharaoh Haeres 77. and these he calls heretics and yet this heresy is the very words of Scripture Haeres 71. and some are reckon'd heretics for saying that the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha was before Noahs flood But more consider able is that heresy Haeres 74. which affirm'd that Christ descended into hell and there preach'd to the detained that they who would confess him might be sav'd Now if Philastrius or any other writer of heretics were in this case infallible what shall become of many of the Orthodox fathers who taught this now condemned doctrine So did Clemens Alexandrinus Anastasius Sinaita S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Ambrose and divers others of the most eminent fathers and S. Austin affirm'd that Christ did save some but whether all the damned then or no he could not resolve Euodius who ask'd the question * Vide Jacob. Vsser primat Hibern cap. de limbo PP That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all upon any account was unanimously taught by S. Hilary and S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose and Theophylact * Vide Erasmum in declarat ad Censuras Facult Thed Paris p. 52. edit Froben A. D. 1532 no not cum exigitur jus-jurandum aut cum urget necessitas and that it is crimen Gehenna dignum a damnable sin Whether that was the doctrine of the Church of Rome in those days I say not but if it were why is the Church of Rome of a contrary judgement now If it were not then a consenting testimony of many fathers even of the greatest ranke is no irrefragable argument of the truth or Catholic tradition and from so great an union of such an authority it was not very hard to imagine that the opinion might have become Catholic from a lesser spring greater streams have issued but it is more than probable that there was no Catholic oral tradition concerning this main and concerning article and I am sure I. S. will think that all these fathers were not only fallible but deceiv'd actually in this point By these few instances we may plainly see what little of infallibility there is in the fathers writings when they write against heretics or heresies or against any article and how then shall we know that the fathers are at all or in any case infallible I know not from any thing more that is said by I. S. But this I know that many chief men of his side do speak so slightly and undervalue the fathers so pertly that I fear it will appear that the Protestants have better opinion of them and make better use of the Fathers than themselves Praefat. in Pentateuch What think we of the saying of Cardinal Cajetan If you chance to meet with any new exposition which is agreeable to the Text c. although perhaps it differ from that which is given by the whole current of the Holy Doctors I desire the Readers that they would not too hastily reject it And again Let no man therefore reject a new exposition of any passage of Scripture under pretence that it is contrary to what the Ancient Doctors gave In Epiph. p. 244. What think we of those words of Petavius There are many things by the most Holy Fathers scattered especially S. Chrysostom in his Homilies which if you would accommodate to the rule of exact truth they will seem to be void of good sense P. 110. And again there is cause why the authority of certain Fathers should be objected for they can say nothing but what they have learned from S. Luke neither is there any reason why we should rather interpret S. Luke by them than those things which they say by S. Luke And Maldonate does expresly reject the exposition which all the Authors In Matth. 16. 18. which he had read except S. Hilary give of those words of Christ The gates of hell shall not prevail against it De sacr tom orig continentiâ apud Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 15. vide etiam hist. Conc. Trident l. 7. Michael Nedina accuses S. Hierom as being of the Aerian heresy in the Qu. of Episcopacy and he proceeds further to accuse S. Ambrose S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact of the same heresy And Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto expresly affirms that he had rather believe one single Pope In Epist. ad Rom. c. 14. than a thousand Augustines Hierom's or Gregories I shall not need any further to instance how the Council of Trent hath decreed many things against the general doctrines of the fathers as in the placing images in Churches the denying of the Eucharist to Infants the not including the Blessed Virgin Mary in the general evil of Mankind in the imputation of Adams sin denying the Chalice to the Laity and Priests not officiating the beatification and Divine vision of Saints before the day of judgment If it were not notorious and sometimes confessed that these things are contrary to the sense of a troop of fathers there might be some excuse made for them who give them good words and yet reject their authorities so freely that it sometimes seems to pass into scorn But now it appears to be to little purpose Sess. 4. that the Council of Trent enjoyns her Clergy that they offer not to expound Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers for though this amounts not to the height of I. S. his saying it is their avowed and constant doctrine that they are infallible but ad coercenda petulantia ingenia the contrary is done and avowed every day And as the fathers prov'd themselves fallible both as such in writing against heretics and in testifying concerning the Churches doctrine in their age so in the interpretations of Scripture in which although there be no Universal consent of Fathers in any interpretation of Scripture concerning which questions mov'd so the best and most common consent that is men of great note recede from it with the greater boldness by how much they hope to raise to themselves the greater reputation for wit and learning Sess. 11. And therefore although in the sixth General Council the Origenists were condemned for bringing
Solomon but when we consider those men who detain the Faith in Vnrighteousness it is no wonder that God leaves them and gives them over to believe a Lye and delivers them to the spirit of Illusion and therefore it will be ill to make our Faith to rely upon such dangerous foundations As all the Principles and graces of the Gospel are the propriety of the Godly so they only are the Church of God of which glorious things are spoken and it will be vain to talk of the infallibility of God's Church the Roman Doctors either must confess it Subjected here that is in the Church in this sense or they can find it no where In short This is the Church in the sense now explicated which is the pillar and ground of truth but this is not the sense of the Church of Rome and therefore from hence they refusing to have their learning can never pretend wisely that they can be Infalliby directed We have seen what is the true meaning of the Church of God according to the Scriptures and Fathers and sometimes Persons formerly in the Church of Rome In the next place let us see what now a days they mean by the Church with which name or word they so much abuse the world 1. Therefore by Church sometimes they mean the whole body of them that profess Christianity Greges pastoribus adunatos Priest and People Bishops and their Flocks all over the world upon whom the name of Christ is called whether they be dead in sins or alive in the spirit whether good Christians or false hypocrites but all the number of the Baptized except Excommunicates that are since cut off make this body Now the word Church I grant may and is given to them by way of supposition and legal presumption as a Jury of twelve men are called Good men and true that is they are not known to be otherwise and therefore presum'd to be such And they are the Church in all humane accounts that is they are the Congregation of all that profess the name of Christ of whom every particular that is not known to be wicked is presum'd to be good and therefore is still part of the External Church in which are the wheat and the tares and they are bound up in Common by the Union of Sacraments and external rites De doctr Christ. lib. 3. c. 32. name and profession but by nothing else This Doctrine is well explicated by S. Austin That is not the body of Christ which shall not reign with him for ever And yet we must not say it is bipartite but it is either true or mixt or it is either true or counterfeit or some such thing For not only in eternity but even now hypocrites are not to be said to be with Christ although they may seem to be of his Church But the Scripture speaks of those and these as if they were both of one body propter temporalem commixtionem communionem Sacramentorum they are only combin'd by a temporal mixtion and united by the common use of the Sacraments And this to my sense all the Churches of the world seem to say for when they excommunicate a person then they throw him out of the Church meaning that all his being in the Church of which they could take cognisance is but by the Communion of Sacraments and external society Imped ri non debet fides aut charitas nostra ut quoniam zizania esse in Ecclesiâ cernimus ipsi de Ecclesiâ recedamus â— Cypr. lib. 3. ep 3. ad Maximum Now out of this society no man must depart because although a better union with Christ and one another is most necessary yet even this cannot ought not to be neglected for by the outward the inward is set forward and promoted and therefore to depart from the external communion of the Church upon pretence that the wicked are mingled with the godly is foolish and unreasonable for by such departing Scil. ep 51. edit Rigaltianae a man is not sure he shall depart from all the wicked but he is sure he shall leave the communion of the good who are mingled in the common Mass with the wicked or else all that which we call the Church is wicked And what can such men propound to themselves of advantage when they certainly forsake the society of the good for an imaginary departure from the wicked and after all the care they can take they leave a society in which are some intemperate or many worldly men and erect a Congregation for ought they know of none but hypocrites So that which we call the Church is permixta Ecclesia as S. Austin is content it should be called a mixt Assembly Vbi suprà and for this mixture sake under the cover and knot of external communion the Church that is all that company is esteemed one body and the appellatives are made in common and so are the addresses and offices and ministeries because of those that are not now some will be good and a great many that are evil are undiscernably so and in that communion are the ways and ministeries and engagements of being good and above all in that society are all those that are really good therefore it is no wonder that we call this Great mixtion by the name of Ecclesia or the Church But then since the Church hath a more sacred Notion it is the spouse of Christ his dove his beloved his body his members his temple his house in which he loves to dwell and which shall dwell with him for ever and this Church is known and discern'd and lov'd by God and is United unto Christ therefore although when we speak of all the acts and duties of the judgments and nomenclatures of outward appearances and accounts of law we call the mixt Society by the name of the Church Yet when we consider it in the true proper and primary meaning by the intention of God and the nature of the thing and the Entercourses between God and his Church all the promises of God the Spirit of God the life of God and all the good things of God are peculiar to the Church of God in God's sense in the way in which he owns it that is as it is holy United unto Christ like to him and partaker of the Divine nature The other are but a heap of men keeping good Company calling themselves by a good name managing the external parts of Union and Ministery but because they otherwise belong not to God the promises no otherwise belong to them but as they may and when they * In Ecclesiâ non est macula aut ruga quia peccatores donec non poenitet eos vitae prioris nâ—n sunt in Ecclesiâ cum autem poenitel jam sani sunt Pacian ep 3. ad Symp onium Idem aâ—t S. Hieron comment in Ephes. c. 5. Maculaâ—i ab eâ Ecclesiâ alieni esse censentur nisi rursum per
Concilio Generali praesidens and the 3d. Council of Toledo in the 18th Chapter uses this mandatory form Praecipit haec sancta Vniversalis Synodus 3 But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style and that this title of Vniversal means but a Particular that is an Universal of that place though this be a hard expression because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place yet this may be pardon'd since it is like the Catholick Roman style that is the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church but after all this it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal or General Councils Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General and is reproved for it by Surius who for all the Pope's infallibility pretended to know more than the Pope would allow The last Lateran Council viz. the fifth is at Rome esteem'd a General Council In Germany and France it passes for none at all but a faction and pack of Cardinals 4. There are divers General Councils that though they were such yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world It ought not to be said that these are not General Councils because they were conventions of heretical persons for if a Council can consist of heretical persons as by this instance it appears it may then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC Bishops and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it but the faults that are found with it prove indeed that it is not to be accepted but then they prove two things more First That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches and therefore that all its authority depends on them and they do not depend upon it And secondly that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible that they are directly false schismatical and heretical And if when the Churches are divided in a question and the communion like the Question is in flux and reflux when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side and prevail by it but lose as much when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council for though I believe so yet others do not and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine then all that is to be considered in this affair is Whether they be General Councils Whether they say true or no is not now the question but is to be determin'd by this viz. whether are they General Councils or no for relying upon their authority for the truth if they be satisfied that they are General Councils that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed Now then if this be the question then since divers General Councils are reprobated the consequent is that although they be General Councils yet they may be reprov'd And if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determin'd for the truth but yours for errour for the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General A. D. 755. There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed A D. 786. aut 789. This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches and this was a General Council and yet 26 or as some say 31 years after this was condemned by another General Council viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped not long after about five years this General Council of Nice for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford and generally by the Western Churches Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty and without scruple And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd for if they be General and yet may without reason be condemn'd then they have no authority but if they be condemned with reason then they are not infallible The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last defin'd the Council to be above the Pope the Council of Florence and the fift Council in the Lateran have condemn'd this Council so far as to that article The Council of Basil all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope but therefore though in France it is accepted yet in Italy and Spain it is not But what is the meaning that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Francfort Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the General Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans receive six the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard not that they are infallible but that they have determin'd wisely and holily Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It
sufficient testimony and confession of enemies and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these Books were written by such men who by miracle were prov'd to be Divini homines Men endued with God's Spirit and trusted with his Message and when it was thus far proved by God it became the immediate sole Ministery of intire Salvation and the whole Repository of the Divine will and when things were come thus far if it inquir'd whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation we need no other we can have no better testimony than it self concerning it self And to this purpose I have already brought from it sufficient affirmation of the point in Question in the preceding answer to I. S. his first Way in his fourth Appendix 3. It is possible that the Scriptures should contain in them all things necessary to salvation God could cause such a Book to be written And he did so to the Jews he caused his whole Law to be written he engraved in Stones he commanded the authentick Copy to be kept in the Ark and this was the great security of the conveying it and Tradition was not relied upon it was not trusted with any law of Faith or Manners Now since this was once done and therefore is always possible to be done why it should not be done now there is no pretence of reason but very much for it For 1. Why should the Book of S. Matthew be called the Gospel of Jesus Christ and this is also the very Title of S. Mark 's Book and S. Luke affirms the design of his Book is to declare the certainty of the things then believed and in which his Friend was instucted which we cannot but suppose to be the whole Doctrine of salvation 2. What end could there be in writing these Books but to preserve the memory of Christ's History and Doctrine 3. Especially if we consider that many things which were not absolutely necessary to salvation were set down and therefore to omit any thing that is necessary must needs be an Unreasonable and Unprofitable way of writing 4. There yet never was any Catholick Father that did affirm in terms or in full and equivalent sense that the Scriptures are defective in the recording any thing necessary to salvation but Unanimously they taught the contrary as I shall shew by and by 5. The enemies of Christian Religion oppos'd themselves against the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures and suppos'd by that means to conclude against Christianity and they knew no other repository of it and estimated no other 6. The persecutors of Christianity intending to destroy Christianity hop'd to prevail by causing the Bibles to be burnt which had been a foolish and unlikely design if that had not been the Ark that kept the Records of the whole Christian Law 7. That the revealed will of God the Law of Christ was not written in his life-time but preached only by word of mouth is plain and reasonable because all was not finished and the salvation of man was not perfected till the Resurrection Ascension and Descent of the Holy Ghost nor was it done presently But then it is to be observed that there was a Spirit of infallible Record put into the Apostles sufficient for it's publication and continuance But before the death of the Apostles that is before this Spirit of infallibility was to depart all was written that was intended because no thing else could infallibly convey the Doctrine Now this being the case of every Doctrine as much as of any and the case of the whole rather than of any part of it it must follow that it was highly agreeable to the Divine wisdom and the very end of this Oeconomy that all should be written and for no other reason could the Evangelists and Apostles write so many Books 4. But of the sufficiency of Scripture we may be convinc'd by the very nature of the thing For the Sermons of Salvation being preach'd to all to the learned and unlearned it must be a common Concern and therefore fitted to all capacities and consequently made easie for easie learners Now this design is plainly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviatures the Symbols and Catalogues of Credenda which are short and plain and easie and to which salvation is promis'd Now if he that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God 1 John 5. 10. hath eternal life John 17. 3. that is so far as the value and acceptability of believing does extend this Faith shall prevail unto salvation it follows that this being the affirmation of Scripture and declar'd to be a competent foundation of Faith the Scripture that contains much more even the whole Oeconomy of salvation by Jesus Christ cannot want any necessary thing when the absolute necessities are so narrow Christ the Son of God is the great adaequate object of saving Faith John 17. 3. to know God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ this is eternal life Now this is the great design of the Gospel and is reveal'd largely in the Scriptures so that there is no adaequate object of Faith but what is there 2. As to the Attributes of God and of Christ that is all that is known of them and to be known is set down in Scripture That God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him that he is the fountain of wisdom justice holiness power that his providence is over all and mercy unto all And concerning Christ all the attributes and qualifications by which he is capable and fitted to do the work of redemption for us and to become our Lord and the great King of Heaven and Earth able to destroy all his Enemies eternally and to reward his servants with a glorious and indefectible Kingdom all this is declar'd in Scripture So that concerning the full object of Faith manifested in the whole design of the Gospel the Scriptures are full and whatever is to be believed of the attributes belonging to this prime and full object all that also is in Scripture fully declar'd And all the acts of Faith the antecedents the formal and the consequent acts of faith are there expresly commanded viz. to know God to believe in his name and word to believe in his Son and to obey his Son by the consequent acts of Faith all this is set down in Scripture in which not only we are commanded to keep the Commandments but we are told which they are There we are taught to honour and fear to love and obey God and his Holy Son to fear and reverence him to adore and invocate him to crave his aid and to give him thanks not to trust in or call upon any thing that hath no Divine Empire over us or Divine Excellence in it self It is so particular in recounting all the parts of Duty that it descends specially to enumerate the duties of Kings and subjects Bishops and people Parents and children Masters and servants to
Caution to the Christians but also of Opposition to the Gnosticks who were very busie in pretending ancient traditions This is the discourse of that great Christian Philosopher S. Clement from which besides the direct testimony given to the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of Faith or Questions in Religion we find him affirming that the Scriptures are a certain and the only demonstration of these things they are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of judging the controversies of faith that the tradition Ecclesiastical that is the whole doctrine taught by the Church of God and preach'd to all men is in the Scripture and therefore that it is the plenary and perfect repository of tradition that is of the doctrine deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles and they who believe not these are Impious And lest any man should say that suppose Scripture do contain all things necessary to Salvation yet it is necessary that tradition or some infallible Church do expound them and then it is as long as it is broad and comes to the same issue S. Clement tells us how the Scriptures are to be expounded saying that they who rely upon them must expound Scriptures by Scriptures and by the analogy of faith Comparing spiritual things with spiritual one place with another a part with the whole and all by the proportion to the Divine Attributes This was the way of the Church in S. Clement ' s time and this is the way of our Churches But let us see how this affair went in other Churches and times and whether there be a succession and an Universality of this doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all the affairs of God The next is Tertullian Contr. Hermog cap. 22. who writing against Hermogenes that affirm'd God made the world not out of nothing but of I know not what praeexistent matter appeals to Scripture in the Question whose fulness Tertullian adores Let the shop of Hermogenes show that this thing is written If it be not written let him fear the Wo pronounc'd against them that adde to or take from Scripture Against this testimony it is objected that here Tertullian speaks but of one question De verb. Dei lib 4. c. 11. Sect. So Bellarmine answers and from him E. W. and A. L. To which the reply is easie Profert undecimo For when Tertullian challenges Hermogenes to show his proposition in Scripture he must mean that the fulness of the Scripture was sufficient not onely for this but for all Questions of religion or else it had been an ill way of arguing to bring a negative argument from Scripture against this alone For why was Hermogenes tied to prove this proposition from Scripture more than any other Either Scripture was the rule for all or not for that For suppose the heretick had said It is true it is not in Scripture but I have it from tradition or it was taught by my forefathers there had been nothing to have replied to this but that It may be he had no tradition for it Now if Hermogenes had no tradition then indeed he was tied to shew it in Scripture but then Tertullian should have said let Hermogenes shew where it is written or that it is a tradition for if the pretending and proving tradition in case there were any such pretense in this Question had been a sufficient answer then Tertullian had no sufficient argument against Hermogenes by calling for authority from Scripture but he should have said If it be not scriptum or traditum written or delivered let Hermogenes fear the wo to the adders or detracters But if we will suppose Tertullian spoke wisely and sufficiently he must mean that the Scripture must be the Rule in all Questions and no doctrine is to be taught that is not taught there But to put this thing past dispute Tertullian himself extends this rule to an universal comprehension And by this instrument declares that hereticks are to be confuted Take from the hereticks that which they have in common with the heathens viz. their Ethnick learning and let them dispute their questions by Scripture alone and they can never stand By which it is plain that the Scripture is sufficient for all faith because it is sufficient to convince all heresies and deviations from the faith For which very reason the hereticks also as he observes attempted to prove their propositions by arguments from Scripture for indeed there was no other way because the Articles of faith are to be prov'd by the writings of faith De Praescript that is the Scripture that was the Rule How contrary this is to the practice and doctrine of Rome at this day we easily find by their Doctors charging all heresies upon the Scriptures as occasion'd by them and forbidding the people to read them for fear of corrupting their weak heads nay it hath been prohibited to certain Bishops to read the Scriptures lest they become hereticks And this folly hath proceeded so far that Erasmus tells us of a Dominican In Epist. who being urg'd in a Scholastical disputation with an argument from Scripture cried out It was a Lutheran way of disputation and protested against the answering it which besides that it is more than a vehement suspicion that these men find the Scriptures not to look like a friend to their propositions it is also a manifest procedure contrary to the wisdom religion and Oeconomy of the primitive Church The next I note Tract 5. in Matth. versus finem is Origen who when he propounded a Question concerning the Angels Guardians of little children viz. When the Angels were appointed to them at their Birth or at their Baptism He addes You see Vide etiam Origen bomil 25. in Matth. homil 7. in Ezek. hom l. â— in Jerem. Quos locos citat Bellarm. ubi supra Sect. Secundò profert he that will discuss both of them warily it is his part to produce Scripture for testimony agreeing to one of them both That was the way of the Doctors then And Scripture is so full and perfect to all intents and purposes that for the confirmation of our discourses Scripture is to be brought saith Origen * Jesum Christum scimus Deum quaeriâ—us verba quae dicta sunt juxta personae exponere dignitatem Quapropter necesse nobis est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem We know Jesus Christ is God and we seek to expound the words which are spoken according to the dignity of the person Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony for our meanings and enarrations without these witnesses have no belief To these words Bellarmine answers most childishly saying that Origen speaks of the hardest questions such as for the most part traditions are not about But it is evident that therefore Origen requires testimony of
versantur ut decet It is our own fault our prejudice our foolish expectations our carnal fancies our interests and partialities make the Scriptures difficult The Apostles did not would not could not understand their Master and Lord when he told them of his being put to death They look'd for some other thing and by that measure they would understand what was spoken and by nothing else But to them that are conversant in Scriptures as they ought nothing is difficult So S. Cyril That is nothing that is necessary for them to know nothing that is necessary to make us wise unto salvation which is the great end of man To this purpose are the words of S. Austin In Psal. 8. Inclinavit Deus Scripturas ad infantium lactentium Capacitatem God hath made the Scriptures to stoop to the Capacitie of babes and sucklings that so out of their mouths he may perfect praise Homil. primâ in Matth. And S. Chrysostom says that the Scriptures are faciles ad intelligendum prorsus expositae they are expounded and easie to be understood to the servant and the countrey-man to the widow and the boy and to him that is very unskilful Homil. 3. in 2 Thess. Omnia clara sunt plana in Divinis literis all things are clear and plain in the Divine writings All things that is saith S. Chrysostom Omnia necessaria aperta sunt manifesta All that is necessary is open and manifest 2. The Fathers say that in such things viz. in which our Salvation is concerned the Scriptures need no interpreter but a man may find them out himself by himself Apostoli verò Prophetae omnia contrà fecerunt manifesta claráque quae prodiderunt exposuerunt nobis veluti communes orbis Doctores Homil. 3. de Lazaro homil 3. in 2 Thess. ut per se quisque discere possit ea quae dicuntur ex solâ lectione So S. Chrysostom and therefore saith he what need is there of a Preacher All things are clear and plain out of the Divine Scriptures But ye seek for Preachers because you are nice and delicate and love to have your ears pleased To the same purpose are those words of S. Cyril Alex. Lib. 7. 〈◊〉 Julian The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approved and having a most sufficient understanding And to this we need not any foreign teachers There is no question but there are many places in the Divine Scriptures mysterious intricate and secret but these are for the learned not the ignorant for the curious and inquisitive not for the busied and imployed and simple they are not the repositories of salvation but instances of labour and occasions of humility and arguments of forbearance and mutual toleration and an indearment of reverence and adoration But all that by which God brings us to himself is plain and easie In S. Paul's Epistles S. Peter said there were some things hard to be understood but they were but quaedam some things there are enow besides which are very plain and easie and sufficient for the instruction and the perfecting the man of God S. Peter is indeed suppos'd to say that in S. Paul's Epistles some things were hard yet if we observe it rightly he does not relate to S. Paul's writings and way of expressing himself but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which relates to the mysterious matters contain'd in S. Paul's Epistles 2 Pet. 3. 16. of which S. Peter also there treats the mysteries were so deep and sublime so far remov'd from sense and humane experience that it is very hard for us poor ignorants to understand them without difficulty and constancy of labour and observation But then when such mysterious points occurre let us be wary and wise not hasty and decretory but fearful and humble modest and inquisitive S. Paul expressed those deep mysteries of the Coming of Christ to Judgement and the conflagration of the world as plainly as the things would easily bear and therefore the difficulty was not in the style but in the subject matter nor there indeed as they are in themselves so much as by the ignorance and instability or unsetledness of foolish people and although when things are easie there needs no interpreter but the very reading and observing and humility and diligence simplicity and holiness are the best expositors in the world yet when any such difficulty does occurre we have a guide sufficient to carry us as farre as we need or ought to go Therefore 3. The way of the Ancient and Primitive Church was to expound the Scriptures by the Scriptures So S. Clemens of Alexandria Stromat lib. 7. p. 757. 758. perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Confirming every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures Contr. Gentil in initio To the same purpose are the words of S. Athanasius The knowledge of true and Divine religion and piety does not much need the Ministery of man and he might abundantly draw this forth from the Divine books and Letters S. Paul's way of teaching us to expound Scripture is that he that prophecies should do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the analogy of faith the fundamental proportions of faith are the measures by which we are to exact the sense and meaning of points more difficult and less necessary This way S. Clement urges in other expressions Truth is not found in the translation of significations Ubi suprà pag. 758. for so they might overthrow all true doctrine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in this that every one consider what is perfectly agreeable to our Lord the Almighty God and what is decent or fit to be said of him If we follow this way close our interpretations of Scripture can never be impious and can never lead into dangerous errour 4. In pursuance of this the Ancient Fathers took this way and taught us to do so too to expound difficult places by the plain Lib. 2. de doctr Christ. cap. 6. So S. Austin Magnificè salubritèr Spiritus Sanctus c. The Holy Spirit hath magnificently and wholsomly qualified the Holy Scriptures that in the more open or plainer places provision is made for our hunger viz. for our need and in the obscure there is nothing tedious or loathsom Nihil enim ferè de illis obscuritatibus eruit quod non planissimè dictum alibi reperiatur For there is scarce any thing drawn from those obscure places but the same in other places may be found spoken most plainly Bellarmine observes De verbo Dei l. 3. cap. 2. Sect. Respondeo iâ—pimis that S. Austin uses the word ferè almost meaning that though by plainer places most of the obscure places may be clear'd yet not all And truly it is very probable that S. Austin
did mean so But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightned what is to be done with them S. Austin says Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16. that in such places let every one abound in his own sense and expound as well as he can quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure and there is no other viz. so apt and certain And after all this I deny not but there are many other external helps God hath set Bishops and Priests Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can and it is to be suppos'd they can do it best but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now describ'd out of the Fathers and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us he will very much oblige the world by declaring it and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes But because no man and no company of men hath yet expounded all hard places with certaintie and without error it is an intolerable vanitie to pretend to a power of doing that which no charitie hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church and the glory of God and the rest of inquiring Souls I end this tedious discourse with the words of S. Austin De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. Nolo humanis documentis sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari If you enquire where or which is the Church from humane teachings you can never find her she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles 1 Pet. 4. 1. Therefore if any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God SECTION III. Of Traditions TRadition is any way of delivering a thing or word to another and so every doctrine of Christianity is by Tradition 1 Thes. 2. 15. I have deliver'd unto you saith S. Paul that Christ died for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Jude the faith deliver'd is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the traditions that is the doctrines ye were taught And S. * Lib. 3. c. 4. Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup and said it was his bloud and to believe in one God and in Christ who was born of a Virgin was the old tradition that is the thing deliver'd not at first written which the Barbarians kept diligently But Tradition signified either Preaching or Writing as it hapned When it signified Preaching it was only the first way of communicating the Religion of Jesus Christ and untill the Scriptures were written and consign'd by the full testimony of the Apostles and Apostolical Churches respectively they in the Questions of Religion usually appeal'd to the tradition or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apostles first preach'd and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches who without variety or change had still remembred and kept the same doctrine which at first was deliver'd by the Apostles So Irenaeus If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us Ibid. must not we viz. in this case have followed the order of tradition which they deliver'd to them to whom they intrusted the Church to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent And that which was true then is also true now for if the Apostles had never written at all we must have followed tradition unless God had provided for us some better thing But it is observable that Irenaeus says That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture But since God hath supplied not only the principal Churches with the Scriptures but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans call'd Barbarous now to run to Tradition is to make use of a staff or a wooden Leg when we have a good Leg of our own The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear evident recent remembred talk'd of by all Christians in all their meetings publick and private and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endeavour'd to remember them was not easie and if there had been a mistake there was an Apostle living or one of their immediate Disciples to set all things right And therefore untill the Apostles were all dead Hegâ—sip apud Eccles. liâ— 38. c. 32. Grec 26. Latin there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians but what was instantly determin'd or suppress'd and the Heresies that were did creep and sting clancularly but made no great show But when the Apostles were all dead then that Apostasie foretold began to appear and Heresies of which the Church was warned began to arise But it is greatly to be remark'd There was then no Heresie that pretended any foundation from Scripture Acts 20. 29. 30. but from tradition many 1 Tim. 4. 1. c. for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle 2 Tim 3. â— c. 4. 3. that even good men were willing to believe any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach 2 Thes. 2. 3. and too many were forward to say 2 Pet. 2. â— c. they heard them teach what they never taught 1 Joh. 2. 18. 19. and the pretence was very easie to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles Jude 4. v. c. and now that they were dead it was so difficult to confute them that the Hereticks found it an easie game to play to say They heard it deliver'd by an Apostle Many did so and some were at first believed and yet were afterwards discovered some were cried down at first and some expir'd of themselves and some were violently thrust away But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custome were of a true and Apostolical original and how many were not so it will be impossible to find now only because we are sure there was some false dealing in this matter and we know there might be much more than we have discover'd we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith any more than we could do upon Scripture if one
and explicitely did teach much more is every Gospel But when all the four Gospels and the Apostolical Acts and Epistles and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume by the counsel of God by the dictate of the Holy Spirit and by the choice of the Apostles it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Will and Testament Contre le Roy Jaq. p. 715. And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknowledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christianity as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence as the Institutions of Justinian is of the study of the law as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it It is not in his sense the foundation of Christian doctrine but it contains it all not onely in general but in special not onely virtual but actual not mediate but immediate for a few lines would have serv'd for a foundation General virtual and mediate If the Scripture had said The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholick Church and the foundation of faith she shall be infallible and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determination of their Questions this had been a sufficient virtual and mediate foundation But when four Gospels containing Christs Sermons and his Miracles his Precepts and his Promises the Mysteries of the Kingdom and the way of Salvation the things hidden from the beginning of the world and the glories reserv'd to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus to say that yet all these Gospels and all the Epistles of S. Paul S. Peter S. James and S. John and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles in the first establishing the Church are all but a foundation virtual and that they point out the Church indeed by saying she is the pillar and ground of truth but leave you to her for the foundation actual special and immediate is an affirmation against the notoreity of fact Add to this that S. Irenaeus spake these words concerning the Scriptures Lib. 3. cap. 2. in confutation of them who leaving the Scriptures did run to Traditions pretendedly Apostolical And though it be true that the traditions they relyed upon were secret Apocryphal forg'd and suppos'd yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded and even then the Hereticks could not want pretences sufficient to deceive and hopes to prevail How is it to be imagined that in the descent of sixteen ages the cheat might not be too prevalent when if the traditions be question'd it will be impossible to prove them and if they be false it will except it be by Scripture be impossible to confute them And after all if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contain'd in Scripture and yet were preach'd by the Apostles let that be prov'd let the traditions be produc'd and the records sufficient primely credible and authentick and we shall receive them So vain a way of arguing it is to say The Traditions against which S. Irenaeus speaks were false but ours are true Theirs were secret but ours were open and notorious For there are none such And Bellarmine himself acknowledges that the necessary things are deliver'd in Scriptures and those which were reserv'd for tradition were deliver'd apart that is secretly by the Apostles Now if they were so on all sides what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script l. 4. and why shall we believe these more than those since all must be equally taken upon private testimony at first And although it will be said That the Roman Traditions were receiv'd by after-ages and the other were not yet this shews nothing else but that some had the fate to prevail and others had not For it is certain that some were a long time believ'd even for some whole ages under the name of Apostolical Tradition as the Millenary opinion and the Asiatick manner of keeping Easter which yet came to be dis-believ'd in their time and also it is certain that many which really were Apostolical Traditions perished from the memory of men and had not so long lives as many that were not So that all this is by chance and can make no difference in the just authority And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron That the case is not the same because theirs are wrong and ours are right For this ought not to have been said till it were prov'd and if it were prov'd the whole Question were at an end for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical But in this there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus his words concerning the fulness of Scripture as to the whole doctrine of Christ being so clear and manifest as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will l. 5. contr Parmer biblioth Patrum per Binium â—om 4. Paris 1589. pag. 510. If there be a controversie amongst the descendants of the house run to the Scriptures see the Original will The Gospels are Christ's Testament and the Epistles are the Codicils annex'd and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once nor at once communicated nor at once receiv'd therefore the Churches of God at first were forc'd to trust their memories and to try the doctrines by appealing to the memories of others that is to the consenting report and faith deliver'd and preach'd to other Churches especially the chiefest where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent The mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood the perfection of his sacrifice and the unity of it Christ's advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven might very well be accounted traditions before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for Canonical but now they are written truths and if they had not been written it is likely we should have lost them But this way could not long be necessary and could not not long be safe Not necessary because it was supplied by a better and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk because at first in his infancy it was fit he should Not safe because it grew worse and worse every day And therefore in a little while even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touch-stone of true doctrine that themselves were brought to the stone of trial And the Tradition would not be admitted unless it were in Scripture By which it appears that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith distinct from the Scriptures but it self was a part of it that
aside let us determine the things brought into question by the testimonies of the divinely inspired Scriptures And they did so And by relying on Scriptures onely we shall never be constrain'd to quit these glorious portions of Evangelical truth the Incarnation of the eternal Word and the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son Whatsoever ought to be known of these mysteries is contain'd in both Testaments saith Rupertus Tuitiensis before quoted And if the holy Scriptures did not teach us in these mysteries we should find Tradition to be but a lame leg or rather a reed of Egypt Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 27. For Artemon who was the first founder of that errour which afterwards belch'd into Arianism pretended a tradition from the Apostles that Christ was a meer man And that Tradition descended to the time of Pope Zepherinus Dial. contr Tryph. Jud. who first gave a stop to it and Justin Martyr says that divers among the Christians affirm'd Christ to be not God of God but man of man Vide etiam Theodor. l. 1. Eccles. hist. c. 8. And the Arians offer'd to be tried by Tradition and therefore pretended to it and therefore the Catholicks did not at least according to the new doctrine That if one pretends Tradition the other cannot But for all that trifle S. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it though not always and this shews that there was no clear indubitate notorious universal Tradition in the Question and if there were not such an one as good none at all for it could not be such a foundation as was fit to build our faith upon especially in such mysterious articles But it is remarkable what Eusebius recites out of an old Author who wrote against the heresie of Artemon which afterwards Samosatenus renewed and Arius made publick with some alteration They all say says he that our Ancestors and the Apostles themselves Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5 c. 27. Lat. 28. Gr. not onely to have receiv'd from our Lord those things which they now affirm but that they taught it to others and the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope Victor and was kept intire but was deprav'd by Pope Zepherin And truly that which was said by them might seem to have in it much of probability if the Divine Scriptures did not first of all contradict them and that there were writings of some Brethren elder than the times of Victor The Brethren whose writings he names are Justin Militiades Tatian Clemens Irenaeus and the Psalms and Hymns of divers made in honour of Christ. From all which it is evident that the Questions at Nice were not and could not be determin'd by tradition 2. That Tradition might be and was pretended on both sides 3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties with some probability it can effectually serve neither 4. That the Tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of had in it much probability when look'd upon in it's own series and proper state 5. That the Divine Scriptures were at that time the best firmament of the Church and defended her from that abuse which might have been impos'd upon her under the title of Tradition 6. That even when tradition was oppos'd to tradition and the right to the wrong yet it was not Oral or Verbal tradition according to the new mode but the writings of the Doctors that were before them But after all this I cannot but observe and deplore the sad consequents of the Roman Doctors pretention that This great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the Flesh relies wholly upon unwritten traditions For the Socinians knowing that tradition was on both sides claim'd in this Article please themselves in the Concession of their adversaries that this is not to be prov'd by Scripture So they alledge the testimony of Eccius and Cardinal Hosius one of the Legats presiding at Trent Doctrinam de Trino Vno Deo In locis Commun pag. 208. 209. esse dogma Traditionis ex Scripturâ nullâ ratione probari posse The same was affirm'd by Tanner and all that were on that side in the Conference at Ratisbon by Hieronymus à S. Hyaeintho and others Now they being secur'd by their very enemies that they need not fear Scriptures in this question and knowing of themselves that tradition cannot alone do it they are at peace and dwell in confidence in this their Capital Error and the false peace is owing to the Roman Doctors who in Italy help to make Atheists Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae combustae Manium à R. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum sui vindices Impress A. D. 1652. and in Polonia Socinians and as a Consequent to all this I remember they scorn Cichovius who endeavoured to confute them by a hundred arguments from Scriptures since his own parties do too freely declare that not one of those hundred prove the Question 2. The next necessary Article pretended to stand upon Tradition is The baptizing Children Concerning which I consider either the matter of fact or matter of doctrine The matter of fact is indifferent if abstracted from the doctrine For at the first they did or they did not according as they pleased for there is no pretence of Tradition that the Church in all ages did baptize all the Infants of Christian Parents It is more certain that they did not do it always than that they did it in the first age S. Ambrose S. Hierom and S. Austin were born of Christian Parents and yet not baptiz'd untill the full age of a man and more But that the Apostles did baptize any Children is not at all reported by a primely credible Tradition or a famous report but that they did so is only conjectur'd at or if it be more yet that more whatsoever it be relies upon the testimony of Scripture as S. Paul's baptizing the housholds of Stephanas and the Jaylor But then if they did or if they did not yet without an appendant doctrine this passes on by the voluntary practise of the Church and might be or not be as they pleas'd as it was in the case of confirming them and communicating them at the same time they baptized them Concerning which because we live to have seen and read of several Customs of the Church in several ages it is also after the same manner in baptism if we consider it only in the matter of fact But then if we consider the doctrine appendant to it or the cause why it is pretended they were baptiz'd even that children should be brought to Christ should receive his blessing should be adopted into the Kingdom of God should be made members of the second Adam and be translated from the death introduc'd by the first to the life revealed by the second and that they may receive the Holy Spirit and a title to the promises Evangelical and be born again and admitted into a state of
not fully observed others according to the quality of the matter and time being obliterated or abrogated by the Magistery of the whole Church De Coron milit cap. 3. â— Tertullian speaks of divers unwritten Customs of which tradition is the author custom is the confirmer and faith is the observer Such are the renunciations in the office of Baptism trine Immersion tasting milk and honey abstinence from the Bath for a week after the receiving the Eucharist before day or in the time of their meal from the hand of the presisidents of Religion anniversary oblations on birth-days and for the dead not to fast not to kneel on Sundays perpetual festivities from Easter to Whitsuntide not to endure without great trouble bread or drink to fall upon the ground and at every motion to sign the forehead with the sign of the Cross. Some of these are rituals and some are still observed and some are superstitious and observ'd by no body and some that are not may be if the Church please these indeed were traditions or customes before his time but not so much as pretended to be Apostolical but if they were are yet of the same consideration with the rest If they be customs of the Church they are not without great reason and just authority to be laid aside But are of no other argument against Scripture than if all the particular customs of all Churches were urg'd For if they had come from the Apostles as these did not yet if the Apostles say dicit Dominus they must be obeyed for ever but if the word be dico ego non Dominus the Church hath her liberty to do what in the changing times is most for edification And therefore in these things let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions Apostolical she please of this nature the Church may keep them or lay them aside according to what they judge is best For if those Canons and traditions of the Apostles of which there is no question and which are recorded in Scripture yet are worn out and laid aside those certainly which are pretended to be such and cannot be proved cannot pass into perpetual obligation whether the Churches will or no. I shall not need upon this head to consider any more instances because all the points of Popery are pretended to rely upon Tradition The novelty of which because I shall demonstrate in their proper places proving them to be so far from being traditions Apostolical that they are mere Innovations in Religion I shall now represent the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of Traditions in ordinary and the certain deceptions of those who trust them the impossibility of ending many questions by them I shall not bring the usual arguments which are brought from Scriptures against traditions because although those which Christ condemns in the Pharisees and the Apostles in Heretical persons are not reprov'd for being Traditions but for being without Divine authority that is they are either against the Commandment of God or without any warrant from God yet if there be any traditions real and true that is words of God not written they if they could be shown would be very good But then I desire the same ingenuity on the other side and that the Roman Writers would not trouble the Question or abuse their Readers by bringing Scriptures to prove their traditions not by shewing they are recorded in Scripture 2. Thes. 2. but by bringing Scriptures where the word tradition is nam'd 2. Tim. 2. For besides that such places cannot be with any modesty pretended as proofs of the particular traditions it is also certain that they cannot prove that in General there are or can be any unrecorded Scripture when the whole Canon should be written consign'd and entertain'd For it may be necessary that traditions should be call'd on to be kept before Scriptures were written and yet afterwards not necessary and those things which were deliver'd and are not in Scripture may be lost because they were not written and then that may be impossible for us to do which at first might have been done But this being laid aside I proceed to Considerations proper to the Question 1. Tertullian S. Hierom and S. Austin are pretended the Great Patrons of Tradition and they have given rules by which we shall know Apostolical Traditions and it is well they do so for sand ought to be put into a glass and water into a vessel something to limit the running element that when you have receiv'd it you may keep it A nuncupative record is like figures in the air or diagrams in sand the air and the wind will soon disorder the lines And God knowing this and all things else would not trust so much as the Ten words of Moses to oral tradition but twice wrote them in Tables of Stone with his own singer Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 276. I know said S. Clement that many things are lost by length of time for want of writing and therefore I of necessity make use of memorials and collection of Chapters to supply the weakness of my memory And when S. Ignatius in his journey towards Martyrdom confirm'd the Churches through which he passed by private exhortations as well as he was permitted he exhorted them all to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles meaning that doctrine which was preach'd by them in their Churches and added this advice or caution Eusib lib. 3. That he esteem'd it was necessary that this Tradition should be committed to writing Eccles. hist. c. 35. Graec. that it might be preserv'd to posterity and Reports by word of mouth are uncertain that for want of good Records we cannot tell who was S. Peter's Successor immediately whether Clemens Theo loret l. r. c. 8. Eccles. hipâ— Linus or Anacletus and the subscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles having no record but the Uncertain voice of Tradition are in some things evidently mistaken and in some others very uncertain And upon the same account we cannot tell how many Bishops were conven'd at Nice Eusebius says they were 250. S. Athanasius says they were just 300. Eustratius in Theodoret Bellar. de Concil Eccles. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. De numerâ— says they were above 270. Sozomen says they were about 310. Epiphanius and others say they were 318. And when we consider how many pretences have been and are daily made of Traditions Apostolical which yet are not so a wise man will take heed lest his credulity and good nature make him to become a fool S. Clemens Alexandrinus says that the Apostles preach'd to dead Infidels and then rais'd them to life and that the Greeks were justified by their Philosophy and accounts these among the Ancient Traditions Epist. ad Episc. Antioch Pope Marcellus was bold to say that it was an Apostolical Tradition or Canon that a Council could not be called but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome
who having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes will yet swallow the hook deserve to live upon air and fancy and to chew deceit But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world for it is discover'd of some things that are called Apostolical tradition that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one man Some I say have been so discover'd Papias was the Author of the Millenary opinion which prevailed for about three whole ages and that so Universally that Justin Martyr said it was believ'd by all that were perfectly Orthodox and yet it recurres to him onely as the fountain of the Tradition But of this I shall say no more because this instance hath been by others examin'd and clear'd The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteem'd a Tradition Apostolical but it can derive no higher then S. Austin In serm de Assumptione whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of But the Tradition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon deriv'd onely from S. John Salmeron tract 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg and the Asâ—atick Bishops but the other from S. Peter and S. Paul prevail'd though it had no greater authority But the Communicating of Infants prevail'd for many ages in the West S. Hierom. dial adv Lucifer and to this day in the East and went for an Apostolical Tradition but the fortune of it is chang'd and it now passes for an errour and S. Hierom said It was an Apostolical Tradition that a Priest should never baptize without Chrism but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own But besides this there was in the beginning of Christianity some Apocryphal books of these Origen gave great caution Tract 26. in Matth. and because the falsity of these every good man could not discover therefore he charges them that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books but from the Canonical Scriptures as I have already quoted him but these were very busie in reporting traditions The book of Hermes seduc'd S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief that the Apopostles preach'd to them that died Infidels and then rais'd them to life and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul make him believe that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy and the Gospel of Nicodemus so far as yet appears was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross at every motion of the body and led Tertullian and S. Basil and in consequence the Churches of succeeding ages into the practise of it A little thing will draw on a willing mind and nothing is so credulous as piety and timerous Religion and nothing was more fearful to displease God and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians and every thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail and how many such pretences might enter in at this wide door every man can easily observe Add to this that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholick Church to prove a Tradition which way if it were sufficient then it is certain that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteem'd tradition would be found not to be such because as appears in divers instances above reckon'd they admitted many traditions which the present Church rejects 2. If this were the way then truth were as variable as time and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimony but still the present were to carry it that is every age were to believe themselves and no body else And the reason of these things is this because some things have in some ages been universally receiv'd in others universally rejected I instance in the state of Saints departed which once was the opinion of some whole ages and now we know in what ages it is esteemed an error 3. The Communicating Infants before instanc'd in was the practise of the Church for 600 years together Maldonat in 6. Joh. 53. videetiam Espéncaeuâ— de adorat Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Now all that while there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice or at least none known for if there had these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine But if there were no tradition against it at that time there is none now And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men that were against it only in a negative way it can be pretended that is if there was no doctrine or practice or report ever to the contrary then they that have a mind to it may suppose or hope it was Apostolical or at least they cannot be sure that it was not But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christendom because in them there is Father against Son and Son against Father Greeks against Latin and their minds differ as far as East and West and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions that there was never any thing said to the contrary but if there was then the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholick and Apostolick 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure record of Tradition Apostolical then it is because the present Church is infallible but for that there is neither Scripture nor Tradition or if there were for its infallibility in matter of faith yet there is none for its infallibility in matter of fact and such is the Tradition concerning which the Question only is Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle and transmitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches Antiquissimum quodque verissimum We know the fountains were pure and the current by how much the nearer it is to the spring it is the less likely to be corrupted And therefore it is a beginning at the wrong end to say The present Church believes this therefore so did the primitive but let it be shewed that the primitive did believe this for else it is Out-facing of an Opponent as if he ought to be aasham'd to question whether you have done well or no. For if that question may be ask'd it must be submitted to trial and it must be answer'd and the holding the opinion will not justifie the holding it that must be done by something else therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compar'd together and it will be an ill excuse if a servant who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord and tells him Thus it was deliver'd to me for thus you see
is the end of writing the Gospel as having life through Christ is the end of this belief Rom. 10 8. and all this is more fully explicated by S. Paul's Creed Mâ—tth 10. 32. This is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Marc. 8. 38. and shalt believe in thine heart Luc. 9. 26. 12. 8. that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved 2 Tim. 2. 12. This is the word of faith Apocal. 3. 5. which if we confess with our mouths and entertain and believe in our heart that is do live according to it we shall certainly be sav'd If we acknowledge Christ to be our Lord that is our Law-giver and our Saviour to rescue us from our sins and their just consequents we have all faith and nothing else can be the foundation but such Articles which are the confession of those two truths Christ Jesus our Lord Christ Jesus our Saviour that by Faith we be brought unto Obedience and Love by this love we be brought to Christ and by Christ unto God this is the whole complexion of the Christian faith the Oeconomy of our salvation There are many other doctrines of Christianity of admirable use and fitted to great purposes of knowledge and Government Rom. 10. 8. but the word of faith as S. Paul calls it that which the Apostles preach'd viz. to all and as of particular remark and universal efficacy and absolute sufficiency to salvation is that which is describ'd by himself in those few words now quoted Other foundation than this no man can lay that is Jesus Christ. Every thing else is but a superstructure and though it may if it be good be of advantage yet if it be amiss so the foundation be kept it will only be matter of loss and detriment but consistent with salvation And therefore S. Paul judged that he would know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified And this is the summe total of all This is the Gospel so S. Paul most fully I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you which also ye have received and wherein ye stand by which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you unless ye have believed in vain And what is this Gospel this word preach'd and received that by which we stand and that by which we are sav'd It is nothing but this I deliver'd unto you first of all that which I receiv'd how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures This was the traditum the depositum this was the Evangelium Christ died he died for our sins and he rose again for us and this being the great Tradition by which they tried the Spirits yet was it laid up in Scriptures 1 Cor. 3. 11. That Christ died was according to the Scriptures that he rose again was according to the Scriptures and that S. Paul twice * 1 Cor. 15. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 2. 2. and that so immediately remarks this is not without mystery but it can imply to us nothing but this that our whole faith is laid up in the Scriptures and this faith is perfected as to the essentiality of it in the Death and Resurrection of Christ as being the whole Oeconomy of our pardon and Justification And it is yet further remarkable that when S. Paul as he often does renews and repeats this Christian Creed 1 Cor. 4. 6. he calls upon us Rom. 12. 3. not to be wise above what is written and to be wise unto sobriety Which he afterwards expounding says vers 5. He that prophesies let him do it according to the proportion of Faith that is if he will enlarge himself he may and prophesie greatly but still to keep himself to the analogy of Faith not to go beyond that not to be wiser than that measure of sobriety And if we observe the three Sermons of S. Peter the Sermon of S. Philip and S. Silas Acts 2. 24. 3. 12. the Sermons of S. Paul often preached in the Synagogues they were all but this that Jesus Christ is the Son of God that he is the Lord of all Acts 8. 12. 37 38. that he is the Christ of God that God anointed him Acts 9. 20. 17. 2. 16. 31. 1â— 2. 18. 2. 31. that he was crucified and raised again from the dead and that repentance and remission of sins was to be preach'd in his name But as the Spirit of God did purpose for ever with strictness to retain the simplicity of Faith so also he was pleas'd so far to descant upon the plain ground as to make the mystery of godliness to be clearly understood by all men And therefore that we might see it necessary to believe in Jesus it was necessary we should understand he was a person to be relied upon that he was infinitely credible powerful and wise just and holy and that we might perceive it necessary and profitable to obey him it was fit we understood Why that is What good would follow him that is obedient and what evil to the refractory This was all and this indeed was the necessary appendage of the simple and pure word of Faith and this the Apostles drew into a Symbol and particular minute of Articles Now although the first was sufficient yet they knowing it was fit we should understand this simplicity with the investiture of some circumstances and yet knowing that it was not fit the simplicity of Faith should be troubled with new matter were pleased to draw the whole into a Scheme sufficient and intelligible but nothing perplex'd nothing impertinent and this the Church hath call'd the Apostles Creed which contains all that which is necessary to be inquir'd after and believ'd by an Universal and prime necessity True it is other things may become necessary by accident and collateral obligations and if we come to know what God in the abundance of his wisdom and goodness hath spoken to mankind we are bound to believe it but the case is different Many things may be necessary to be believ'd that we may acknowledge God's veracity and so also many things are necessary to be done in obedience to the empire and dictates of the conscience which oftentimes hath authority when she hath no reason and is a peremptory Judge when she is no wise Counsellour But though these things are true yet nothing is a necessary Article of Faith but that which ministers necessarily to the great designs of the Gospel that is a life conformable to God a God-like life and an imitation of of the Holy Jesus To believe and to have faith in the Evangelical sense are things very different Every man is bound to have Faith in all the proper objects of it But only some men are
Ruffinus says The Apostles being to separate and go to their several charges appointed Normam futurae praedicationis regulam dandam credentibus unanimitatis fidei suae indicium the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world the measure for believers the Index of Faith and Unity Not any speech not so much as one even of them that went before them in the faith was admitted or heard by the Church By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed by this the gate of life is set open by this the glory of Confession is shewn It is short in words but great in Sacraments It confirms all men with the perfection of believing with the desire of confessing with the confidence of the Resurrection Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs whatsoever is declar'd in the Scriptures whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets of God who was not begotten Serm. 131. de tempore sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competenteâ— of the Son of God who is the onely begotten of God or the Holy Spirit c. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo So S. Austin who also cals it The fulness of them that believe It is the rule of faith the short the certain rule which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity and convince the heretical pravity The comprehension and perfection of our faith Serm. 181. de tempore Hom. 115. The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum is so furnished with celestial ammunition that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone said Pope Leo. I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus In the Apostles Creed there are but few words Lib. 2. de institut Clericorum cap. 56. but it contains all Religion Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles that because many Believers cannot read or if they can yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture but that all which the Apostles knew necessary they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation and that they requir'd no more in credendis as of necessity to Eternal life but the simple belief of these articles these things ought to remain in their own form and order For what is and what is not necessary is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment and what God did command and what necessary effect every Article had the Apostles onely could tell and others from them They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did have shown their want of skill and by that confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill For which sins are venial and which are mortal all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell and how then can they tell this of Errors when they cannot tell it of Actions But if any man will search into the harder things or any more secret Sacrament of Religion by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things and to a contempt of things below he may do it if he please so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others or compel them to confess what they know not and what they cannot find in Scriptures or did not receive from the Apostles We find by experience that a long act of Parliament or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length ends none but causes many contentions and when many things are defin'd and definitions spun out into declarations men believe less and know nothing more And what is Man that he who knows so little of his own body of the things done privately in his own house of the nature of the meat he eates nay that knows so little of his own Heart and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature I say what is man that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say This is a secret This God onely knows S. Athanas. ep ad Serapion This he hath not reveal'd This I admire but I understand not I believe but I understand it to be a mystery And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives and do what he commands but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift or the Metaphysicks of a Command Cannot a man eat Oysters unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13. Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ saying This is my body and cannot I take it thankfully and believe it heartily and confess it joyfully but I must pry into the secret and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change and torment my own brains and distract my heart and torment my Brethren and lose my charity and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me by the Holy Body because I break those few words into more questions than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten Is it not enough that I believe that whether we live or die we are the Lord's in case we serve him faithfully but we must descend into hell and inquire after the secrets of the dead and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory Is it not enough that we are Christians that is that we put all our hope in God who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ that we are redeemed by his death that he rose again for our justification that we are made members of his body in Baptism that he gives us of his Spirit that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example that is that we do no evil that we do what good we can that we love God and love our Brother that we suffer patiently and do good things in expectation of better even of
only as a Doctor but as a Prince by Empire and Command as Princeps Ecclesiae The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholick Faith if it be only matter of skill and learning but to declare so as to bind every man to believe it to declare so as the Article shall be a point of Faith when before this Declaration it was not so quoad nos this is that which is pretended be declaring And so this very Gloss expounds it adding to the former words The Pope can make an Article of Faith if an Article of Faith be taken not properly but largely that is for a Doctrine which now we must believe whereas before such declaration we are not tied to it These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this There are some Articles of Faith which are such before the declaration of the Church and some which are by the Churches declaration made so some were declar'd by the Scriptures or by the Apostles and some by the Councils or Popes of Rome after which declaration they are both alike equally necessary to be believ'd and this is that which we charge upon them as a dangerous and intolerable point For it says plainly that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith the Pope can make others for if they were not Articles of Faith before the declaration of the Pope then he makes them to be such and that is truely according to their own words facere Articulum fidei this is making an Article of Faith Neither will it suffice to say that this Proposition so declar'd was before such a declaration really and indeed an Article of Faith in it self but not in respect of us For this is all one in several words For an Article of Faith is a relative term it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe and to confess and to say This is an Article of Faith and yet that no man is bound to believe it is a contradiction Now then let it be considered No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declar'd as no man is bound to obey a Law till it be promulgated Faith comes by hearing till there be hearing there can be no Faith and therefore no Article of Faith The truth is Eternal but Faith is but temporary and depends upon the declaration Now then suppose any Article I demand did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church If not how does the Pope know it who pretends to no new Revelations If the Apostles did not declare it how were they faithful in the house of God Acts 20. 27. and how did S. Paul say truly I have not failed or ceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God But if they did say true and were faithful and did declare it all then was it an Article of Faith before the Pope's Declaration and then it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it and of malice or pusillanimity not to confess it and a worse sin to have contradicted it And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descendants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith If it was not then it cannot now be declar'd that it was so then for to declare a thing properly is to publish what it was before if it was then there needs no declaration of it now unless by declaring we mean preaching it and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it and can do it as well as the Pope If therefore they mean more as it is certain they do then Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it Christ's preaching and the Apostles imposing it made it an Article of Faith in it self and to us other declaration excepting only teaching preaching expounding and exhorting we know none and we need none for they only could do it and it is certain they did it fully But I need not argue and take pains to prove that by Declaring they mean more than meer Preaching Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei that 's more than declare meerly it must be to appoint to decree to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be believ'd unto salvation Art 27. Certum est in manâ— Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articulos fide c. and because Luther said the Pope could not do this he was condemn'd by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the meaning of this For their Doctors are plain in affirming that the Pope is the Foundation Turrecrem l. 2. cap. 107. rule and principle of faith So Turrecremata For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule and science of things that are to be believ'd and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal And again It is easie to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome Idem ibid. as to the general and principal Master and Doctor of the whole World to determine those things which are of faith and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith to interpret the senses of Holy Scriptures to approve and reprove the sayings of every Doctor belonging to Faith Hence comes it to pass that the Doctors say that the Apostolical See is call'd the Mistress and Mother of Faith And what can this mean but to do that which the Apostles could not do that is Extravag de vâ—rb signifi cap quia Quorundum gloss to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom For to declare only an Article of Faith is not all they challenge they can do more As he is Pope he can not only declare an Article of Faith but introduce a new one And this is that which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean Qu. 59 art 1. when he says Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat and if that be not plain enough he adds Art 2. As he can make a new Creed or Symbol of Faith so he can multiply new Articles one upon another Vide Salmeron orolog in comment in Epist. ad Roman part 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò dicitur For the conclusion of this particular I shall give a very considerable Instance which relies not upon the Credit and testimony of their Doctors but is matter of fact and notorious to all the World For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it and say that the Pope can only declare an Article but not make a new one For it is plain that they so declare an old one that they bring a new one in they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion and they introduce a suppositious Child of their own The Instance I mean is that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church
all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
are apt to be earnest in their perswasion and over-act the proposition and from being true as he supposes he will think it profitable and if you warm him either with confidence or opposition he quickly tells you It is necessary and as he loves those that think as he does so he is ready to hate them that do not and then secretly from wishing evil to him he is apt to believe evil will come to him and that it is just it should and by this time the Opinion is troublesome and puts other men upon their guard against it and then while passion reigns and reason is modest and patient and talks not loud like a storm Victory is more regarded than Truth and men call God into the party and his judgments are us'd for arguments and the threatnings of the Scripture are snatched up in haste and men throw arrows fire-brands and death and by this time all the world is in an uproar All this and a thousand things more the English Protestants considering deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it and believes the Apostles Creed and is of the Religion of the four first General Councils they hope well of all that live well they receive into their bosome all true believers of what Church soever and for them that erre they instruct them and then leave them to their liberty to stand or fall before their own Master It was a famous saying of Stephen the Great King of Poland that God had reserved to himself three things 1. To make something out of nothing 2. To know future things and all that shall be hereafter 3. To have the rule over Consciences It is this last we say the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade 1. By imposing Articles as necessary to salvation which God never made so Where hath God said That it is necessary to salvation that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop Extrav de Majorit obedien Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae Creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici But the Church of Rome says it and by that at one blow cuts off from Heaven all the other Churches of the world Greek Armenian Ethiopian Russian Protestants which is an Act so contrary to charity to the hope and piety of Christians so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ so disparaging to the justice to the wisdom and the goodness of God as any thing which can be said Where hath it been said That it shall be a part of Christian Faith To believe that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate Infants yet they did it without any opinion of necesty And yet the Church of Rome hath determin'd it in one of her General Councils Sess. 1. cap. 4 as a thing Sine Controversiâ Credendum to be believ'd without doubt or dispute It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent for that 's a secret and that this is a part of their Religion I suppose will not be denied when a General Council hath determin'd it to be a truth without controversie and to be held accordingly Where hath God said that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot conferre true Orders nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ and yet Super totam materiam the Church of Rome is so implacably angry and imperious with the Churches of the Protestants that if any English Priest turn to them they re-ordain him which yet themselves call sacrilegious in case his former Ordination was valid as it is impossible to prove it was not there being neither in Scripture nor Catholick tradition any Laws Order or Rule touching our case in this particular Where hath God said that Penance is a Sacrament or that without confession to a Priest no man can be sav'd If Christ did not institute it how can it be necessary and if he did institute it yet the Church of Rome ought not to say it is therefore necessary for with them an Institution is not a Command though Christ be the Institutor and if Institution be equal to a Commandment how then comes the Sacrament not to be administred in both kinds when it is confessed that in both kinds it was instituted 2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles that few of the Laity know the half of them and yet imposes them all under the same necessity and if in any one of them a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith and had as good be an Infidel for the Churche's Authority being the formal object of Faith that is the only reason why any Article is to be believ'd the reason is the same in all things else and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says than all she says and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven as any Christian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions which with her are esteem'd de fide Now if it be considered that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of mankind as the doctrine of Transubstantiation that some are at least of a supicious improbity as worship of Images and of the consecrated Elements and many others some are of a nice and curious nature as the doctrine of Merit of Condignity and Congruity some are perfectly of humane inventions without ground of Scripture or Tradition as the formes of Ordination Absolution c. When men see that some things can never be believ'd heartily and many not understood fully and more not remembred or consider'd perfectly and yet all impos'd upon the same necessity and as good believe nothing as not every thing this way is apt to make men despise all Religion or despair of their own Salvation The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this and by a distinction undertakes to save you harmless you are not tied to believe all with an explicite Faith it suffices that your Faith be implicite or involved in the Faith of the Church that is if you believe that she says true in all things you need inquire no further So that by this means the authority of their Church is made authentick for that is the first and last of the design and you are taught to be sav'd by the Faith of others and a Faith is preached that you have no need ever to look after it a Faith of which you know nothing but it matters not as long as others do but then it is also a Faith which can never be the foundation of a good life for upon ignorance nothing that is good can be built no not so much as a blind obedience for even blindly to obey is built upon something that you are bidden explicitely to believe viz.
the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted Lect. 40. in Can. Missae are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expressely taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Sect. Secundò dicit Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for OCham is not the man I mean however the printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more public name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion Vbi suprae and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Contra. Captiv Now if Roffensis have the same thing too Babyl c. 1. this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of heretics Tom. 9. tract 16. p. 108. p. â—10 but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic by Scripture alone or reasons alone Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 34. And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies Page 37. vide Letter p. 18. sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholy relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape Pag. 38. for E. W. See also the letter to a friend p. 19. talkes of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kinde Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Vbi supra Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this article and they that differ in their judgements about an article and yet esteem the others Catholic may think what