Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
readings are preserved yet according to any of them there is a consent in all the matters of Faith unless there be some manifest mistake in any Copy which may easily be discerned to be the Scribes or Printers error nor amongst all these readings can any point of Christian Faith be so doubted of that it is not capable of receiving sufficient evidence from some Texts And though this Authour would pretend that from these various readings there is an uncertainty in all things in Scripture which is contrary to all reason yet others more knowing and learned Papists are so ingenuous as to grant what I here contend for Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. asserts that the errors of Transcribers in the Old Testament are not of so great moment that the integrity of the Holy Scriptures should be wanting in those things which belong to Faith and Good Manners for the most part saith he the whole difference of the various readings is placed in some little words which either do not at all or do very little alter the sense And ch 7. he declares that he asserts the same concerning the New Testament which he there asserted concerning the Old Indeed before the time of Christ there were more various readings in the Old Testament than there now is in the New as may appear not only from the various Cheri and Ketib and the Tikkan Sopherim and such like which are probably more ancient but also because the Copies used by the Septuagint and Samaritan differed in many various readings from the Hebrew Copies used by the Chaldee Paraphrast which probably were most in use in Christ's time and after received by the Masoreths and yet since they all agreed in the same points of Doctrine Christ and his Apostles both had recourse to them and so perswaded others and we think it is safe for us to follow such examples The Vulgar may here consider our several English Translations which as to expressions have in most Verses some difference and in some few places the one may give a sense somewhat different from the other yet since it is but in very few places where they do not all agree in the sence of the place and where they do not yet none of them do assert any truth of Doctrine which the others either do not assert or do deny the common Christians may hence see that which may make them rather the more secure than doubtful of these truths because the latter Translations though differing in words yet agree in all Doctrines with the former And if there be the same variety of readings in several Translations in other Languages this is no more than is in our English But as for the Originals though there be several various readings yet in comparison of our English Translations but one for many and yet fewer places where the same sense of that Text is not expressed by such readings though in some small difference of words which difference of words was occasioned partly from several of the Fathers citing the Scriptures as is with all men frequent not alwayes in the very same words but words of the same sense from whence many of these various readings in the New Testament had their Original or partly that the Scribes or they who copied the Scriptures might have some mistake where yet the sense remained intire for the most part But he inquires Why may there not have been some various readings formerly in those places which now appear in all Copies we have to agree which various readings may possibly have been blindly determined and so misguide us in the main points of Faith I answer That since there are very many ancient Copies and Commentators and Citations of Fathers which fully accord with our present readings and since there are some ancient Translations as Syriack Latine and others all which agree in the same and since there is an accord in these Books scattered and dispersed over the whole World if there had been any such different readings they must be every where determined before these ancient Copies Commentaries or Citations were written before the ancient Translations were made yea before the Copies of the Scriptures were dispersed into the several Regions of the World and this is to imagine that there must have been some general alteration determined in the great matters of Faith whilst the hand writing of the Apostles was preserved yea even in the Apostles daies which is impossible unless the Apostles to whom Christ committed his truth and their Converts who were numerous and prized this Doctrine above all the World should all against the clear evidence of their own knowledge and the Original Writings of the Apostles then amongst them conspire to corrupt this Doctrine and to falsifie the Records which contain it which to assert is not only highly unreasonable but exceedingly impious and blasphemous nor would it leave Oral Tradition safe How much all this speaks to common sense I shall express in a case which is very parallel Suppose a Jury in any case of concernment should observe an hundred Witnesses produced examined asunder and every one of their attestations written and one by one read to them as to the great matter to be proved every one of them agree fully and not so much as one dissents will they not judge this a sufficient evidence of any thing spoken though in some of these attestations there be some small difference in a word though not at all to add or leave out any considerable sense yea Will they not think the testimony the more firm as to the things attested because they all agree firmly in them though they never met together to conspire so to correct one another that there might not be a syllable different in their words The Scripture certainty of points of Faith is much greater than this since the Copies every one of which gives its attestation are abundantly more numerous and withal the main points of Faith are not only expressed in some one Text of Scripture but in very many places where there is a concurrence in all these Copies which speaks these truths more certainly free from all possibility of error Yet besides all this certainty we have much in the end of Scriptures writing and therein Gods care of it to assure us that it is not corrupt of this we spake somewhat in the former Discourse What he speaks of Bishop Usher observing so many various readings in the New Testament which he durst not Print for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt This relation manifests it self to be such a story as I think neither this Author nor any man of reason either Protestant or Papist can believe upon serious consideration if he withal judge Bishop Vsher to have been a very knowing man No understanding Protestant can believe this because he knows that Protestants freely inquire after various readings and never the more doubt of Scriptures because there appears so full a
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
did own himself to be the most high God and as Irenaeus relates (y) Iren. adv Haeres l. 1. c. 20. that it was he who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews and descended as the Father in Samaria and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations and they who were his followers both in Samaria Rome and other Nations did worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the chief God as (z) Justin Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms and (a) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr Eusebius from him Now if it should be supposed that the Gnosticks should own the true God and that there is no other God besides him and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone but should be perswaded that he was incarnate in Simon Magus and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters And whereas Montanus and the propagators of his Heresie did declare him to be the Paraclete as is oft expressed in Tertullian and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers as (b) Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil and others or as (d) de Consec dist 4. c. Hi vero Gregory expresseth it that he was the Holy Ghost if any of his followers professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God and the three persons of the glorious Trinity should upon a presumptive delusion believe that the Holy Ghost was imbodied in Montanus and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship which is due to the Holy Ghost this could not excuse them from Idolatry 29. Assert 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous Assert 2. In Idolatry which is in its nature a great and grievous sin all the acts and kinds thereof in misplacing proper Divine Worship are not equally heinous and abominable There is a great difference from the temper of the persons whence acts proceding from sudden surprize from weakness of understanding or from great fear are not of so high a guilt as those which proceed from carelesness of duty neglect of instruction or contempt of God or wilful enmity against the true Religion There is also difference in the acts of worship which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them And there is a difference also with respect to the object to which Divine Worship is given whence the worshipping of Baal or the Gods of other Nations in opposition to the God of Israel was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves because it included a professed departing from the true God and the worshipping of Simon Magus was the more abominable as including a following him and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God though even this would exclude those persons who designedly espoused it or who perversely or negligently joined in it from the blessing of God 30. Assert 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object which is Idolatry is a very great sin Assert 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil To suppose that ignorance and mistake should be any sufficient plea or excuse is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God as if even under the Christian revelation he had not sufficiently directed men in so important a duty as to know the object of Divine adoration or whom we are to worship And how little any misunderstanding upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists is like in this case to be available for their excuse I shall manifest by proposing another case which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread This is my Body so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature to be born of God The Remish Adoration of the Host parallel'd to be renewed after the Image of God and that God dwelleth in them and that Christ is formed in them and is in them and that they are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones and with respect to them he said to Saul why persecutest thou me and he will say to others I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them Now if from such expressions as these any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads that they are Godded with God and Christed with Christ and consequently to those in Heaven as well as to those on Earth and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles I doubt not but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended that these worshippers own only one true God and give Divine Worship to the Saints only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints and to put on Christ and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth they therefore believe it because God hath said it if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed and they can confidently rely on his word And if we compare these two together the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints and conferred upon them But the nature of the pious Christian is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements that that must be confessed to be true which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson (e) Differ of Christ Subject Unchr Rebel Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ the Bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the Bread he doth not he will raise them at the last day the Bread he will not they shall reign with him for ever the Bread shall not But these and such like words we mention not as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements remaining in their created substances and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel and the spiritual presence of Christ which though it be tendred in the Sacramental elements yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum
know that it is incorrupt as to the faith it contains he may thus be satisfied When he considers that it is Gods Word delivered to the World for their use that they may know him and believe him as we before shewed this common Christian may thence conclude that if he does his best to enquire God will preserve his Word so free from corruption that it shall not misguide him to his hurt And when he further knows that the Church of God hath alwayes had the highest esteem of these Books of any others in the world and the greatest care of them and that there are infinite Copies of them in several Regions of the World both in Originals and Translations which that they all contain in them an agreement in the same matters of truth he hath good reason to believe because it is generally asserted by the best and most learned men this vulgar Christian knows and even the Romanists who design to speak all they can against the certainty of Scripture have never yet dared to affirm the contrary for though there be many various readings yet not such which will mis-guide in any matter of Faith These things will make him more secure of the Scriptures being preserved entire than any man can be of the Statutes of the Land or of any Histories or any other Records whatsoever that is he hath the greatest evidence of its integrity that can be of any Writing in the World which had its original some Ages past and infinitely a greater evidence than can be given for Oral Tradition being preserved For if one Record be commonly acknowledged a more certain preservative of truth and in it self less lyable to corruption than common fame much more when so numerous Records or carefully and religiously transcribed Copies all agree Again when he considereth that in the Jewish Church the Scriptures were untill the coming of Christ in very corrupt times and amongst very corrupt persons preserved so entire that Christ sendeth to them to learn Religion he hath great reason to judge the New Testament preserved entire since we cannot suppose Providence less careful of the New Testament than of the Old and there are now abundantly more Copies both Translations and Originals and old Translations speak the agreement of the old Originals whence they were translated and these Scriptures highly valued and publickly read in a constant manner in so many places of the World and all agree in all points of Faith Nor could they possibly be any where all corrupted to one purpose in a way so apparent to sense as words written are since there never was any General Council collected out of all parts of the World to determine any thing concerning the various Scripture readings or the alteration of any Copies if any such had been it is possible there might have been some corruption general if not by confederacy yet by mistake unless the former Copies should yet remain to discover this as it is certain many very ancient Copies and probably more ancient than any General Council yet remain in the World as for instance that written by Tecla in our Kings Library sent from Cyrill Patriarch of Constantinople Ad § 6. To the fourth Objection concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the right Translation of Scripture I grant their knowledge of Scripture is by Translations S. Austin observed de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. The holy Scriptures being spread abroad far and wide by the various Tongues of the Interpreters are made known to the Nations for their salvation And a man of mean capacity may be satisfied concerning Translations if he consider that he hath reason to judge that the Original Languages may be understood by men of learning partly because himself by use and observing hath learnt his own Mother-Tongue and therefore hath reason to think that others by the same means may learn other Languages and particularly those wherein the Scriptures were written partly because he thinks it injurious to the Goodness Wisdom of God to imagine that he should give forth a writing to guide the World and that it should be in a Language which was not intelligible and partly because he hears that so many Churches have these Books translated and that even such as this Discourser who would cast and suggest all doubts they can concerning Scripture translated into the common Tongues yet dare they not say that it is not capable of being translated so as to deliver the same matters of Faith yea the Papists themselves both use allow of and many of them endeavour to make new Translations Having gone thus far he may further consider that if it can be truly translated he hath reason to judge that such men who have the common fame even amongst the Learned for men of skill in Languages are best able to give the sense of the words contained in those Languages and he can conclude that whatever God thought requisite for him to know from this Book is so written that such men of Learning are able to give the sense of it and that whatever in any phrase cannot by such be understood is something fit to be further enquired into but not necessary to be now known Yea further he can conclude that he hath reason to conceive that the Translation with us in use doth contain in it the true Doctrine of Christ which is in the Original because he heareth this oft averred by honest and learned men amongst us and because the Papists who are professed enemies to this Translation yet dare not nor do not assert the contrary but raise only some more inconsiderable Cavils about phrases By this I suppose our vulgar Christian satisfied if this Discourser be not with this answer let him consider a parallel case If many English men should purposely go to France to give a description of that Countrey and they take a particular view of all places and write this and all agree together and many thousand others who after go to see it all agree in all material things yea and when many others shall go over on purpose to find fault with this description who yet can find nothing very material to object but only carp at small things will this Author say that all this can signifie nothing to inform him satisfactorily who stayes at home unless he could be able to demonstrate to himself that they indeed were in France as they all agree and that they did see what they wrote Either this is something very considerable and rational to engage assent or else against all reason most English men have confessed that there is such a place as Rome and such a person as is called the Pope when we never saw either it or him Ad § 7. To the fifth Objection concerning printed Copies Before I answer this I shall observe that as it is suspicious in the whole Book here is manifestly evident either a piece of gross ignorance in the Writer or a designed cheat upon his
may maintain his ground of suspense with a Might it not be otherwise If he may do so is this any fault in the Rule of Faith or any excuse to him to suspend his assent when he can make no rational exception Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive so long as some Egyptians said Might they not be otherwise than from God and was not all that Christ did and spake enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God and a Rule of Faith because the Jews not only said May it not be otherwise but that it is otherwise and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith If this satisfie not suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time there should have been or were some of this Authors principles who thought Faith a Vice if not founded on demonstration and would smile at any man who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it and so should refuse to assent to and believe S. Paul when others searching the Scriptures did believe Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse to say that these sceptical Vnbelievers acted more rationally than S. Paul's Converts and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures did betray their reason and their Faith was a Vice when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit and declared them to have searched diligently § 4. He comes to the fifth property that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction yet we acknowledge that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition and is such that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it if sufficient evidence will prevail with them And this we assert concerning Scripture He now supposeth a Deist to enquire How we know the Book of Scripture to be Gods Word and supposeth us to answer By its excellencies These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence especially as he saith to eyes enlightned by faith and do further strengthen and satisfie them yet we need not nor do not assert this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men without taking in how these Books were received and delivered in the Church as we formerly shewed But he saith his Deist will shew you Texts against known science and in his judgement contradictions Will he shew Texts against known science but what if he cannot and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion shall any reject so excellent a Writing because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities Nor where there is proof given of this being Gods Word can seeming contradictions to his judgment be sufficient not to receive it since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God and to understand aright all things written by the Pen-men of Scripture it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History measures proverbial expressions and the like and then he might reconcile as learned men have done many things which now to him seem contrary But he saith his Deist will shew you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture as that God hath hands feet and passions like ours Here as his former words are unsavoury his latter are untrue Scripture speaks indeed of Gods hands and feet but no where saith he had such like ours Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture have a true literal sense if that may be called literal which is tropical and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions as well as all other Writers and all Discoursers where the sense is easily discernable to reason which is requisite to be used that we may understand any Writing Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason and the pondering other places of Scripture which plainly speak God to be a Spirit and considering likewise how these words of hands and feet c. are oft used in a figurative sense this will plainly convince that they must be understood so when they are applied to God When the Romanists by Tradition deliver that the Pope is the Head of the Church will they not expect that mans common reason and what they otherwise teach of the Church should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head and not that they should forthwith imagine that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head should have the outward shape of Man Woman or Beast Thus Celsus whose Arguments against Christianity were much of the nature of this Discoursers makes this an Objection against Christians that they speak unworthily of God as of the work of his hands the mouth of God and the voice of God And Origen lib. 6. cont Cels thought it sufficient to answer that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual not a corporeal sense and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture he might thence know that Christians would not think otherwise of God It is an unchristian assertion to charge the letter of the Scripture which is the very words of the God of Truth with heresie where we have sure ground of it's interpretation both from other Scripture from Reason Against the latter he objects that then we disown the Scripture Rule and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule I answer when we include Scripture we cannot disown it yet withal we own Reason as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases as well in Scripture as elsewhere he who doth not this either doth not understand Phrases or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason Yea we do profess to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed since we are certain that God gave the Scriptures as a further revelation to man who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with But he further in § 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by and these from Tradition or what we have heard and received Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by but discern the evidence plainly in it self and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith In Texts of Scripture which appear more
that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai yet knew not the first or second Commandment Yea after many severe judgments to shew how necessary the observation of Gods Commandments were yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges and of many of the Kings of Israel could this be for want of knowledge when the Law of God was among them which would teach them otherwise Yet if this Authour shall think it was of great ignorance this will as much destroy his way of Tradition since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand to make it knowable And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests and their serving Baalim which their Fathers taught them was of long continuance § 10. He asserts by way of Answer to an Objection That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture because setting aside Traditions help this only depends on skills judgements and fancies and not on certain sense either for the meaning or letter of Scripture Touching the letter of Scripture we set not aside the help of Tradition but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to relie on and I have in former Discourses shewed that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture both as to letter and sense Yea the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths than the sense of Tradition can be because though the words be supposed equally intelligible whether written or spoken it is more evident that the words found in Scripture are such as contain the sense of Scripture than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition Because it is certain that in many concerning points there are many things delivered by several in the Church which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions so that it will be hard if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar to understand what words in many points he may doubt of do truly express the sense of the Church unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings such as either Scriptures Canons of Catholick Councils or Liturgies or the like the former as this Authour too much rejects so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other which the Vulgar are not capable of searching Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture or by Oral and practical Tradition let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soonest close with The case is by him in this § very unfaithfully propounded Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight or upon the judgment or opinion of a thousand men for as we have shewed it is not only skill and opinion that Protestants do ground upon but delivery of Records and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of they would be the more swayed by the appearance of several persons who assert that they have heard many say that they heard many others say that they received from others and they from others by hearsaies at the fortieth or fiftieth hand or by others who shall produce plain Records and those preserved safe in several Courts which all agree in testifying it was otherwise Or if the Question be about any Legacy if the one party brings such hearsaies abovementioned and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court and evidence that in the same manner it was inrolled in several other Courts is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind But in this § 10. he further adds The Vulgar have reason to believe there was such an one as King James or Queen Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition but if you pump their common reason about the Authority of the Statute Book you shall find them at a loss Concerning King James or Queen Elizabeth they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it and that it is not capable of a mistake nor could any interest be supposed to devise this nor can mens conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition as was observed in Answer to § 7. But to put the case more like this of discovering which is more justifiable of believing Scripture or Tradition I demand whether as to all considerable actions atchievements or constitutions under these Princes it be more rational to relie on what appears in common fame concluding that nothing is considerable which was not there preserved or to apply our selves to some good Historians especially if we could be certain we could find such as had a certain knowledge of all such things and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing concerning all these things This security we have concerning the Scriptures since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith delivered to the World by Jesus Christ and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness Concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man or the Statutes by him collected they can thence conclude that as far as they can be assured that it was his Work and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge so far they are assured of this Books Authority as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgment in them who own it as such But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches that they were able and faithful and their Books faithfully written both from our Saviours approving them to dispense his Gospel and his Church receiving them as such dispensers even in these Writings and God himself bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost So that we are as sure concerning Scripture as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil made approved and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power and thereby Enacted that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England Here it would be a madness to doubt So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture but not to Oral
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
with which we converse in the world few men if any have the confidence to lay down assertions directly contrary to what may be made manifest and plain as to affirm the Sun to send forth darkness and not light or the strait line to be crooked or the pleasant and delightful Fountain to be bitter and if they should they would find no men of common understanding so weak as thereby to be imposed upon But it oft happeneth far otherwise in the character which many give of the best men who are oft-times not only so far misunderstood that their excellencies are clouded and pass undiscerned to general view but their pious lives fall under severe censures and are represented as ugly and deformed Thus it hapned with many vertuous Moralists yea with Christ himself and many of his Disciples And our holy Religion it self as well as its author was on this wise pierced spit on and reviled 2. This was that which (a) Xenoph. l. 1. Memorab primo Xenophon could not observe concerning Socrates without admiration He sayes he much wondred that Socrates who never spake or did any thing irreligious who had an high reverence for the Gods and owned them to know all that was spoken or done or secretly consulted among men and so behaved himself that if another man shall speak and act as he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he would both be and be accounted a most devout and Religious person that he should be so far misunderstood that the Athenians should be perswaded that he had no sober or worthy thoughts of the Deity And (b) ibidem he accounted it to be a strange and wonderful thing that when this excellent man was even above all other men strictly temperate and continent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and one who had reduced many others from their lusts and viciousness he should yet be misreported as if he were guilty of the most impure and filthy lusts And this instance seemed so strange to Xenophon that he begins that Book with declaring that he had oft wondred how the Athenians could be perswaded into this misapprehension And so might any man do in the like case when he only considers what other men ought to do and will do when they act suitably to their reason but the wonder ceaseth when we observe the strange disorders of licentious passions ill designs and an uncharitable temper and how apt they are to impose upon an easie credulity 3. That the greatest censures and heaviest reproaches This carrieth on the design of Satan should befall the best deserving men is indeed very unsuitable to them but it exceeding well agrees with the designs of the evil one who promotes these practices It was asserted by the ancient Author of the Metaphrasis upon Ecclesiastes whether it be Gr. Nazianzen or rather Gregorius Thaumaturgus to whom (c) Hier. de Scriptor Eccles in Theodoro S. Hierome and other ancient Writers ascribe that Metaphrasis that calumny 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attempts to corrupt and pervert the generous firmness and constancy of good men And this very well agrees with the sense of the Septuagint in that place Eccl. 7.8 to which those words of this Metaphrase had respect But if calumny cannot effect this end the evil one aims at some thing else which by this means he more easily obtains to hinder the success of worthy men in the service of God and Religion and doing good in the World and to keep off others from piety and vertue 4. The innocent-primitive Christianity was highly traduced as if it had been the most horrid-impiety For these ends and purposes the holy Christian Religion it self and the Assembly of its followers were charged by the Gentiles with the most horrid unnatural and unreasonable villany and impiety This gave occasion to the writing sundry excellent Apologetical discourses on the behalf of Christianity as those of Justine Martyr Athenagoras Tertullian Arnobius Origen against Celsus and many others Divers of these horrid calumnies are collected by (d) In Octav. à p. 23. ad 30. Ed. Ox. Minutius Felix and of them he saith passim omnes loquuntur that they were the general vogue of the Pagan World And the wicked and false accusations then drawn up against the Christians are comprized and summed up in these comprehensive words of (e) Tertul. Apol. c. 2. Tertullian Christianum hominem omnium scelerum reum Deorum Imperatorum legum morum naturae totius inimicum existimans that they accounted the Christian to be a person guilty of all villany and to be an enemy to the Deity to the Emperour to the law to morality and to the whole course of nature And what worse can be said of the most wretched debauched and flagitious person and what an unruly thing is passionate reproaching when thereby the whole body of the best Society in the world was so monstrously misrepresented 5. And the same measure was meted to the head and Lord of that body also And therefore I shall here particularly take notice of several considerable things in the behaviour of the Jews towards our Saviour where the strangeness of their accusations may well amaze and astonish an unprejudiced person 6. How many actions of reproach and contumely did they use towards him when they spitted in his face and smote him with the palms of their hands which defamatory acts to a Jew had (f) Tr. Bava Kam c. 8. §. 6. Commentar L'Empereur ibid. great penalties and these were done in their open Consistory with many other expressions of contempt Their procuring the scourging him was a publick declaring that he was so great an offender that he deserved to be put to open shame which is manifest from the nature of that punishment from the expressions of the Scripture concerning it and even from the (g) Tr. Maecoth c. 3. Christ himself was treated with many actions of reproach Talmud which makes it a note of infamy inflicted upon them who were guilty of shameful transgressions The like especially appears in their desiring him to be Crucified which was a kind of death attended with that infamy as well as accute pain that the worst of men and most abject persons in the Roman Empire were Sentenced to this death But none of their Free men might be condemned to so vile a death which was by (h) Lact. de Ver. Sap. c. 18. Lactantius from Cicero noted to be the punishment for vassals and not Free men And the Jews in after-ages have used this as an expression of ignominy concerning our blessed Saviour when they call him by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or he who was hanged or crucified 7. And it is probable that their putting him to death at the time of their great and solemn feast was not only done to expose him to the greater shame at so great a solemnity and publick concourse but that this also might have some respect to their treating him
those who are guided by it meek and humble gentle and obedient which is so amiable a temper and so useful and beneficial to the World that the generality of mankind unless they offer violence to their reason and conscience cannot but think well of it And it would be of mighty advantage to the reforming the World if all who profess Christianity were so far Christians indeed that they would in these things manifest the life and power and excellency of their Religion 15. To this end it is directed in the Holy Scripture Now that the Holy Scriptures do direct and enjoin this submissive and awful carriage of inferiours towards all who are in Authority as a means for the bringing honour to our Religion and for the propagating it and making it more effectually prevalent amongst men is sufficiently evident both from S. Peter and S. Paul S. Peter 1 Pet. 2.12 gives the command to Christians who lived among Pagans by S. Peter having your conversation honest among the Gentiles that whereas they speak against you as evil doers they may by your good works which they shall behold glorifie God in the day of visitation Where he exhorts them so to live that they might win them who were yet strangers to the Christian Religion into an affection to it and esteem of it And as a particular means to effect this he adds in the next words Submit your selves therefore to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as Supreme c. So that this is here laid down as a first and principal direction and rule for the bringing credit and esteem to Christianity among the Gentiles And Estius (l) Estius in 1 Pet. 2.13 thinks not improbably that the Apostle the rather gives this precept to them for this end and purpose because the Jews from amongst whom most of the Christians to whom he wrote were Converted were ordinarily reputed perverse unruly and enemies to civil Government and thereupon both themselves and there Religion were the more disliked by the Gentiles 16. Indeed that particle Therefore which is of great weight in this Text is omitted and left out both in the various impressions of our last English Translation and in some other (m) The Geneva and Wicklef ' s. more ancient English Versions which yet is fully expressed in the Original by the general and almost universal consent of all ancient Copies agreeably to the scope of the Apostles discourse and therefore it ought to be restored in our Translation And after S. Peter v. 13 and 14. had commanded submission and dutiful respect to the King and other Governours he adds this argument to enforce the practice of this duty v. 15. For so is the will of God that with well-doing you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men In which words it is declared both that this respectful behaviour to Governours is of great use to take of those oppositions which the enemies of Christianity make against it and also that it is the will of God that Christians should carefully practise this duty which is a great branch of well-doing in order to the obtaining this end 17. To the same purpose S. Peter proceeds to require an humble subjection and obedience of Servants to their Masters v. 18. declaring v. 19. this is thank-worthy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or that which obtains both in the sight of God and man a favourable acceptance and good esteem so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oft sigifies as Luk. 1.30 Chap. 2.52 Chap. 6.32 33 34. Act. 2.47 and this is the most proper sense of that word in this place and this brings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 glory and renown and deserves honour v. 20. And in this case as I (n) n. 9. above noted he sets before us the Example of Christ in a matter of so great usefulness to our Religion To the same end still this Apostle Chap. 3. v. 1 2. requires the submission of Wives to their Husbands as a means to bring over those Husbands to Christian piety who were not prevailed upon by the instruction of the word And here he requires that they shew a reverent behaviour v. 2. a quiet temper v. 4. and such a submission as includes the use of words and expressions of honour and respect and this is mentioned as well-doing v. 5 6. And indeed the power and force of Religion doth eminently appear in the pious performing the duties of Subjection for whilst pride and passion and inordinate affection puts men upon striving to be greatest and makes it an uneasie thing to them to be led and governed by others in a mean station conscience to God will make persons faithful and submissive in the most inferiour relations and willing to serve him with humility and meekness in the lowest condition in which God placeth them And this is in truth both a great and a good a generous and noble and even a divine temper of mind 18. and also by S. Paul From S. Peter I now proceed to S. Paul who discoursing Tit. 2.9 10. of the duty of Servants to their Masters though the relation of a Master doth not require so high a degree of honour and reverence as that of a Prince and Governour in great Authority doth yet the Apostle commands that Servants be exhorted to please them well in all things not answering again not purloyning but shewing all good fidelity that they may adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour in all things Where he requires from Servants faithfulness and fidelity a submissive temper to please in all things and a meek Government of themselves as to their words and expressions not answering again and consequently not giving any passionate murmuring contumelious or other ill words and these duties are particularly required for the adorning the Doctrine of Christianity And it is somewhat to the same purpose that in the following Chapter the Apostle commands that men be put in mind to practise subjection to Magistrates and meekness towards all men Tit. 3.1 2. as manifesting thereby what an excellent effect the Christian Doctrine and Spirit rightly entertained hath on the lives of men For before that took place and was entertained the Apostle saith v. 3. We our selves were sometimes foolish disobedient deceived serving divers lusts and pleasures living in malice c. But v. 4 5 6. after the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost wrought a mighty change in this temper and conversation in order to the eternal happiness of men See also 1 Tim. 6.1 19 Cons 3. The example of Christ is intended to press upon all Christians this duty of meekness and the forbearing to reproach any others whomsoever and especially a reverent behaviour towards all who are over us though from them we might sustain real injuries And evil-speaking to reproach or revile others though it be upon provocation
apprehend to be most natural the Apostle in those latter words v. 5. which are the key to the former owneth and confesseth some sudden unadvisedness in what he had expressed v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said God shall smite thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy did know that Ananias would come to an untimely end and in these words expressed so much For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God meerly in a passion And though Ananias lived after this several years in honour yet afterwards (m) Joseph de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers who were very mischievous in Judea he with his Brother was taken and murdered by them That phrase of a whited wall with other such like might in some cases admit of a favourable interpretation to denote painted innocency and not real according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Parâ—â—2 ch 1.11 hereafter noted Yet this and the words following being spoken in some passion as appears from the connexion of these clauses Thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge c. the Apostle being admonished thereof readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions His formâ—r sudden words not free from all fault There are indeed by many great pains taken to acquit S. Paul from being chargeable with any even the least fault in what he had here spoken notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement as the like is done by many also to free S. Peter from all blame Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him and his plain declaration that he was to be blamed v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains in a weighty matter of practice to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein as may excuse the largeness of my discourse concerning the explication of these words 44. Some with (o) Chrys in Act. 23. S. Chrysostome think that what the Apostle said to Ananias contained no expressions of any undue disrepect but that he used a just freedom in speaking thus to a Ruler and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense they think that the Apostle spake these words I wist not that he was the High Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people in such a way of complyance with his auditory that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers when in truth he did not do so nor intended any such thing And by this method that there might not appear any even the least fault in the Apostles practice they admit a want of sincerity in what he declared as a duty and doctrine that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit and that includes a very great fault in practice also And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter above-mentioned and the admitting this would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler in such a case of injury is manifest enough in that when Festus told him he was besides himself and was mad Acts 26.24 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect I am not mad most noble Festus nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return though but to an inferiour Officer of the Court who stroke him with the palm of his hand John 18.22 23. 45. Many others are of opinion that when S. Paul said and several methods used by others he wist not that he was the High Priest he thereby justified his former words by denying him to be an High Priest to whom if he had been so indeed he ought not to have thus spoken To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines upon thoughts that S. Paul would now own none other under the title of High Priest but only our blessed Saviour And yet it is plain that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest to him who was so called amongst the Jews Acts 22.5 and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour to the Priestly Service at the Temple that he there purified himself and designed to offer his Offering Acts 21.26 Others think that he denyed Ananias to have any just authority (r) Erasm in Act. 23.3 because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them not only the good and gentle but also the froward 1 Pet. 2.18 and our Religion teacheth that if we do well and suffer for it and take it patiently this is acceptable with God v. 20. And (Å¿) Annot. in Act. 23.5 Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias because saith he he came into his Office by purchasing it with money But I can see no particular proof of his accusation and Josephus speaks oft of him as a person of great reputation and honour and however such a crime in an inferiour Officer will not make invalid the authority of a superiour by which he acts untill the superiour shall think fit to recall it even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth was not void of it self though procured by Ziba's lye until David had otherwise determined And it is abundantly sufficient against alll these pretences in this Paragraph to observe that the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God in them do frequently own Ananias to be at that time an High or Chief Priest Acts 23.2 ch 24.1 ch 25.2 and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty by presuming that to be false which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest as will appear from what I shall now add 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an High or Chief Priest but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest who entred into the Holy of Holies In the Old Testament sometimes and often in the New there are more persons than one who are called Chief Priests and so there were in this very Council before which S. Paul now appeared Acts 22.30
c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agrippa declared in his Oration to the Jews And from the time of Julius Caesar the Alexandrian (l) Jos Ant. l. 14. c. 17. Jews enjoyed the freedoms of that City Now from hence it appears that the Jewish Consistories under the Romans retained a sufficient right of Judicial authority and therefore Ananias in this chief Council was to be considered as an Officer in a Court of Judicature acting by a just and competent power and authority 50. The sense of these words I wist not that he was the High Priest enquired into Having spoken thus much concerning the words of the Apostle to Ananias and also concerning Ananias himself and the state of the Jewish Consistories at that time I shall now more particularly consider the sense of that expression v. 4. I wist not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or I knew not brethren that he was the High Priest Some think that the Apostle did not know the person of the High Priest and professed so much as an excuse for himself in his having uttered such words which he would not have done if he had known him to be the High Priest since the Law commands Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people But they seem not to consider that whether the word High Priest be taken in a more strict or more large sense that Law hath no singular and peculiar respect to the High Priest alone and S. Paul did know Ananias to be a Ruler and to sit as Judge and expressed so much v. 3. declaring that he sate to judge him according to the Law And therefore some other sense of these words must be enquired after And that which seemeth to me most agreeable to the whole Context and free from all just exceptions is this that as the word to know oft signifieth to approve regard affect or own so it oft-times signifies to consider duly and to attend to and think on and may be so best taken in this place So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hebrew from whence probably 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had their original is sometimes rendred in our English Translation to consider as Deut. 8.5 Jud. 18.14 2 King 5.7 and this sense is most agreeable to many other places as Gen. 12.11 Ex. 2.25 Deut. 4.39 chap. 9.6 Judg. 15.11 Ruth 3.4 2 Sam. 24.13 2 Chr. 12.8 chap. 13.5 with many others And among the Rabbins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 observa istud is an usual expression when they require a special attention or observation or a particular notice and consideration to be taken of any thing as is noted by (m) Buxt Lex Rab. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 935. Buxtorf And in that sense is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 most properly to be understood in many places of the New Testament to denote to consider It appears so used by S. Luke Luk. 2.49 chap. 9.55 chap. 19.22 and also Joh. 6.61 chap. 11.49 chap. 19.10 Ephes 6.8 9. Col. 3.24 chap. 4.1 And if we thus expound these words of the Apostle the sense of these words will be this that he owneth somewhat in his former expression to have been words of sudden surprize and some degree of inadvertency and that being moved with the injury offered to him they fell from him over hastily and he did not on the sudden duly think of attend to and consider the Office and Dignity of the person to whom he spake otherwise he would not have used the least expression which might intimate any degree of unbecoming reflection or disrespect towards a person in Authority since he acknowledgeth this to be his duty not to speak evil of the Ruler of the people while the (n) Joseph de Bel. Jud. l 4. c. 19. gr Jewish Zealots spake and acted insolently against them without any remorse 51. And that there was somewhat in some measure blameable in the foregoing expressions of S. Paul is plainly acknowledged and declared by (o) Adv. Pelag l. 3. c. 1. S. Hierome and by (p) In Willet on Exod. 22. qu. 52. Procopius as I find him cited agreeably to my sense and by (q) Paraph. on Act. 23.5 Dr. Hammond and other worthy men And they who would by no means admit any thing to have been said or done amâ—ss by any of the Apostles might consider that even they were to pray for the forgiveness of their trespasses and that such things as S. Peters rebuking and denying his Master and drawing his sword the Apostles arguing who should be the greatest and their forsaking their Lord when he was laid hold on the desire of the Sons of Zebedee for the chief advancement in Christs Kingdom and their forwardness to call for fire from Heaven S. Peter and Barnabas their withdrawing at Antioch the sharp contention betwixt Paul and Barnabas and some other things ought not to be justified and defended And (r) Orig. cont Cels l. 2. p. 69 70. some of the ancient Christian Writers urged it as an evidence of the integrity of the Pen-men of the Holy Scriptures and that they wholly designed to keep to truth and not to pursue any interest in that they did not endeavour to conceal and silence the failings of the Apostles and of their chiefest friends which had never been known to the world in after ages but from their writings Even S. Mark who was S. Peters follower did not omit to express his denying our Lord and S. Luke who was S. Pauls companion recorded this expression of his and his acknowledgement thereupon And a sudden hasty expression which was upon a great provocation and was soon recalled was no fault of any high degree especially considering the right the Apostle had being a Roman to claim satisfaction even from a Governour who should offer him an injury in proceeding against Law as was done Acts 16.37 38 39. and in part Acts 22.25 26 29. 52. Nor is this interpretation which admits some degree of blame in the expression of the Apostle inconsistent as I conceive with the promises of our Saviour to his Apostles The great assistances of the Apostles considered when they should be brought into the Synagogues and before Governours and Kings for his names sake that the Holy Ghost should teach them in the same hour what they ought to say Luke 12.12 and that he will give them a mouth and wisdom which all their adversaries shall not be able to gainsay or resist Luk. 21.15 For 1. It may be considered that due dispositions are requisite for obtaining the benefit of any of Gods promises and his special guidance and therefore a sudden complyance with some hastiness of temper might for the present hinder the fullest obtaining the benefit of that promise As S. Peter after he had asked our Lord whether he should smite with the Sword overhastily undertaking the action before he had received his answer deprived himself at that present of the
expressions in the present Roman Breviary They apply themselves to S. Peter (l) Br. Rom. Jun. 29. in Hymn Peccati vincula Resolve tibi potestate tradita Qua cunctis coelum verbo claudis aperis Loose the bonds of our sins by that power which is delivered to thee whereby by thy word thou shuttest and openest heavent to all men And to all the Apostles they direct their prayers on this manner (m) Br. Rom. in Commun Apost in Festo S. Andr. Qui coelum verbo clauditis Serasque ejus solvitis nos à peccatis omnibus Solvite jussu quaesumus Quorum praecepto subditur Salus languor omnium Sanate aegros moribus nos reddentes virtutibus Ye who by your word do shut up Heaven and loose the barrs thereof we beseech you by your command loose us from all our sins ye to whose command the health and the weakness of all is subject heal those who are sick in their life and practice restoring us to vertue I am apprehensive that many may think these instances the less blameable because the expressions of them have a manifest respect to the commission and authority which Christ gave to his Apostles in the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and the power of remitting and retaining sin and the other Apostles are here owned to have the power of the keys as well as S. Peter But that our Saviours Commission to them referred wholly to the Government of his Church upon Earth is sufficiently manifest from those words both to S. Peter and to all the Apostles whatsoever thou or ye shall bind on earth and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth And though the Apostles are eminently exalted in the glory of the other world yet to acknowledge them in Heaven to acquit or condemn all men and to receive them into Heaven or exclude them from it by their command and by that power which is committed to them must include an owning them to be the full and compleat Judges of the quick and the dead 8. And since the Romish Church asserts all their Bishops to derive and enjoy the same authority which was committed to S. Peter and if this be not only an authority upon earth but in the future state then all their deceased Popes and much to the same purpose may be urged concerning all Priests must still enjoy the same heavenly power which they ascribe to S. Peter though there is great reason to fear that divers of themselves never entred into Heaven To these other numerous instances might be added of their prayers to the Blessed Virgin and to other Saints for grace pardon protection and to be received by them at the hour of death and such instances have been largely and fully produced by some of the worthy Writers of our own Church and Chamier and other Protestant Authors and particularly by Chemnitius in his Examen Conc. Trid. 9. But when Cardinal Bellarmine discoursed of these supplications to the Saints he particularly instanced in some as that to the Virgin Mary Tu nos ab hoste protege hora mortis suscipe do thou defend us from the enemy and receive us at the hour of death but will have them all to be understood as desiring only the benefit of their prayers But because the words they use do not seem to favour this sense of his he tells us (n) Bellarm. de Sanct. Beatitud l. 1. c. 9. Notandum est nos non agere de verbis sed de sensu verborum It must be noted that we dispute not about the words themselves but about the sense and meaning of them Now I acknowledge it fit that words should be taken in their true sense being interpreted also with as much candor as the case will admit Yet I shall observe 1. That it cannot well be imagined that when they expresly declare their hopes of obtaining their petitions to the Saints by their command and by their power which is committed to them which is owned sufficient for the performing these requests as in the instances I mentioned no more should be intended than to desire the assistance of their prayers and this gives just reason to suspect that more is also meant in other expressions and prayers according to the most plain import of the words 2. That though some of the Doctors of the Roman Church would put this construction upon the words of their prayers yet it is manifest the people understand them in the most obvious sense so as to repose their main confidence upon the Saints themselves and their merits This may appear from the words I above cited n. 3. from Cassander who also tells us that (o) Cass Consu t. de Mer. Interc Sanct. homines non mali men who were none of the worser sort did chuse to themselves certain Saints for their Patrons and in eorum meritis atque intercessione plus quam in Christi merito fiduciam posuerunt they placed confidence in their merits and intercession more than in the merits of Christ 10. The invocation of Saints and Angels will appear the more unaccountable No such practice in the Old Testament by considering what is contained in the holy Scriptures and the ancient practice of the Church of God In the Old Testament there is no worshiping of Angels directed though the Law was given by their ministration and that state was more particularly subject to them than the state of the Gospel is as the Apostle declares Heb. 2.5 In the Book of Psalms which were the Praises and Hymns used in the publick Worship of the Jews there is no address made to any departed Saint or even to any Angel though the Jewish Church had no advocate with the Father in our nature which is a peculiar priviledge of the Christian Church since the Ascension of our Saviour That place in the Old Testament which may seem to look most favourably towards the invocation of an Angel Gen. 48.16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads is by many ancient Christian Writers not understood of a created Angel But however it is to be observed that these words were part of the benediction of Jacob to the Sons of Joseph Now a benediction frequently doth not exclude a prayer to the thing or person spoken of but a desire of the good expressed with an implicite application to God that he would grant it Thus in the next words Gen. 48.16 Let my name be named on them and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac which contain no prayer to the names of his Fathers or to his own So Isaac blessed Jacob Gen. 27.29 using these expressions Let People serve thee and Nations bow down unto thee And this Clause of Jacob's Benediction is well paraphrased by one of the (p) Targ. Jonath in Gen. 48.16 Chaldee Paraphrasts Let it be well pleasing before him God that the Angel c. But the Holy Angels themselves declared against the giving to them any
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
497. at the Council of Trent declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils and thought he had proved that sufficiently by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas must depend on the Popes Confirmation And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith who in other cases and in his own person is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible even concerning Matters of Faith 7. But there are others or Oral Tradition who call themselves Members of that Church but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope or Council more than of other men but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition and thence conclude that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition must be infallibly true because no Age could make any change therein This is Mr. White 's way and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant But what is said in defence of this way is pure Sophistry And if such persons furnished with these Notions or Fancies had lived in the beginning of Christianity they might have been Advocates either for Paganism or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition might have been urged as well as for the Church of Rome and almost in a persect Parallel 8. Secondly Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils in deciding controversies There is good reason to think that the chief men of the Church of Rome give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility For in such great Controversies wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision from their Infallibility even in such cases where such a decision would contribute much to truth would end quarrels and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences And therefore the determining such things would be an excellent work of charity but the leaving them undetermined or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination may be politick lest they should disoblige the contrary party I shall instance in that Question which is at some times of concernment to all Mens Consciences of their Communion whether the authority of the Pope or a General Council be the greater Which hath never yet been decided by the consent of a Pope and a General Council Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council And Pius the second in a Provincial Council at Mantua declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope to a future Council to be void and Schismatical which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second But this way of decision is so little satisfactory among themselves that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent openly declare (r) Hist Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope and that this was the general sense of the French Church And divers other Bishops spake their judgments there to the same purpose 9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope and yet this is no satisfactory decision to them of the contrary opinion So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility whether in the Pope or in a General Council slighted by themselves as they think fit And this is a thing of such concern that if the highest authority be in the Council this must fix the Infallibility there also if there be any such thing because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance and so must include God's Authority in that Determination to which none can be Superior If this be seated in the Council it would take down the Pope's Plumes If in the Pope the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils as a needless thing and then all those Christian Churches Emperors and Bishops which will take in divers Bishops of Rome were very imprudent who either laboured much for them or took any great satisfaction in them Wherefore it must needs be a business of design and not of integrity to make a loud noise about Infallibility to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men when they have so low an esteem of it themselves 10. Thirdly No Infallibility of the Roman Church Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter it is observable that S. Peter himself though an eminent and prime Apostle even in a Council had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apostles For in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. when after much disputation S. Peter had declared his sense v. 7 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment v. 13 21. the final determination of that Council did much more follow the words of S. James than of S. Peter v. 19 20. with 28 29. Wherefore the claim of (ſ) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth in his Epistle to the Emperor must have an higher Plea than that of Succession to S. Peter that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council he doth not only alone propose but he also alone decrees and the Council adds nothing but Approbation 11. Nor can it be imagined that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope or Romish Church that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen Bishop of Rome concerning the Baptism of Hereticks But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error but declares him to have written proudly impertinently ignorantly and imprudently which sufficiently shews him to have known nothing of his Infallibility And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also approving S. Cyprian's answer to it and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen as bold insolent and evil improbè gesta And (w) Sent. Episcop Conc. Carth. in
Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops did unanimously declare their judgment for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined And that this Council did sit after Cyprian had received the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen Bishop of Rome is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius Now though all these Bishops were in an error in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null and that they ought generally to be Baptized when they returned to the Church yet it cannot be supposed that they were so obstinately resolved in their error as to reject the infallible evidence of truth When many of these very Bishops who lived to understand their error did as (y) Dial adv Lucifer S. Hierome testifies disclaim and reject it and that Cyprian himself did so as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin though it was not certain But hence it appears that since Stephen's determination was slighted and opposed by such eminent Bishops both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church who sincerely designed to embrace the truth no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop And if Stephen did so generally declare against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos c. he erred on the one hand as they did on the other and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way requiring some sort of Hereticks who kept the substantial form of Baptism to be received upon their former Baptism and that others should be baptized when they returned to the Church 12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only but by the summoning General Councils which with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them had been a very needless and vain thing if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned And in the four first General Councils the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church and all of them desired and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ and contradict themselves fifth General Council was managed perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome 13. Fourthly Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles of which several instances are given in this Chapter that Church ought not nor cannot be owned infallible by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so Besides this I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted what others of them at other times have affirmed The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth was revoked by (e) Clement in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth as scandalous and dangerous And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals is owned by Innocentius the Third but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility than its being contradicted in what it delivers by that evidence which is certainly infallible And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion than such a false pretence as this which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery and a contrivance to raise a very high veneration thereof 14. Secondly Of Indulgences and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby I shall consider the pretended power of securing offenders from Purgatory or releasing their souls out of it partly by the Priests Masses and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church which he hath power to dispense For the Romanists tell us that as there is in sin a fault and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life by way of satisfaction it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory And thus a model is contrived and drawn up to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin without amendment Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect that by reason of it God sometimes punisheth persons and Families even after true repentance and receiving the person into his particular favour and such were the judgements on Davids House after his Murther and Adultery And I esteem the practices of sin and vice to be so hurtful that though they be sincerely repented of if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences according to the quality of their transgressions This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church was performed before the Church gave Absolution which oft included the severe exercises of divers years and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian And if in danger of death such penitents were reconciled who had not compleated their penitential exercises (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4 Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered these must afterwards be performed And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin their high value for the favour of God and the priviledges and Communion of the Church and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities rather than to forfeit them 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory though God never revealed any such thing nor did the ancient Church believe it I shall not here engage in that dispute but shall only observe that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal since the body which is so great a partaker in and promoter of the sin is wholly freed from all these punishments and rests quietly in its
those who are in a true Christian state saith that Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 2.2 And who who examines himself can pretend himself free from every disorder in any passion or affection from all failure in word or thought and that he can be charged with no neglect of any duty at any time either towards God or man in any relation whatsoever nor with any blameable defect in the manner of the performance thereof And the pretence to perfection and sinless practice is the more fond and unreasonable in this Sect because of the gross and heinous errors of judgment and consequently of practice which they are guilty of together with many words of falshood censoriousness or uncharitableness 14. Now the great hurt and danger of this opinion concerning perfection is First That it makes void such duties as confession repentance application to the benefits of Christs expiatory Sacrifice which things are not only injoined upon Christians by the frequent commands of the Gospel but are also proposed as the conditions for obtaining the pardoning mercy and favour of God and the exercise of repentance and bringing forth fruits meet for repentance contains very much of the practical part of the duties of the Christian Religion Secondly It greatly misrepresents the Covenant of Grace as if together with the rules of an holy life and the assistances enabling thereto it did not for the encouraging our best and sincere endeavours make allowances for the imperfections of the upright mans obedience and propose pardon to them who are truly penitent If the Gospel did not admit these gracious terms and conditions the state of the best sort of men would be miserable But S. John joins these two together 1 Joh. 2.1 the strictness of the Gospel rule that will not allow of any sin My little children these things write I unto you that ye sin not and the gracious conditions of pardon through the merits of Christ if any man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the righteous and he is the propitiation c. 15. Wherefore we acknowledge the Christian life to have in its degree an Evangelical perfection whereby in the upright Service of God it is free from the dominion of sin and is diligent in the progress of grace and piety and obtains pardon for its offences But with respect to its practice as (t) Aug. ad Bonif. l. 3. c. 7. S. Austin observed ad ejus perfectionem pertinet ipsius imperfectionis in veritate cognitio in humilitate confessio It is a branch of his perfection truly to know and humbly to acknowledge his imperfection For as he speaks in another place (u) Retrac l. 1. c. 19. Who can be compleatly perfect but he who observes all the Commandments amongst which this is one injoined upon all Christians that we must pray forgive us our trespasses quam orationem usque ad finem seculi tota dicit Ecclesia This is the prayer which the whole Church maketh to the end of this world SECT II. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion Sect. II 1. THough I shall wave divers Sects which appeared in our late times of Confusion as Seekers Ranters and various Enthusiasts I shall take some notice of the Fifth-Monarchy men who since his Majesties return to his Kingdom made an attempt to put in practice their evil and wretched Principles The notion of our Saviour's personal Reign a thousand years upon Earth hath deceived many persons in the Christian Church through their misunderstanding some expressions in the Apocalypse to which purpose also they applied many other Scriptures though the ancient opinions of many worthy persons in the Christian Church who were led away by this error did still retain the meek and peaceable temper of Christianity (a) In Esai l. 9. in fin l. 15. in init passim S. Hierome in many places speaks of this opinion as a Jewish error and perstringeth the embracers thereof as Judaizers And indeed this notion had some considerable affinity with the Jewish expectation concerning the Messias that he should appear as a Temporal Prince to Reign gloriously and powerfully upon Earth and those Christians who were led away with this mistake looked for the restoring and rebuilding the City of Jerusalem when this Kingdom should appear with other things too much savouring of Judaism 2. And that this earthly and worldly Reign of Christ was very agreeable to the dreams and fancies of the Jews may be yet somewhat further manifested by observing that even (b) Gem. in Sanhed c. 11. n. 11. the Jewish Talmud speaks of the time of a thousand years when God shall renew the World and he alone shall be exalted and Reign and the righteous shall enjoy outward and temporal delights in the world And some of the Rabbins do more particularly express their sense concerning this state insomuch that in the Commentaries of R. Abraham on Dan. 12.2 as his words are related by (c) in Exc. Gem. Sanh ib. Cocceius it is said that as he understands that Prophecy the just who died in exile out of the Land of Israel at the coming of the Messias should be raised again and have all manner of delightful Food Fishes Fowls and great Cattel and then should die a second time and be raised again at the Resurrection of the dead and then should be in the other world where they should neither eat nor drink but injoy the brightness of the glory of God But so far as these things relate to earthly and sensual pleasures they might well enough suit the temper and disposition of the Jews and were agreeable to those carnal delights which (d) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cerinthus talked of in the Kingdom of Christ on Earth for a thousand years but such things savour not of the true Spirit of Christianity but are plainly opposite thereto 3. But it must be acknowledged that there have been divers worthy persons in the ancient Church and some of late who have embraced the Millenary opinions but have still retained such Principles and Opinions as are suitable to the peaceableness and Spiritual purity of Christianity Such besides Papias were Justin Martyr Irenaeus Apollinarius Tertullian Lactantius and others of old and Mr. Mede in this last age These looked for the coming of our Saviour with his Martyrs and other Saints raised from the dead to Reign on Earth before the end of the World Their chief ground was from Rev. 20.4 But their interpretation of those words concerning the Souls of them that were beheaded c. living and reigning with Christ a thousand years besides much that may be otherwise said against it cannot agree with v. 7 8 9. Where after the thousand years are ended Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go out to deceive the Nations and Gog and Magog shall compass the camp of the
Circumcised Gen. 17.12 which is a manifest evidence that they were interested in this Covenant made with Abraham And this precept of Circumcision concerning the Infant Males continued in force until the coming of our Saviour and thereby Infants born in the Jewish Church were owned and received to be members of that Church Now our Saviours coming was not to confine the Church to narrower limits but to extend and enlarge it 3. And it may not be amiss to observe that the Jews themselves did generally acknowledge that the priviledge of having such Children admitted into their Church in their infancy whose Parents were members thereof was not peculiar to that Nation alone but did also belong to those who from among the Gentiles became Proselytes to the Jewish Religion When they admitted the chief sort of Proselytes which were called the Proselytes of righteousness this was usually done (a) Seld. de Syned l. 3. c. 3. p. 34 37-40 Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.6 by Circumcision together with a kind of Baptism or washing them with respect to their uncleanness in their Gentilism and Sacrifice as Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot and others have observed who also have manifested from the Jewish writers that they did usually admit Children even Infants with their Parents And if the Mother was admitted into the number of this sort of Proselytes when she was with Child that Child afterwards born was supposed not to need any other washing but if it was a Male was received only by Circumcision And it also appears by the testimonies produced by the latter of these Writers (b) Hor. Heb. ibid. that they ordinarily admitted the Infants of Gentiles to be Proselytes if they were taken into the care and education of Israelites and this was agreeable to what God had established concerning him who was born in Abraham's House or bought with money of any stranger not of his Seed 4. And that the New Testament doth particularly admit Infants into the Church of God and giveth them a right to partake of the benefits of his Covenant as well as the Old Testament did might be justly presumed because there is not any thing said or done by our Saviour which doth exclude them nor is there any thing declared by God whereby he expresseth his altering the terms of his Covenant so as in this particular to confine it into a less and straiter compass under the Gospel But besides this there are plain expressions in the New Testament that Infants are received as Members of the Church of God and interested in the promises of his Covenant under the Christian Dispensation Our Saviour saith of them that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 10.14 and S. Peter perswades the Jews Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and the same thing may be inferred from other Texts of Scripture And these expressions especially considering what God had established and injoined in the time of the Old Testament do sufficiently declare this sense of the Gospel-Covenant that Children and Infants are included therein 5. And whereas the Judaizers did earnestly contend with the Apostles about the necessity of Circumcision and other Jewish Rites to be continued in the Church we read of no contest about the admission of their Children into the Church Had the Apostles and the Christian institution herein differed from the Rules received under the Old Testament in not admitting Children into the Church of God these men would no doubt as eagerly have contended with the Apostles about this thing as about the other since this was a branch of Gods ancient Covenant and such a branch as they could not but think to be of high concernment to themselves and their Posterity But the Christian Doctrine plainly acknowledgeth that Children were reputed holy if but one of their Parents were Christians or Believers 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore such Children which otherwise had been unclean were accounted to belong to the Church by vertue of that relation they had to such Believing Parents And when the Apostles are said to have Baptized persons and all theirs or all their Houshold upon the consideration now mentioned it is not to be doubted but Children and Infants were included in these expressions Act. 16.15 and v. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 and also in that other precept of Baptizing all Nations and making them Disciples Mat. 28.19 And this will receive further confirmation from the ordinary and usual practice of the ancient Christian Church in Baptizing Infants which I shall by and by mention 6. Indeed under the Gospel it was necessary that adult persons both Jews and Gentiles should first be taught the Christian Doctrine and own their belief thereof and undertake the practice of repentance and obedience before they could be Baptized into the Christian Church But this gives no support to them who oppose the Baptism of Infants since even under the Old Testament such persons who being adult were received as Proselytes to the Jewish Church were first to be acquainted with the Law of God d and then to profess their owning and believing in the God of Israel (c) Selden ubi sup before they were admitted into that Church by Circumcision and other solemn Rites And this reasonable and necessary observation with respect to those who attained to years of discretion was well consistent with their Circumcising Infants and the Divine Law injoined that when strangers were desirous to embrace the Jewish Religion and were admitted thereto all their Males and therefore even those which were Infants must be Circumcised Exod. 12.48 7. And those words of S. Paul from which the favourers of Anabaptism have endeavoured to prove that under the New Testament none and therefore no Infants are interested in the Gospel-Covenant and Membership of the Christian Church by being born of Christian Parents are greatly mistaken S. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israel which are of Israel v. 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called For 1. These words have no peculiar respect to the time and state of the New Testament but they give an account how the promise to the Seed of Abraham was to be understood from the very time in which it was made to Abraham And the Apostle here shews that this Promise and Covenant was particularly fixed upon Isaac and his Family v. 7. and then upon Jacob v. 13. and yet then Infants were constantly Circumcised 2. The true sense of these words is that the Promise and Covenant of God to and with Abraham and his Seed did not bind him to continue all the posterity of Ishmael or other Sons of Abraham nor yet the Posterity of Esau to be his peculiar Church and people though these were Circumcised and lineally descended from Abraham but had departed from the Religion Piety Faith and Obedience of their Father Abraham And from hence the Apostle proves that
the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists is neither agreeable to the words themselves and the scope of that place nor to such other expressions of the New Testament as I have above mentioned 8. Secondly This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church upon a double account For First The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism who run into other errors to avoid this But yet this is deducible from their Assertion and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion For since Christians are Baptized into the Body or Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 and are thereby entred as members thereof if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism or to be capable of being Baptized they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ and parts of his Body And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by Gods special institution and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing upon Earth And those great priviledges of the New Covenant of which eternal Salvation is the chief belong to that Church which is the Body of Christ and to the lively members thereof For Christ is the Saviour of this body Eph. 5.23 And this Body which is his Church is that which he will present to himself having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified Eph. 5.26 and of the laver of regeneration and of regeneration it self also they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.3 5. 9. But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them and the Christian Church hath from the beginning alwayes acknowledged to belong to them All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit and so particularly is Christian Baptism Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert Eccles B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5 another place And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism with respect to regeneration and remission of sins so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants is much worse and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced being untrue the consequence it self is also false and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants nor are damaged thereby whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof and in a continued succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do S. Austin (e) de peccar Mer. remis l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam the Authority of the Vniversal Church without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is called by S. Austin (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides a Doctrine of Faith most firmly and constantly believed in the Church And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59. ad Fidum S. Cyprian and an African Council with him is very manifest When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion that Infants ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day of their Birth or until the eighth day which was the time appointed for Circumcision though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism S. Cyprian largely declares that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion but every one of them judged Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man i. e. upon account of their age And he there shews that Infants from the time of their Birth are not to be prohibited Baptism And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism is apparent from this expression relating thereto (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdenda est as far as is in our power if it be possible no soul is to be lost The plain testimonies of Origen both upon Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes Theolog p. 429 c. Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who would have more large and ample proof hereof 11. But that learned man truly observes that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen who though they deny not Infant-Baptism yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants and incline to perswade the same Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism advise that if Infants be in no danger of death their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old or somewhat less or more that themselves may hear something of that Mystery and give answer But though he might proceed
who appointed not this kind of Covenanting established the Christian Church in that way of Unity that it was one Church but these have ordered this method for the dividing it 20. Secondly This casts a disparagement on Christs Institution of Baptism as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church and the Communion thereof The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12.12 and that they who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance members are received into fellowship with Christ and communion with his Church But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the World And of Baptism being ordained by Christ for the solemn admission of the party Baptized into the visible Church are rejected and left out in the declaration of Faith by them of the Congregational way And we are told by the New England Independents that (k) Answ to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church and they there say strangely enough that Christ Baptized but made no new Church Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism to receive members of his Church this Covenant which he never appointed is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it 21. Thirdly By making this Covenant the only right ground of Church-fellowship they cast a high reflexion on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches who neither practised nor delivered any such thing as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established But this Covenant managed in the dividing way is somewhat like the practice of Novatus who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism who ingaged his followers by the most solemn Vow that they should never forsake him nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation But this bond of their own promise and vow was intended to keep them in that separation which the more solemn Vow of Baptism and undertaking Christianity ingaged them to reject And it is a great mistake to imagine that the former ought to take place against the latter or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it 22. Fourthly The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation entred under such a particular Covenant is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity For according to this notion the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love as being members one of another and that Christian care that follows thereupon it limited to a narrow compass together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also which ought to be inlarged to all those professed Christians with whom we do converse And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence that the duties of love and being helpful to one another and provoking to love and good works upon account of our membership with the Church visible though these things be in practice too much neglected should be straitned by false and hurtful notions and opinions It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews that when God gave them that great Commandment to love their Neighbour as themselves they should satisfie themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour than the Divine Law intended And it must not be conceived that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church and fellowship therein will be esteemed in the sight of God a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity than the like mistake was under Judaism 23. Thirdly I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people or the members of the Church To this purpose by some of them we are told that (m) Answ to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest the Keys are committed to all Believers who shall join together in the same confession according to the Ordinance of Christ and they give the people the power of (n) Answ to Qu. 15. censuring offenders even Ministers themselves if they be such And on this account at least in part I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations that which I shall particularly insist on is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto How plain is it in the Scripture that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church and that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches did and were to do the like It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church that Christ declared Joh. 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained and Matt. 18.18 whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And by these and such like words the power of inflicting Censures and receiving to and conferring of the priviledges of the Church as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God and remission of sins are particularly tendered are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church which practised accordingly which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages For instance even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spake to S. Peter of the power of the Keys and of binding and loosing infers the Episcopal honour and that every act of the Church must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors And from those words and what our Saviour spake to his Apostles Jo. 20. about remitting sins he concludes that only the Governours in the Church (q) Ep. 73. can give remission of sins And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy and the
adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. Irenaeus and (c) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others affirm were made and appointed by the Apostles themselves did Ordain the several sorts of Ecclesiastical Officers Bishops Priests and Deacons That the ancient Church did generally acknowledge that a Bishop was regularly to be Ordained by three Bishops who must be of other Churches may partly appear from the industrious care of (d) ibid. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Novatus though very ill managed against peace honesty and other rules of common morality as Cornelius relates it to send about to find three obscure Bishops who might Ordain him in opposition to Cornelius But this is more fully evident from the great contests concerning the validity of Cecilians Ordination against which the Donatists earnestly objected as the main pretence for their Schism that Felix one of the Ordainers of Cecilian was not a regular Bishop and therefore his Ordination was insufficient which case was canvased in Africa Italy France and other places So that that first Canon of the old Code (e) Can. Ap. 1. that a Bishop was to be Ordained by two or three Bishops was so far manifestly agreeable to the ancient practice and sense of the Church that they usually insisted upon having the greater number of three in this Ordination And so it was particularly expressed in the Canons of the first General Council (f) Conc. Nic. c. 4. which also requires the consent of the other Bishops of the Province and particularly the (g) ib. c. 6. Metropolitan which was included in the more ancient practice And this may be sufficient to satisfie any man that Ordination and regular Ordination of the chief Officer in the Church was in the first Ages of Christianity accounted greatly necessary and that the Bishops of other Churches there being but one Catholick Bishop of one Church three at least must meet together to confer this Ordination Much more might be added if it were needful in so plain a case 30. And whereas so great a stress is laid upon the election of the people as if this were the great essential thing which constituted any one in the Office of the Ministry it is also manifest that the choice of any person for the Ministry which was by way of recommendation of him to those who were to Ordain him was sometimes done by the people and sometimes by others But there was no rule in the Scripture which requireth any necessity of the peoples election nor was there ever any constant practice hereof either in the time of the Holy Scriptures themselves or in the next ages of the Primitive Church When Christ chose his Apostles he called to him his Disciples and of them he chose twelve whom he named Apostles Luk 6.13 but he did not appoint his other Disciples to chuse them James who was made the first Bishop of Jerusalem is related to have been chosen by the Apostles (h) Eus Hist l. 2. c. 2. particularly by Peter James and John Many times the Holy Spirit guided the Ordainers to fix upon the particular person to be ordained Thus Timothy was chosen by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4 14. And the Spirit directed the other Prophets and Teachers that they should separate Saul and Barnabas for the work to which he had called them Act. 13.2 And (i) Cl. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. p. 54 55. Clemens Romanus declares that the Apostles appointed Bishops and Deacons proving them by the Spirit And that the Spirit of God should then guide the Ordainers to choose persons for the Ministry rather than the other Believers and Disciples may be of use to acquaint men that our Saviour never made the peoples choice either necessary or the main thing essential to the Ministry In some places the Presbyters of the Church were the persons who elected their Bishop and this (k) Hieron ad Evag. S. Hierome saith was the practice at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist unto Heraclas and Dionysius And since Mark died whilst many of the Apostles were alive and several years before the Martyrdom of S. Peter and S. Paul this also gives a fair evidence that popular elections were no Institution of Christ or his Apostles 31. Sometimes even under the early ages of Christianity Bishops were chosen by Councils of other Bishops And so was (l) Eus Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Domnus chose Bishop of Antioch by the Council which deposed Paulus for Heresie And there are frequent instances of like nature And after the Empire was Christian this election was sometimes made by the Emperour himself and thus was Nectarius chosen by Theodosius at Constantinople even whilst a General Council was there sitting and had been deliberating about the choice of a Bishop of Jerusalem Now the considering how variously such elections or recommendations were made is sufficient to manifest that the Apostolical and first Primitive Churches accounted no one particular way of election to be the main thing essential to the Ministry And the popular way hath the least of all to plead on this account that the various inconveniences of admitting that were found so great that this was forbidden to be practised by one of the ancient Canons which was received in the general Code And the result of all this is That the insisting on this and those other things above mentioned which are the support of Independency are plain errors and mistakes and deviations from the true Christian Rule and Practice and are much the worse because they are imposed upon men in the name of God as if they were his special Institutions and thereby tend to create the greater disturbance to the best and most regular Constitutions of the Christian Church as if they had departed from the Divine Institutions and their form and establishment is such that it is not fit to be Communicated with but may most safely be forsaken FINIS AN ANSWER TO Mr. SERJEANT's DISCOURSE INTITULED Sure Footing IN CHRISTIANITY By WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXIV The first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith THis Author J. S. intending as his Title page tells us Rational Discourses on the Rule of Faith which I design to examine spends his first Discourse in seeking and laying down properties of that Rule This was indeed requisite to be inquired into and had it been faithfully managed as it is not I had then passed by this Discourse without any Animadversion But since it is neither accurate nor impartial some defects and miscarriages in it are necessary to be observed In this Discourse he examines the sense of these words RVLE which he saith signifies a thing able to regulate or guide him who useth it § 2. and FAITH which is a believing God in revealed Truths § 8. which imports some knowledge of supernatural things He
what this Authour calls his deep consideration as it hath no rational foundation so it hath not the advantage to be one of his own Church Traditions and shews there may be something delivered for truth which was not so received And of the same nature are almost all his Arguments against Scriptures being the Rule of Faith § 3. He further adds That the material causes to conserve these Characters are lyable to innumerable contingencies but mans mind by its immateriality is in part freed from Physical mutability and here we may with reason hope for an unalterableness and an unerrableness if there be a due proposal which must necessarily effect the sense These words are more monstrous than rational it is as much as in plain English to tell his Reader that having an immaterial soul he can never forget any thing that he either saw or heard distinctly and that when he hath read a Book observingly all the words and letters may be more exactly known from him by the impressions upon his mind than by viewing the Printed or Written Copy it self And yet all this will not serve his turn unless it be supposed that these immaterial souls must alwaies continue in the World or that what was by them received must thence necessarily in the same manner be continued on others Who sees not that this is as much against common sense as if he had said That because man hath an immaterial soul he may flie up to the Sun and Moon and fixed Stars at his pleasure Was Man of the nature of Angels without his gross Body its beyond the skill of this Authour to prove that nothing could be forgotten or blotted out of his mind that is once known especially considering that he is a sinner and even the Writers of his own Church do conceive that sinning Angels lost much knowledge by their sin But man is a Creature of another mold and letters and words and things are preserved in his memory by material impressions and every man knows they may be forgiven yea this Authour in this Book oft forgets and contradicts himself Do not all mankind appear sufficiently convinced that words or characters are more surely preserved in paper or writing than in mens memories in that what they would have faithfully kept they commit to writing and enter it upon Record Had the Jews been of this Authours opinion they would not have desired Ezra to have read the Law of Moses out of a Book Neh. 8.1 but to have spoken it out of the impressions of his own mind yet he would have been a more safe deliverer of Moses than the Church of Rome can shew for other Scripture Yea it is plain and self-evident that the Church of Rome agree with the rest of mankind to acknowledge writing upon some material subject a more sure way of preservation of things than the minds of men for they write the Acts of their Councils and Statutes of their Societies and yet these things are as much or more spoken of amongst them as the Scriptures are and so more like to be preserved in their immaterial minds yea they write or print their Creed Prayers Lessons and their whole Liturgy and have them read in their Churches when by this Authors Argument the best way to have these things preserved intire is to have them uttered from the memories of the Priests and others in the Church and not to mind the Writing or Printing at all as not being in it self certain The Roman Church know that mens minds are slippery and apt to forget something in their Liturgy if it were not written and that others would take the boldness to alter it and vary from it if they had no written Rule and shall writing be the best preservative for all other things and not for the words of the Scriptures and the truths therein contained I remember Salmeron tho' a Jesuit hath among the rest of his prolegemena one which is Proleg 25. Why the Scriptures were written and he declares as every one who designs to speak truth would do that it was that thence men may most surely know truth whereas the memories of men are very slippery and uncertain and S. Austin assigns a like cause of the Original of Letters de Doctr. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. Nor can I imagine for what end the Church of Rome prints Copies of the Bible if they did not think that by those printed Copies the Scriptures might be known and preserved And as if it was not sufficient absurdity without any colour of solid reason to contradict the experience of all civiliz'd Nations he at once opposeth even the wisdom of God himself also who commanded the King of Israel to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book and read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God Deut. 17.19 20. Yea he commands Moses to write for a memorial in a Book Exod. 17.14 Yea Isaiah is commanded Isai 30.8 Write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever And though God himself declares this the way of keeping the memorial of things this Authour rejects this way and closeth with the uncertain way of mans frail memory § 4. He tells us That as there are some simple vulgar actions unmistakeable yet there are compound actions as the transcribing of a whole Book consisting of myriads of words single letters and stopps and the several actions over each of these are so short and cursory that humane diligence cannot attend to every of them Yet he grants that this may be done with care enough if there be diligent Examiners This Objection speaks against the common sense of every one who can write for it tells him that no man can possibly keep to the sense or words he intends in writing a Letter or such like though he hath a Copy before him For he who can write a page with due care may by the continuance of the same diligence write a sheet and if he want nothing else but what concerns his writing he may with the same care write a Book What extraordinary art hath this Discourser that he could write his Book intelligibly and the Printers print it so can none do the like He cannot be ignorant that these things may be done by common diligence and all men who understand writing acknowledge that Deeds and all Records may be exemplified and faithfully transcribed if there be had due care about it That there hath been such care about Scripture I shall shew in answer to his next Paragraph And I suppose he is not so self-conceited as to think that other men may not use as much care in writing Letters or Words as himself doth or can But if this little Argument of many little actions not being capable of due attention was considerable it would concern this Authour to find a way how the Papists may
This same History is related also both by Clemens and by Papias and after this Mark preached in Egypt that same Gospel which he had written Thus Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 10 11. and to the same purpose relating the words of Clemens lib. 6. c. 14. But our Discourser tells us He dare affirm that Presbyterians and Protestants adhere to their Faith because their Fathers or Pastors taught them it and not upon the evidence of Scriptures letter to their own private judgements because they who are brought up under Mr. Baxter are apt to follow him and others Mr. Pierce To this I answer That Protestants value the judgements of their Teachers if they think them to be learned and good men but yet in the Articles of Christian Faith and the great truths of God they do discern other grounds and surer to rely on than the opinion of Teachers and therefore whatever Teacher should contradict such truths they would not follow him And if any persons are so unstable as in such things to be led away by the Authority of any men they are far from being grounded Protestants In some matters more difficult or Controversial many Protestants are not capable of being better satisfied than by the judgment of their Pastors and are to be commended for following them yet in this case they own not their judgment as a Rule of their Faith but the best help to their understanding in a case of difficulty But if any Protestant by misapprehension do close with such things controversial as necessary points of Faith if afterwards he discerns them matters of Controversie not clear in Scripture or that the contrary is rather true and grounded on Scripture he will then submit his former apprehensions to the greater evidence now received And by this means through diligent examining very great multitudes of Protestants who have given up themselves impartially to follow Scripture truth have received some opinions different from some particular opinions of their Parent or Teacher And even all other Protestants who are not capable of making trial of the grounds of all controverted opinions yet unanimously will acknowledge that the trial of any truths by the Scripture is much more considerable than by any Teachers judgment and therefore if they were capable they would much rather chuse to be stedfastly fixed in any truth by the former than to be only perswaded to it by the latter Whence it appears that Protestants generally own only the Scriptures for their Rule And were there ever any who desired to be instructed in Philosophy or any Science designing therein to follow reason as their Rule who were not as much guided by their Teachers or Instructers as Protestants are by theirs that is to value their Authority or opinion until by examination of it by the Rule they should discern it an error § 6. He tells us That Objections made against a Prophetical afflatus and against the res traditae or things delivered instead of Tradition it self can have no force against his opinion I shall not dispute the truth of these things but shall so far satisfie this Authour as to assure him my following answer shall proceed neither of these waies § 7. He tells us The first Property of the Rule of Faith doth agree to Tradition to wit it is evident to all as to its existence because we see and hear daily sounds and actions about Practical Doctrines conveyed down to us But is this all that this Authour thinks necessary to be proved Did he not demand much more concerning Scripture than that the Book might be seen and the words heard did he not then require proof that Scriptures are Gods word c. Surely it is not only requisite that some thing should be delivered and received but at least it must be necessary for every Generation to know that all that Faith which the former received and professed is fully delivered and rightly received by them For since as himself saith in this Paragraph Tradition is the open conveyance of Doctrines if they be either not delivered or not received there is no conveyance and so a failure of the thing it self which is Tradition Now we assert that there can be no certainty of any such exact delivery in any one Generation since the Apostles daies and that for these reasons First because many matters especially in difficult things may be mistaken for want of right understanding and then these mistakes will be delivered That they are mistaken by many appears by the disagreement of great numbers and disputes about several Doctrines whether they be de fide or not and about the sense of Papal Decrees and Canons of Councils whence it is certain they do not all apprehend the truth or at least will not confess they do which will as much overthrow Tradition Secondly It 's possible that through the prevalency of corruption and sin in a. Generation of men they may much lose that knowledge of God which they had even in matters of Faith and then cannot deliver it aright It 's certain it was thus in the Generations after Noah in that great point concerning the true God and his Worship and there was then as much to be said from the nature of Tradition as now among Papists and therefore there can be now no security to the contrary unless the piety of all Ages could be demonstrated which the great complaints of the Teachers of several Ages renders impossible Thirdly because through the working of mans thoughts in apprehending and considering and explaining truths many things are concluded as consequences and explications of truths which were not received from the former age thus in almost all the Books and Discourses of the Papists and in the Book of this Authour are many particular assertions considerations and speculations which were not received from the open Tradition of the foregoing Age and they are here delivered and may hence by others be received Fourthly there may also be a combination through great viciousness or disrelish of truth against some particular truth which opposeth either the outward interest or the corrupt life Thus God complains of the Jews Jer. 5.30 The Prophets prophesie falsely and the Priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so Fifthly there may possibly be an omission of the delivery of many things to be delivered and true and I dare say it is impossible for this Author to prove upon his Principles that all truths are handed down from one Generation to another either amongst the Learned or the Vulgar and yet it will concern him to do it concerning every revealed truth since he rejects or at least will not own the distinction of truths into fundamental and not fundamental All these things considered there can be no certainty that there is any sure Tradition § 8. He saith The second Property belongs to Tradition to wit it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to any inquirer For it is certain if
be proved Yea evident it is that among the most eminent Fathers who lived not long after the Apostles daies there are acknowledged some errors and they were not alone in them but had many partakers and followers Cyprian erred about re-baptizing Justin Martyr Papias Irenaeus Lactantius and others were in the error of the Chiliasts and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors and in Clemens Alexandrinus and much more in Tertullian and Origen So that though this ground if the others all hold may help us to know the great points of Religion yet it can be no security to all the truths of God from the multitude of Believers The second ground is of the time nature with the former which concerns only the chief truths of Religion in the generality of Christians For the faithful could not while free from error believe this which is an error that the want of understanding any truth of God was the way to damnation for S. Paul saith expresly that they must receive the weak in the faith and God hath received him and God is able to make him stand Rom. 14.1 3 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth which they had evidence was of God was likewise dreadfully dangerous which would ingage them to hold fast all the truth they had received upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them yet would not the same inforcements lie upon them to shew the necessity either of their own knowing or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect and milk for the weak Yet I also assert that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel in the Apostles daies who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation who had capacities of understanding them but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes And the love of God and his truth would excite all the faithful as they had opportunity both to indeavour to know all truth of God and also firmly to receive and declare it but this will not free them from all ignorance or capacity of erring The third ground is many waies imperfect and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand for first it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers or to the greatest number of the Church visible but alas how evident is it that in all Ages the causes of hope and fear have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ as well as corrupting the practice of Christians and they who reject a good Conscience are in a ready way to make shipwrack of the Faith what possible security can be given that those Motives hopes and fears are a firm security to preserve Doctrine Secondly though it is not to be doubted but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears who had this Doctrine delivered to them yet considering that such pious men if considered as Fore-Fathers might have careless and wicked Children or as Priests and Teachers might have careless and irreligious Successors there must needs appear very great danger that in any family or place this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued by the prevalency of such hopes and fears Nor is this only a Notion since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresie and promoted it and taught it to their Children And since it is evident that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church there can be from this ground no rational security given that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful to deliver faithfully according to what they had received because it appears they did not act as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do His last ground likewise is unsound for in the way of Tradition all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable not only because as is abovesaid much may be undelivered by the truly faithful and much perversely delivered by the corrupt and much mistaken but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition For first we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles or without such a form if they deliver the Apostles very words it cannot be doubted but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it since the same words must needs signifie the same things But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery as the Rule of Faith pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth But a delivery without a form of words is only a delivery of what is conceived judged or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation and this is a way liable to error because it relies on the skill of every Generation or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner to every succession of deliverers Now as it is not certain that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth so for certain Controversies and Disputes they shew in many things that mens apprehensions are not unerrable Secondly if it had been certain that some in the late past Generations did deliver all truths fully yet in the way of Oral Tradition it cannot be known evidently who they are and which is that true Tradition for all men acquainted with Church History know that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church as about the Religious use of Images in the
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
the Wicked and Evil-doers Even in Aaron's blessing the People God declared that he himself would bless them And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing which cometh upon them who serve him The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless in turning Men from their Iniquities to such he begins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing Mat. 5.3.4 Luke 24.50 51 and this also was the last action he perform'd immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications For when not only the Apostles but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came Mat. 10.12 13 Luke 10.5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace being according to the usual Jewish Phrase a comprehension of all Blessing our Saviour tells them that if the Son of Peace be there their Peace shall rest upon it if not it shall turn to them again The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation Ordination receiving Penitents Matrimony and to dying Persons but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome Hier. adv Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World to be performed by the Bishop only And in our Administration thereof the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God 3. They who receive this Ministry are to guide the Church and Christian Society that its Members may please God not forfeit his Favour or provoke his Displeasure The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church who are the chief Governours thereof and the things established by their consent and agreement The Church of God is a most excellent Society and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God Titus 1.7 and such publick Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof and also of establishing Order and Decency and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power yet the directive part and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Presidents Hence Inferiours are required to obey them that are over them and submit themselves and Titus was sent to Crete to order the things that were wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7 17.24 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2 and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter to take care of the Church of God And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship to them also belongs the setting apart and consecrating Places for the publick Service of God But because there can be no security for Order where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity which is in it self desirable and ought to be observed not only with respect to the secular Sanction but together therewith in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods which hath in all Ages from the Apostles been honoured in the Christian Church of which the observation of the Canons of the several Councels and Codes is an experimental Evidence And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Act. 16.4 5. Act. 21.18 24 26. Act. 8.14 And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. And to that other Council Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council And since Christians being established in the Truth is of great use both to their own and the Churches Peace in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines and to require submission to the Truth they declare This was done in the Synod of the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision and in the four first general Councils concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of the Mediator And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine when managed aright have been deservedly reverenced in the Church since one end of God's appointing these Officers is that we should be no more Children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture and the Catholick and Primitive Church Besides these things all particular Officers of the Church in their charge are to watch over those committed to them as much as in them lies with special regard to the Sick and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion John 21.15 it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders of casting them out of the Church and of restoring them again upon Repentance This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour Mat. 18.18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven There is indeed a late Objection made that these words speak not of binding and loosing Persons but Things and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and loosing of Things not of Persons meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allow'd But besides what may be otherwise said I think it sufficient at present to observe that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words which if interpreted by it will import 1. That the power of binding and loosing hath a considerable respect to such things as the Cases Offences and Penitent Performances of persons
and sutably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Priviledges 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are intrusted to bind and continue or to loose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules and accordingly the Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I forgive it also in the Person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power is for Edification not Destruction both to the whole Church and to the Offender that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation The general result of all I have said is That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance and such persons who have a low esteem thereof if they have any reverence for their Saviour let them seriously consider whether he who is Truth and Goodness can be thought to use such high expressions in this case as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and such like to impose upon the World which he came to guide and save and upon his Church which he so dearly loves with empty sounds of great things which signify little or nothing What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook according to some Canons the strict observation of Penance Conc. Ancyr c. 16. Elib c. 2 7 47 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years and even to the end of their Life that they might obtain Absolution and the Peace of the Church and its Communion And under this severe Discipline as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis de Poenit. c. 9. they did ly in Sackcloth and Ashes they never used such Cloaths or Diet as might appear pleasant they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting Prayers and Tears crying to God day and night and among other things they made humble Supplication even upon their Knees unto the Members of the Church and fell down prostrate before its Officers it being their custom Presbyteris advolvi charis Dei adgeniculari And all this was done in the greatest degree while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power But that which they apprehended and which I doubt not to be true Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni is that as Chemnitius expresseth it Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit peccata remittit it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry viz. where they proceed according to his Will And as under the Law he who trespassed beside the amendment of his fault and restitution either in things Sacred or Civil was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering for obtaining the Mercy of God even so under the Gospel he who performs the other conditions of Christianity ought where it may be had to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin and the receiving this Testimony together with that of a good Conscience upon a Christian Penitent Deportment is next to the great Absolution by Christ the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort Only I must here add which I desire may be particularly observed that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins and other Blessings of the Gospel to them who fall not under gross enormities and the censures of the Church though performed also in its degree in Doctrine and other Benedictions and Absolutions is chiefly done by Administring the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism wherein may be obtained remission of Sins Wherefore I conceive that as that Man who being converted to Christianity doth profess the Doctrine and embrace the practice thereof in other things but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour and runs himself upon the needless hazard of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof even so is it with those adult persons who being otherwise piously disposed do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper which is particularly appointed of God to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice for remission of Sins and other blessings of the Covenant to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same And if this which to me seemeth a great Truth was duly heeded the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion and other Services of God would be as it was in the Primitive Times generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance in Persons adult and resolving upon a true Christian course of life Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom truly asserteth Chrysost in 2 Cor. 2.5 That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice and by his Ministry But the Priestly Authority according to the Romish Ordination Pontif. Rom. is chiefly placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing their Form being Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass That is properly Ordo Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9. c. 1. saith F. Layman where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchos in which as also in the Council of Trent it self Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil Trid. Sess 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders partly upon this account and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour Indeed here it must be granted and asserted that the
construction needful in private and publick cases And as a preservative against this sin it is needful that we regulate our passions and maintain a due government over them and set a watch over our lips humbly begging the aid of divine assistance And we must also take care that we allow a favourable construction and a candid interpretation to the words and actions of others especially of our Superiours And to this both ingenuity and Christian charity will direct and oblige us Wise men have justly condemned those persons who are guilty of calumny against a Law in wresting the words thereof to a sense never intended to the prejudice of Authority This is done in some degree when by subtil quirks the letter of a Law is in a forced interpretation observed but the true sense and meaning neglected This fault hath been taxed by the (g) Nimis callida malitiosa juris Interpretatione Cic. de Offic. l. 1. Arist Eth. l. 5. c. 10. gravest Authours as a calumny and the (h) Cod. l. 1. Tit. 14. kg. 5. Civil Law hath particularly provided against it and this includes a false suggestion against the prudence and good design of Authority But besides this there is an higher degree of calumny when a Law or the words or actions of Rulers is odiously represented to intend some ill thing which is contrary to the mind of the Law-giver and this is a reproach against the goodness care and integrity of the Governour And the practice of this which is too frequent gave occasion to Queen Elizabeths admonition to simple people deceived by malicious 40. And towards all men Yet it is prudent to have a cautious jealousie of ill men a favourable interpretation is usually suitable to charity Yet it must not be denied that there are so many men of dangerous and pernicious principles and practices that towards them cautiousness and suspicion in policy and prudence is necessary for preventing the mischiefs which may otherwise ensue The History of all Ages will give us instances of ill designs against publick peace and settlement carried on by fair words and plausible pretences and it is great wisdom to discover and lay open the ill designs of these men and not to be beguiled by them And with respect to the Church even in the Apostolical times there were some who with good words deceived the hearts of the simple Rom. 16.18 And afterwards many Hereticks would use Orthodox words in an heretical sense as the Pelagians would speak much of (i) Aug. de Grat. Chr. cont Pelag. Celest l. 1. c. 1 2. grace in a wrested meaning and in some Councils the subtil Arians gained advantage by the over-great unwariness and charity of other well-meaning Bishops But the considering these cases will not allow any unwarrantably to defame others but will direct them wisely honestly and cautelously to provide in their places for the securing themselves and the publick good and welfare of Church and State And these are things which principally concern Governours and Rulers whom God hath placed over others in the Church or Common-wealth but it is of universal obligation to all Christians that true kindness and general love and due respect to all men especially to Superiours should prevail in them 41. And let those Christians Charity towards revilers required who are opprobriously and injuriously aspersed together with pious stedfastness and resolution embrace the temper of Christian Charity And let nothing of ill will take place in their hearts towards those who revile or slander them but let them heartily pity their folly and their sin A person of common prudence if he discern a distracted man raving and complaining highly against those who deserve well from him will commiserate the mans sad condition who would never have done so if he had not been bereaved of his judgement and understanding And the want of a Christian temper of mind is as sad a thing and on that account deserves as much pity as the loss of the capacities of reason and knowledge Let us therefore pray for them who thus behave themselves towards us Thus as (k) Basil Hom. de Ira. S. Basil urgeth did Moses in this case make intercession for Miriam and David humbled his soul with fasting for those who slandered him and our Saviour prayed for his enemies He commands us to do the like for them who despitefully use us and our Church directs us to beseech God to forgive our enemies persecutors and slanderers and to turn their hearts Wherefore let none render evil for evil but overcome evil with good And the right management of this duty is a considerable action in our Christian warfare It was the consideration of S. (l) Aug. cont lit Petil. l. 3. c. 11 12. Austin when he was reproached by the tongue and writings of Petilian that we are assaulted by good report as a trial whether we can withstand the temptations to pride and by evil report to prove us whether we love our enemies and it is our work to overcome the Devil by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left And upon a due behaviour in our conflict we may expect a reward and crown 42. 'T is necessary for them who have reproached their Rulers to acknowledge their fault and repent To all this I shall now add what I desire may be well considered and therefore I chuse to close this first part therewith and that is That Christianity will engage them who truly practise it that if they have offended in uttering any thing reproachfully or disrespectfully against their Superiours they freely acknowledge their fault and by no means continue in it This may be sufficiently inferred from the general necessity of repentance from all sins and offences against any part of our duty and therefore if this be so heinous a sin as I have manifested it calls aloud for serious repentance But besides this I shall more particularly to this purpose observe that in this special case thus much is taught us by the behaviour of S. Paul in that place which I have before mentioned and shall now more largely explain and insist on Acts 23.2 3 4 5. Where when Ananias the High Priest The example of S. Paul with respect to Ananias proposed or a Chief Priest had commanded him v. 2. to be smitten on the mouth Then said Paul unto him v. 3. God shall smite thee thou Whited Wall for sittest thou to judge me after the Law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the Law And v. 4. when they that stood by said Revilest thou Gods High Priest Then v. 5. said Paul I wist not brethren that he was the High Priest or a Chief Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people 43. These words are acknowledged to have some difficulty in them and have been very variously interpreted but according to that sense which I