true Church If the first way then it must first be known what are the true and genuine Doctrines of Christianity the stedfast belief of which causeth this Society to become the true Church But if the true Church be known only from some external Notes these Notes are either taught by Scripture or found out by the light of Reason If taught by Scripture then the knowledge of the Divine Authority of Scripture is antecedent to the knowledge of the true Church and consequently independent on it For otherwise Scripture will be believed for the Authority of the Church and the Church for the Authority of Scripture which is a manifest Circle Besides in this case that grand Article of Belief in the Holy Catholick Church will be received not from Tradition but from the Scripture and consequently Scripture not Tradition will be the primary Rule of Faith. Lastly if the Notes of the Church may be found out by Natural Reason then to pass by the infinite Contradictions which would arise from such a Proposition these Notes can be no other than Antiquity Universality Perpetuity and such like every one of which doth some way or other presuppose the knowledge of the true Doctrines of Christianity as well as those of the present Church For the end of these Notes is to compare the former with the latter and consequently both of them must be first known Lastly It can never be proved that Tradition was assigned by God as a Rule of Faith. For this proof must be taken either from the Scriptures or from Tradition Not from the first for not to say that Scripture is wholly silent in this matter such a supposition would destroy it self and involves a manifest Contradiction For if it be a Point of Faith that Tradition is the Rule of Faith and this Article is deduced and received only from Scripture then Scripture is the immediate Rule of one Article of Faith and the mediate Rule of all other Articles and consequently Tradition cannot be the Rule of Faith. No less absurd is it to imagine any Proof of this Article can be drawn from Tradition For we can never be assured the Tradition of this very Article is of Divine Authority and consequently infallible until we be first satisfied that God by assigning Tradition for a Rule of Faith conferred Divine Authority upon it which is the matter now in question Thus have I briefly pointed out some Arguments which prove that Tradition neither is nor can be the Rule of Faith. And indeed all Ages of Christianity have been so far satisfied of the truth of this that in all Controversies the Catholicks no less constantly appealed to Scripture than the Hereticks recurred to Tradition The pretence of Tradition is so easie and impossible to be refuted by the meaner Christians that no wonder if Hereticks always took this more compendious way when to pretend the Authority of Scripture would have been too palpable and too gross an impudence The Standard of written Truths continued always the same and could not be universally corrupted Whereas Tradition might securely be adapted to the most absurd and contrary Opinions since to effect that Design no more was required than the confidence or mistake of Hereticks pretending to have received their own Dreams and Errors as necessary Articles of Faith from their Forefathers Thus all the Hereticks of the three first Centuries when the true and genuine Tradition of the Church might much more easily be known than it can be at this day proposed their Heresies under the venerable name of Apostolick Traditions which pretence they carried on so far that they published the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Traditions of almost every Apostle and Apostolick Man wherein they committed to Writing those revealed Truths which they believed the Apostles to have preached and have left unwritten In vain should the Fathers and Writers of the Church have recurred to the true and genuine Tradition of unwritten Revelations since they could never demonstrate that this true Tradition was rather to be found among them than among those Hereticks For many of these Heretical Sects were contemporary with or began immediately after the Apostles were vastly numerous and scattered through the whole Church and consequently could put in so fair a claim for Tradition that no human wit could ever have determined the Question if the Scripture had not been called in and opposed to such unreasonable pretensions Accordingly Scripture was ever pleaded by the Catholicks and the pretence of unwritten Revelations derived down by oral Tradition was then esteemed as a Characteristick Note of Hereticks Thus S. Augustin and before him Clemens Alexandrinus complain of the Hereticks of their times Tertullian assures us it was the usual evasion of Hereticks to decline the Scriptures and flee to Tradition pretending that the Apostles published not the Gospel to all People nor committed all revealed Truths to Writing but delivered many Articles of Faith secretly to approved Men which Articles were no other than their own Heresies In the same manner the Hereticks opposed by S. Irenaeus were wont when urged with the Authority of Scripture and their perfect silence as to those Articles which they obtruded upon the World to plead the Imperfection of the Holy Scriptures that they were not intended by God as a Rule of Faith Because the Truth could not be learned from them by those who were ignorant of Tradition For that the Christian Faith was not delivered by Writing but by Word of Mouth or by Oral Tradition To produce but one Example more Eunomius the Heretick in his Apology extant in Manuscript in S. Martin's Library every where pleadeth the Tradition of precedent Ages and professeth to follow that as his only Rule of Faith. It is necessary saith he for those who treat of matters of Faith setting before them the holy Tradition which hath all along obtained from the times of the Fathers as a Rule and Canon to make use of this accurate Rule to judge of those things which shall be said Afterwards proposing his blasphemous Opinion about the Holy Ghost he introduceth it with this Preface Exactly following the Doctrine of the Holy Fathers and receiving it from them we believe c. This then was the Artifice and Practice of the ancient Hereticks What the Practice of the Catholick Fathers was in opposing these Hereticks or establishing any necessary Article of Faith that they accounted Scripture to be the only adequate Rule of Faith and to contain in express and plain words all things necessary to be believed that they rejected all Articles which could not be thence deduced as spurious and false or at least uncertain and unnecessary and always asserted the Sufficiency of Scripture I will not here insist to prove since that Point hath been so often handled and cleared by the Writers of our Church more particularly by Bishop Taylor to whom I remit the Reader My Design and the Age of that
Treatise which I now publish require me to descend lower and demonstrate that even in latter Ages it was the commonly received Opinion of the Church that Scripture is the Rule of Faith. And this alone will as evidently overthrow the Plea of Tradition as if the Consent of all Ages herein were demonstrated For since Tradition is the perpetual Succession of any Doctrine conveyed down in the Church by word of mouth from the Apostles to this present time if this Succession were in any Age whatsoever interrupted it can no more claim the Title of Tradition than if it had never been believed So that if it can be proved the Doctrine of Tradition being the Rule of Faith was in any Age of the Church disbelieved not only the proof of this Article from Tradition will fail but even the Article it self will appear to be evidently false For it is not possible that Tradition should be the Rule of Faith if that very Article that Tradition is the Rule of Faith were not delivered down by an uninterrupted succession of Belief for then it would not be the Rule of that very Article Besides it is absurd that the Church of any Age should have power of declaring what the Tradition of Faith is and consequently of fixing the Rule of Faith and yet be so far from being conscious of any such power inherent in her that she disbelieved it Not to say that if at any time Tradition was not believed by the Church to be the Rule of Faith and yet at the same time divers Articles of Faith were defined by the Church Tradition must necessarily ever since have ceased to be the Rule of Faith since otherwise all Definitions of the Church must indifferently be admitted made by her both when she followed and when she deviated from the Rule of Faith and consequently the Faith of all private Christians must be subjected to infinite uncertainty Now to prove that the Tradition of this Article was in any Age of the Church interrupted and discontinued it is not necessary that all members of the Church should then agree in the disbelief of it that no Doctors should believe Tradition to be the Rule of Faith or none maintain the Insufficiency of Scripture It is sufficient that some Divines of great name who lived and died in the Communion of the Church were ever held in great esteem both for Piety and Learning and never censured by the Church for any erroneous Opinions much less for Hereticks that some such I say disbelieved this Article and maintained Scripture to be the Rule of Faith. For if any such were then the contrary Opinion could not be the belief of the universal Church much less an Article of Faith. That there were such Doctors I shall immediately prove by producing their own Words and thereby demonstrate my intended purpose And not only so but farther shall therewith render it highly probable that it was the generally received Opinion of the Church at that time that Scripture not Tradition is the Rule of Faith by all those Arguments which a question of this Nature will admit I mean by the authority of the most eminent Writers and publick practice of the Church in Councils For it cannot be imagined that so many Learned Persons esteemed as it were the Oracles of their Times and Pillars of the Church should either be ignorant of the Doctrine of the Church touching the Fundamental Principle of Faith or if willfully opposing it should obtain or conserve to themselves so great a Reputation or that the General Councils of that time should in their Sessions and Disputations permit the Sufficiency of Scripture to be laid down as an uncontroverted Principle without giving some check to so grand an Error That the Church therefore in the fifteenth Age did generally believe the Scripture to be the Rule of Faith and contain all things necessary to Salvation may be evidently demonstrated from this Treatise which I now publish The Author of which was far the most Eminent and Learned Bishop of the Church of England in his time a person who as himself assures us had spent more than twenty years in writing Controversial Books against the Lollards when he composed this Treatise and who every where giveth manifest proof of his great Learning So eminent a person cannot be supposed to have been ignorant of the general Belief of the Church in his time concerning the Rule of Faith nor will his apparent zeal for the Interest of the Church permit us to believe that he wilfully opposed the Doctrine of the Church in whose Service he employed the greatest part of his life or that when he so zealously pleaded the Cause of the Church against the Lollards he should himself depart from the Church in her principal Article and therein become a Lollard Since therefore he plainly asserts and teacheth that Scripture is the Rule of Faith this undeniably proves that the belief of this Proposition was not in the time of our Author accounted any part of Lollardism or supposed Heresie but rather esteemed an Article of Catholick Belief at least an Article which might be freely disputed without violating the Definitions or dissenting from the universal Belief of the Church And indeed our Author in the beginning of this Discourse assureth us that the Doctors of his time disagreed in determining whether the Church or Scripture were chiefly to be respected in the resolution of Faith. One thing may be objected against the Authority of our Author That he was forced by the ruling Clergy to recant several Opinions and Doctrines taught by him as erroneous and consequently that he cannot be esteemed a Doctor of the Church But here not to say that the sentence of two or three partial Bishops for no more condemned him is not to be accounted the Judgment of the Church of England this very Recantation addeth no small strength to our Argument For when the malice of his Enemies obliged him to recant all those Doctrines which they esteemed to be erroneous they took no notice of his having asserted Scripture to be the only Rule of Faith nor obliged him to recant that Proposition a manifest Argument that it was not then accounted either heretical or erroneous or contrary to the received Doctrine of the Church since otherwise they would not have failed to place it in the front of his Recantation as an Error of an higher degree and greater contagion than any of those for which he stood condemned which in truth were so far from being Heresies that they were all at that time maintained by many eminent Divines who never were censured by the Church and some of them so far true that no Learned Man of the Church of Rome will at this day deny them And this also fully clears our Author from any suspicion of Lollardism or secret inclination to it That he was not singular herein defended no Paradox nor opposed any Doctrine of the Church I come next to prove The
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Treatise of Reginald Peacock c. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D. D. Wilhelm Archiep. Ã Sac. Dom. c. Ian. 12 1687. A TREATISE PROVING SCRIPTURE To be the Rule of Faith. WRIT BY REGINALD PEACOCK Bishop of CHICHESTER before the REFORMATION About the Year MCDL LONDON Printed for Iames Adamson at the Angel and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard 1688. PREFACE IF in any part of the Christian Religion an undoubted Certainty and most firm Assurance may justly be required if a scrupulous Examination and curious Enquiry may ever be allowed in Matters of Religion certainly an exact Knowledge of the Rule of Faith will deserve as our first so our chief Consideration For since the Articles of Christianity are not in themselves self-evident nor can be found out by the sole principles of Reason since all revealed Religions are no farther credible than as they can demonstrate their Revelation to have been true and real some Rule was necessary which might propose to Mankind those Articles of Faith which Reason could not suggest and propose them also with such evidence as that the denial of assent should in all become irrational What this determinate Rule is hath been the great Controversie of this and all preceding Ages However all parties agree in affixing some certain properties to it whereby it may be distinguished and indeed without which it can never supply the Office or serve the ends of a true Rule These may be reduced to four Heads That it be able safely and inviolably to convey down all revealed necessary Truths That it be fitted to propose them clearly and invariably to all Mankind That it be independent on all other revealed Articles And lastly that it be assigned as a Rule by God the Author of all revealed Religion If either of the two first Conditions be deficient the Rule will be unuseful if either of the latter uncertain and without authority The Scripture enjoys all these properties in so eminent a manner that no reasonable Doubt can be made of the Truth of it For if we consider that whatsoever is revealed may be pronounced whatsoever is pronounced may be written down and whatsoever is committed to Writing may be preserved safe while those Writings are preserved unaltered we must conclude that any revealed Religion may be intirely and without danger of mistake proposed from written Books to the universal Belief of Mankind since these will afford a standing Rule both to Pastors of teaching of their People and to the People of examining the Doctrine of their Pastors in case of Diffidence The independence of Scripture from all other revealed Articles is no less evident For that these Books were indeed written by those persons whose names they bear and these persons highly credible is known by the same evidences whereby the Authors and Credibility of any other Books are known I mean by the concurrent testimony and consent of all succeeding Ages considered not as a Collection of Men professing the Christian Faith but as persons devoid neither of common sense nor integrity as they must have been if they had mistaken themselves or deluded us in believing and then testifying a matter of fact so easie to be known and more easie to be remembred Being thus assured of the Credibility of Scripture that it was written by such Historians who really either performed or saw those Miracles which they do attest we cannot but believe these Miracles and consequently that the Authors and Founders of the Christian Religion acted by a Divine Commission and may reasonably command our assent to their Revelations Being thus assured of the Divine Authority of the Scriptures we may probably conclude from the nature and end of them but most certainly from their own Testimony that they contain all things necessary to Salvation and are the only Rule of Faith and all this although we did not yet believe any other Article of the Christian Religion On the other side Tradition wants every one of those Conditions which are necessarily required to a Rule of Faith. For first we can never be assured that any Articles were invariably and intirely without any addition or diminution conveyed down to us by Tradition since it hath been in all Times and Ages observed that Matters of Fact much more of Belief not immediately committed to Writing presently degenerated into Fables and were corrupted by the capricious Malice or Ignorance of Men. Nothing can exempt the Tradition of the Christian Religion from this Fate at least from our reasonable suspicions of it but the Infallibility of that Society of Men which conveys down this Tradition But the latter can never be known till this certainty of Tradition be first cleared and presupposed since the Belief of this supposed Infallibility must at last be resolved into the sole truth and certainty of Tradition In the next place Tradition cannot certainly and invariably propose the Belief of Christianity to all private persons For from whence shall this Tradition be received from a Pope or a Council or both or from none of these but only the Universal Church In every one of these Cases infinite difficulties will occur which will singly appear insuperable As who is a true Pope what his intentions in defining were whether he acted Canonically in what sense he hath defined What Councils whether Oecumenical Patriarchal or Provincial may be securely trusted What are the necessary Conditions and Qualifications of a General Council Whether all these Conditions were ever observed in any Council What these Councils are what they have defined what is the true sense and intention of their Definitions From whom must we learn the Belief of the Universal Church if Popes and Councils be rejected From all Christians or only from the Clergy If from the later whether the assent of every member of the Clergy be required If not how great a part may safely dissent from the rest From whom the opinion of the major part is to be received Whether from the Writings of Doctors or the teaching of living Pastors If from the latter whether it be sufficient to hear one or a few Parish Priests or all or at least the major number are personally to be consulted All these Difficulties may be branched out into many more and others no less insuperable be found out which will render the Proposal of Religion by way of Tradition if not utterly impracticable at least infinitely unsafe Thirdly Tradition is so far from being independent on other Articles of the Christian Faith that the Belief of all other Articles must be presupposed to it For since all Sects propose different Traditions and the truth of none of them is self-evident it must first be known which is the true Church before it can be determined which is the true Tradition Now the knowledge of the true Church can be obtained only two ways either from the Truth of her Doctrines or from the external Notes of a
School Divinity was at that time universally received in the Church of Rome taught in all Universities and Schools and by long use become in great measure the Doctrine of the Church The most famous and celebrated Author of this Divinity was S. Thomas Aquinas whose Writings were then in all Mens hands universally applauded and religiously embraced Some few Divines indeed dissented from him and followed the System of Scotus but this Disagreement respected not the Rule of Faith nor indeed any material point of Divinity but only some abstracted Notions and Scholastick Niceties of Divinity The Doctrine therefore of Aquinas is to be esteemed the general opinion of the Divines and Writers of those times It cannot be here objected against the force of our Argument that the same Divinity is yet retained and taught in most Popish Countries although the Doctrine of the Scriptures Sufficiency be rejected The Method of Reasoning and Disputing is now infinitely altered among the Writers of the Roman Church from what it was before the Reformation Before that time they made no difficulty to acknowledge and even urge the necessity of Reformation whereas now the Honour of their Church obligeth them to declare it both unnecessary and unlawful While Scripture was yet looked up in an unknown Tongue and removed from the knowledge of the Laity who were then generally very ignorant they were not ashamed to make confident Appeals for the Truth of their Doctrine to the Holy Scriptures When that Veil was removed the Scriptures translated and the World become more intelligent and inquisitive some other Artifice was to be found out which might preserve the Credit of antient Errors and defend them from the silence and opposition of Scripture To this end no stratagem could conduce more than the constant Artifice of all Innovators in Religion the Plea of Tradition Before that lesser Artifices could hide the Deformity of their Errors and while ignorant Christians could be securely misled with false and sometimes foolish Interpretations of Scripture while Ecce duos gladios was thought sufficient to evince the coercive Power of the Pope over temporal Princes and Arabant boves juxta comedebant asini could effectually perswade the Laity intirely to resign up their Judgments to the Direction of the Clergy there was no need of any desperate Remedy but when persons became so far inquisitive as to inquire into Reasons of Things and demand some better Authority for the belief of Articles imposed on them nothing less than the arrogant pretence of an infallible Tradition could secure and palliate the contradiction of impossible Propositions To prove therefore Aquinas his Doctrine concerning the Rule of Faith to have been intirely agreeable to that of our Author I will go no farther than his Sum of Divinity the most famous and best known of all his Works In the beginning of it laying down the Principles upon which Divinity and the proofs of Religion ought to proceed he saith That this Holy Doctrine useth the Authority of Philosophers as extraneous and only probable but the Authorities of Holy Scripture as properly belonging to her and concluding necessarily or infallibly but the Authorities of other Doctors of the Church as properly indeed belonging to her but concluding only probably For our Faith is founded upon the Revelation made to the Apostles and Prophets who wrote the Canonical Books of Scripture and not upon any Revelation made to other Doctors if any such there be Whence S. Augustin saith in his Epistle to S. Hierom To the Books of Scripture only which are called Canonical have I learned to pay this honour that I should most firmly believe none of their Authors to have erred in any thing in composing them In the two next Articles it is inquired whether Holy Scripture may use Metaphors and contain diverse senses under one and the same Letter In both places the Objections are thus formed These Qualities would be incongruous to a Rule of Faith but the Scripture is the Rule of Faith. This last Proposition is no where reinforced in the Objections but laid down as an uncontroverted Principle Aquinas in answering them no where denies Scripture to be the Rule of Faith but endeavours to take off the incongruity of a metaphorical and ambiguous Style to the Rule of Faith and in answer to both Objections hath these words Although Metaphors and Allegories be found in Scripture yet doth Holy Scripture suffer no detriment or imperfection thereby For nothing necessary to Faith is contained under the hidden sense which Scripture doth not somewhere manifestly deliver in the literal sense Afterwards being about to dispute of God and the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation he proposeth this as a most certain and undoubted Principle That we ought to affirm nothing of God which is not found in Holy Scripture either in words or in sense conformably to what the Master of Sentences and Founder of the School Divinity had before taught who inquiring what Method is to be observed in treating of the Trinity answers That it must in the first place be demonstrated according to the Authorities of Holy Scripture whether the Christian Faith teacheth it or not and in what manner But to return to Aquinas he asserteth Scripture to be the Rule of Faith in many other places of his Summ. Thus disputing of the nature and properties of the New Law or Covenant he inquires whether it be a written Law. in resolving of this Question he opposeth not the written Law to Tradition but to the Law written in the Hearts of Men by the virtue and operation of the Holy Ghost and at last concludeth thus The New Law is principally that very Grace of the Holy Ghost which is written in the Hearts of the Faithful but secondarily it is the written Law in as much as those things are delivered in it which either dispose to Grace or respect the use of that Grace Here the very nature of this Question and comparison of the Written with the New Law supposeth that the whole System of revealed Truths is contained in the written Law and lest we should doubt of this supposition the latter part of the Passage now cited plainly determines it But to proceed Aquinas often reneweth this supposition and at last comparing the Old with the New Testament he determines thus All things which are plainly and explicitely delivered to be believed in the New Testament are delivered also to be believed in the Old Testament but implicitely and obscurely And in this respect also as to matters of Belief the new Law is contained in the old But if all matters of Belief in the new Law be contained in the Old Testament and whatsoever is contained in the Old Testament is plainly and explicitly taught in the New Testament then the New Testament doth not only contain all matters of Belief in the New Law but also which is more considerable proposeth them clearly and explicitly He intimates