heretic or his tenet as heresy But this is so notoriously false as nothing is more and it is infinitely confuted by all the Catalogues and books of the fathers reckoning the heresies where they are pleased to call all opinions they like not by the names of heresy Haeres 90. Philastrius writes against them as heretics and puts them in his black Catalogue who expounds that of making man in the image and likeness of God spoken of in Genesis to signifie the reasonable soul and not rather the Grace of the Holy Spirit He also accounts them heretics who rejected the LXX and followed the translation of Aquila which in the Ancient Church was in great reputation Some there were who said that God hardned the heart of Pharaoh Haeres 77. and these he calls heretics and yet this heresy is the very words of Scripture Haeres 71. and some are reckon'd heretics for saying that the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha was before Noahs flood But more consider able is that heresy Haeres 74. which affirm'd that Christ descended into hell and there preach'd to the detained that they who would confess him might be sav'd Now if Philastrius or any other writer of heretics were in this case infallible what shall become of many of the Orthodox fathers who taught this now condemned doctrine So did Clemens Alexandrinus Anastasius Sinaita S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Ambrose and divers others of the most eminent fathers and S. Austin affirm'd that Christ did save some but whether all the damned then or no he could not resolve Euodius who ask'd the question * Vide Jacob. Vsser primat Hibern cap. de limbo PP That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all upon any account was unanimously taught by S. Hilary and S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose and Theophylact * Vide Erasmum in declarat ad Censuras Facult Thed Paris p. 52. edit Froben A. D. 1532 no not cum exigitur jus-jurandum aut cum urget necessitas and that it is crimen Gehenna dignum a damnable sin Whether that was the doctrine of the Church of Rome in those days I say not but if it were why is the Church of Rome of a contrary judgement now If it were not then a consenting testimony of many fathers even of the greatest ranke is no irrefragable argument of the truth or Catholic tradition and from so great an union of such an authority it was not very hard to imagine that the opinion might have become Catholic from a lesser spring greater streams have issued but it is more than probable that there was no Catholic oral tradition concerning this main and concerning article and I am sure I. S. will think that all these fathers were not only fallible but deceiv'd actually in this point By these few instances we may plainly see what little of infallibility there is in the fathers writings when they write against heretics or heresies or against any article and how then shall we know that the fathers are at all or in any case infallible I know not from any thing more that is said by I. S. But this I know that many chief men of his side do speak so slightly and undervalue the fathers so pertly that I fear it will appear that the Protestants have better opinion of them and make better use of the Fathers than themselves Praefat. in Pentateuch What think we of the saying of Cardinal Cajetan If you chance to meet with any new exposition which is agreeable to the Text c. although perhaps it differ from that which is given by the whole current of the Holy Doctors I desire the Readers that they would not too hastily reject it And again Let no man therefore reject a new exposition of any passage of Scripture under pretence that it is contrary to what the Ancient Doctors gave In Epiph. p. 244. What think we of those words of Petavius There are many things by the most Holy Fathers scattered especially S. Chrysostom in his Homilies which if you would accommodate to the rule of exact truth they will seem to be void of good sense P. 110. And again there is cause why the authority of certain Fathers should be objected for they can say nothing but what they have learned from S. Luke neither is there any reason why we should rather interpret S. Luke by them than those things which they say by S. Luke And Maldonate does expresly reject the exposition which all the Authors In Matth. 16. 18. which he had read except S. Hilary give of those words of Christ The gates of hell shall not prevail against it De sacr tom orig continentiâ apud Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 15. vide etiam hist. Conc. Trident l. 7. Michael Nedina accuses S. Hierom as being of the Aerian heresy in the Qu. of Episcopacy and he proceeds further to accuse S. Ambrose S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact of the same heresy And Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto expresly affirms that he had rather believe one single Pope In Epist. ad Rom. c. 14. than a thousand Augustines Hierom's or Gregories I shall not need any further to instance how the Council of Trent hath decreed many things against the general doctrines of the fathers as in the placing images in Churches the denying of the Eucharist to Infants the not including the Blessed Virgin Mary in the general evil of Mankind in the imputation of Adams sin denying the Chalice to the Laity and Priests not officiating the beatification and Divine vision of Saints before the day of judgment If it were not notorious and sometimes confessed that these things are contrary to the sense of a troop of fathers there might be some excuse made for them who give them good words and yet reject their authorities so freely that it sometimes seems to pass into scorn But now it appears to be to little purpose Sess. 4. that the Council of Trent enjoyns her Clergy that they offer not to expound Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers for though this amounts not to the height of I. S. his saying it is their avowed and constant doctrine that they are infallible but ad coercenda petulantia ingenia the contrary is done and avowed every day And as the fathers prov'd themselves fallible both as such in writing against heretics and in testifying concerning the Churches doctrine in their age so in the interpretations of Scripture in which although there be no Universal consent of Fathers in any interpretation of Scripture concerning which questions mov'd so the best and most common consent that is men of great note recede from it with the greater boldness by how much they hope to raise to themselves the greater reputation for wit and learning Sess. 11. And therefore although in the sixth General Council the Origenists were condemned for bringing
or the authority of plain Scriptures but this will be nothing to I. S. his hypothesis for if a part of the Catholic Fathers did deliver the contrary there was no irrefragable Catholic Oral tradition of the Church when so considerable a part of the Church delivered the contrary as their own doctrine which is not to be imagin'd they would have done if the consent of the Church of that age was against it And if we can suppose this case that one part of the Fathers should say this is the doctrine of the Church when another part of the Fathers are of a contrary judgment either they did not say true and then the Fathers testimony speaking as witnesses of the doctrine of the Church of their age is not infallible or if they did say true yet their testimony was not esteemed sufficient because the other Fathers who must needs know it if it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church then do not take it for truth or sufficient And that Maxime which was received in the Council of Trent that a Major part of voices was sufficient for decreeing in a matter of reformation but that a decree of faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict relies upon the same reason faith is every mans duty and every mans concern and every mans learning and therefore it is not to be supposed that any thing can be an article of faith in which a number of wise and good men are at difference either as Doctors or as witnesses And of this we have a great testimony from Vincentius Lirinensis Common c. 3. In ipsa item Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim verè propriéque Catholicum Not that which a part of the Fathers but that which is said every where always and by all that is truly and properly Chatholic and this says he is greatly to be taken care of in the Catholic Church From all these premisses it will follow that the Dissuasive did or might to very good purpose make use of the Fathers and if I did there or shall in the following Sections make it appear that in such an age of the Ancient Church the doctrines which the Church of Rome at this day imposes on the world as articles of faith were not then accounted articles of faith but either were spoken against or not reckoned in their Canon and Confessions it will follow that either they can make new articles of faith or at least cannot pretend these to be articles of faith upon the stock of Oral Catholic tradition for this cannot be at all if the Catholic Fathers were though Unequally divided in their testimony The rest of I. S. his last Way or Mine is but bragging and indeed this whole Appendix of his is but the dregs of his sure-footing and gives but very little occasion of useful and material discourse But he had formerly promised that he would give an account of My relying on Scripture and here was the place reserved for it but when he comes to it it is nothing at all but a reviling of it calling of it a bare letter Unsens't outward characters Ink thus figur'd in a book but whatsoever it is he calls it my main most fundamental and in a manner my only principle though he according to his usual method of saying what comes next had said before that I had no Principle and that I had many Principles All that he adds afterwards is nothing but the same talk over again concerning the Fathers of which I have given an account I hope full enough and I shall add something more when I come to speak concerning the justification of the grounds of the Protestant and Christian religion Only that I may be out of I. S. his debt I shall make it appear that he and his party are the men that go upon no grounds that in the Church of Rome there is no sure-footing no certain acknowledged rule of faith but while they call for an assent above the nature and necessity of the thing they have no warrant beyond the greatest Uncertainty and cause their people to wander that I may borrow I. S. his expression in the very sphere of contingency THE SECOND PART OF The Dissuasive from Popery The first Book SECTION I. Of the Church shewing that The Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith THat the Scriptures are infallibly true though it be acknowledged by the Roman Church yet this is not an infallible rule to them for several reasons 1. Because it is imperfect and insufficient as they say to determine all matters of Faith 2. Because it is not sufficient to determine any that shall be questioned not onely because its authority and truth is to be determin'd by something else that must be before it but also because its sense and meaning must be found out by something after it And not he that writes or speaks but he that expounds it gives the Rule so that Scripture no more is to rule us then matter made the world until something else gives it form and life and motion and operative powers it is but iners massa not so much as a clod of earth And they who speak so much of the obscurity of Scripture of the seeming contradictions in it of the variety of readings and the mysteriousness of its manner of delivery can but little trust that obscure dark intricate and at last imperfect book for a perfect clear Rule But I shall not need to drive them out of this Fort which they so willingly of themselves quit If they did acknowledge Scripture for their Rule all Controversies about this would be at an end and we should all be agreed but because they do not they can claim no title here That which they pretend to be the infallible Judge and the measure of our faith and is to give us our Rule is the Church and she is a rock the pillar and ground of truth and therefore here they fix Now how little assurance they have by this Confidence will appear by many considerations 1. It ought to be known and agreed upon what is meant by this word Church or Ecclesia For it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church cannot be a Rule or Guide if it be not known what you mean when you speak the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Suidas His body viz. mystical Christ calls his Church Among the Greeks it signifies a Convention or Assembly met together for publick imployment and affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Aristophanes understands it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there not a Convocation or an Assembly called for this Plutus Now by Translation this word is us'd amongst Christians to signifie all them who out of the whole mass of mankind are called and come and are gathered together by the voice and call of God to
words of Scripture and the Apostles Creed for a sufficient rule of their faith but are threatned with damnation if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determin'd and yet they neither do nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest or Confessor it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing and be of any religion and trust to any Article as they shall choose and find to their purpose The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures they both not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith and so the most learned and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other and yet Master White who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours affirms that it is not the Catholick position That all its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent gives a very good account of it and makes it excellent sense Thus Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture saith the Council and wonder not for saith Master White all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture You may believe so if you please for the contrary is not a Catholick doctrine But if these two things do not agree better then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says the People know not that but as their Priest teaches them And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion yet that the Priests themselves do not know it or wilfully mis-report it and therefore that the people cannot tell it it is too evident in this instance and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves about many considerable Articles in their Catholick religion Vide Wadding of Immac oncept p. 282. p. 334. alibi Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena Now they not relying on the way of God fall into the hands of men who teach them according to the interest of their order or private fancy and expound their rules by measures of their own but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it and is not always as appears in the instance now set down faithful in relating of it but first consens himself by his subtilty and then others by his confidence and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way when God hath so plainly given them a better and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture and in the Apostolical Creed in which they can suffer no illusion and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believ'd IV. The next thing I observe is that they all talking of the Church as of a charm and sacred Amulet yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where or how infallibly to find this Church I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry by shewing that the Church is that body which they do not rely upon but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. cap. 17. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis eam Ecclesiam requiramus cap. 3. affirms that the Church is no whereto be found but in Praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus in the Scriptures only And he gives but one great note of it and that is adhering to the head Jesus Christ for the Church is Christ's body who by charity are united to one another and to Christ their Head and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation And he adds no other mark but that Christ's Church is not this or that viz. not of one denomination but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head Bellarm. de Eccles Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia not Jesus Christ but the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome and the Greek Church and indeed of all other Churches of the world is so far from being a sign to know the Church by that it is apparent they have no ground of their Faith but the great Question of Christendom and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves is their foundation And this is so much the more considerable because concerning very many Heads of their Church it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ but the basest of Criminals and Enemies of all godliness And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked they could not be certain that they were members of Christ or that they were not of their Father the Devil The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition and Judas fell from it by transgression But the uncertainties are yetgreater Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church because no man can be certain who is true Pope For the Pope if he be a Simoniac is ipso facto no Pope as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal which when he broke the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain who intended to accuse him of Simony but it broke the Pope's heart and so he escaped here and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent and yet not to be seen in it and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome he forbad the Archbishop of
it is now If he can prove it was so at first he may be justified but else at no hand And I and all the world will be strangely to seek what the Church of Rome means by making conformity to the Primitive Church a note of the true Church if being now as it is be the rule for what it ought to be For if so then well may we examine the primitive Church by the present but not the present by the primitive 5. 5. If the present Catholick Church were infallible yet we were not much the nearer unless this Catholick Church could be consulted with and heard to speak not then neither unless we know which were indeed the Catholick Church There is no word in Scripture that the testimony of the present Church is the infallible way of proving the unwritten word of God and there is no tradition that it is so that I ever yet heard of and it is impossible it should be so because the present Church of several ages have had contrary traditions And if neither be why shall we believe it if there be let it be shewed In the mean time it is something strange that the infallibility of a Church should be brought to prove every particular tradition and yet it self be one of those particular traditions which proves it self But there is a better way Vincentius Lerinensis his way of judging a traditional doctrine to be Apostolical and Divine is The consent of all Churches and all Ages It is something less that S. Austin requires Lib. 2. de doct Christiana c. 8. Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurimùm sequatur authoritatem inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere Epistolas accipere meruerunt He speaks it of the particular of judging what Books are Canonical In which as tradition is the way to judge so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholick Churches particularly those places where the Apostles did sit and to which the Apostles did write But this fancy of S. Austin's is to be understood so as not to be measur'd by the practise but by the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches For that any or more of these Churches did or did not do so is no argument that such a Custom came from the Apostles or if it did that it did oblige succeeding ages unless this Custom began by a doctrine and that the tradition came from the Apostles with a declaration of it's perpetual obligation And therefore this is only of use in matters of necessary doctrine But because there is in this question many differing degrees of authority he says that our assent is to be given accordingly Those which are receiv'd of all the Catholick Churches are to be preferr'd before those which are not receiv'd by all and of these those are to be preferr'd which have the more and the graver testimony but if it should happen which yet is not that some are witnessed by the more and others by the graver let the assent be equal This indeed is a good way to know nothing for if one Apostolical Church differ from another in a doctrinal tradition no man can tell whom to follow for they are of equal authority and nothing can be thence proved but that Oral tradition is an uncertain way of conveying a Doctrine But yet this way of S. Austin is of great and approved use in the knowing what Books are Canonical and in these things it can be had in some more in some less in all more than can be said against it and there is nothing in succeeding times to give a check to our assents in their degrees because the longer the Succession runs still the more the Church was established in it But yet concerning those Books of Scripture of which it was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of the Apostolical Canon of Scripture there ought to be no pretence that they were deliver'd for such by the Apostles at least not by those Churches who doubted of them unless they will confess that either their Churches were not founded by an Apostle or that the Apostle who founded them was not faithful in his Office in transmitting all that was necessary or else that those Books particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews c. were no necessary part of the Canon of Scripture or else lastly that that Church was no faithful keeper of the Tradition which came from the Apostle All which things because they will be deny'd by the Church of Rome concerning themselves the consequent will be that Tradition is an Uncertain thing if it cannot be intire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture it is hardly to be trusted for any thing else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations But in other things it may be the case is not so For we find that in divers particulars to prove a point to be a Tradition Apostolical use is made of the testimony of the three first Ages Indeed these are the likest to know but yet they have told us of some things to be Traditions which we have no reason to believe to be such Onely thus far they are useful If they never reported a doctrine it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles and if the order of succession be broken any where the succeeding ages can never be surer If they speak against a doctrine as for example against the half-Communion we are sure it was no Tradition Apostolical if they speak not at all of it we can never prove the Tradition for it may have come in since that time and yet come to be thought or call'd Tradition Apostolical from other causes of which I have given account And indeed there is no security sufficient but that which can never be had and that is the Universal positive testimony of all the Church of Christ which he that looks for in the disputed Traditions pretended by the Church of Rome may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias So much as this is can never be had and less than this will never do it I will give one considerable instance of this affair The Patrons of the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin-mother Salmeron disp 51. in Rom. 5. allege that they have the consent of almost the Universal Church and the agreeing sentence of all Universities especially of the chief that is of Paris where no man is admitted to be Master in Theology unless he binds himself by oath to maintain that doctrine They allege that since this question began to be disputed almost all the Masters in Theology all the Preachers of the Word of God all Kings and Princes republiques and peoples all Popes and Pastors and Religions except a part of one consent in this doctrine They say that of those Authors which are by the other side pretended against it some are falsly cited others are wrested and brought in against their
The Second Part OF THE DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY In Vindication of THE FIRST PART And further REPROOF and CONVICTION OF THE ROMAN ERRORS By Jer. Taylor Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First and late Lord Bishop of Downe and Conner Curavimus Babylonem non est Sanata LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the Kings most Excellent Majesty at the Angel in S. Bartholomew's Hospital MDCLXVII DIEV ET MON DROIT SOIT · QVI · MAL · Y · PEâ—â—â—â— A Table of the SECTIONS The Introduction in Answer to J. S. The first Book contains Eleven Sections SECTION I. OF the Church shewing That the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith Page 1 Sect. II. Of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation 63 Sect. III. Of Traditions 102 Sect. IV. That there is nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 144 Sect. V. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavors to alter and suppress the old Catholick Doctrine 171 Sect. VI. Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church 192 Sect. VII The uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others 205 Sect. VIII The insecurity of the Roman Religion 222 Sect. IX That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men 236 Sect. X. Of the Seal of Confession 239 Sect. XI Of the imposing Anricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God 249 The Second Book contains Seven Sections SECTION I. OF Indulgences Page 1 Sect. II. Of Purgatory 13 Sect. III. Of Transubstantiation 56 Sect. IV. Of the half Communion 86 Sect. V. Of Service in an unknown Tongue 98 Sect. VI. Of the worshipping of Images 106 Sect. VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity 145 IMPRIMATUR THO. TOMKINS R. R mo in Christo Patri ac Domino Dno GILBERTO Divinâ Providentià Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi à Sacris Domesticis Junii 29 0 1667. Ex Aedibus Lambethanis THE INTRODUCTION BEING An Answer to the fourth Appendix to J. S. his Sure Footing intended against the General way of procedure in the Dissuasive from Popery WHen our Blessed Saviour was casting out the evil spirit from the poor Daemoniac in the Gospel he asked his name and he answered My name is legion for we are many Legion is a Roman word and signifies an Army as Roman signifies Catholic that is a great body of men which though in true speaking they are but a part of an Imperial Army yet when they march alone they can do mischief enough and call themselves an Army Royal. A Squadron of this legion hath attempted to break a little Fort or Outwork of mine they came in the dark their names concealed their qualities unknown whether Clergy or Laity not to me discovered only there is one pert man amongst them one that is discovered by his sure footing The others I know not but this man is a man famous in the new science of controversie as he is pleased to call it I mean in the most beauteous and amiable part of it railing and calumny The man I mean is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Confident the man of principles and the son of demonstration Dr. H. H. and though he had so reviled a great Champion in the Armies of the living God that it was reasonable to think he had cast forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the fiery darts of the wicked one yet I find that an evil fountain is not soon drawn dry and he hath indignation enough and reviling left for others amongst whom I have the honour not to be the least sufferer and sharer in the persecution He thought not fit to take any further notice of me but in an Appendix The fourth appendix to sure footing the Viper is but little but it is a Viper still though it hath more tongue than teeth I am the more willing to quit my self of it by way of introduction because he intends it as an Organum Catholicum against the General way of the procedure which I have us'd in the Dissuasive and therefore I suppose the removing this might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make my way smoother in the following discourses I will take no other notice of his evil language his scorn and reproach his undervaluing and slighting the person and book of the Dissuader as he is pleased sometimes to call me but I shall answer to these things as S. Bernard did to the tempation of the Devil endeavouring to hinder his preaching by tempting to vanity I neither began for you nor for you will I make an end but I shall look on those Rhetorical flowers of his own but as a fermentum his spirit was troubled and he breathed forth the froth as of an enraged Sea and when he hath done it may be he will be quiet if not let him know God will observe that which is to come and require that which is past But I will search and see what I can find of matter that is to be considered and give such accounts of them as is necessary and may be useful for the defence of my Book and the justification of my self against all ruder charges And after I have done so I shall proceed to other things which I shall esteem more useful The first thing I shall take notice of is his scornful and slight speaking of Scripture affirming that he is soonest beaten at this weapon that it is Sampsons hair it is the weakest part in the man And yet if it be the weakest it is that which S. Paul calls the weakness and foolishness of preaching more strong and more wise than all the wisdom of man When the Devil tempted our Blessed Saviour he us'd Scripture but Christ did not reprove his way of arguing but in the same way discovered his fraud Scriptum est said the Tempter yea but scriptum est said Christ to other purposes than you intend and so would I. S. have proceeded if he had been at all in love with the way But he thinks he hath a better and the wonder is the less that the Gentleman does not love the Scriptures or at least gives too much suspicion that he does not for he hath not yet proved himself by his writings to be so good a Christian as to love his enemies or his reprovers But however he is pleased to put a scorn on Scripture expressions it were much better if he and his Church too would use them more and express their articles they contend for and impose them on the Christian world in the words and expressions of Scripture which we are sure express the minde of God with more truth and simplicity than is done by their words of art and expressions of the Schools If this had been observed Christendom at this day had had fewer controversies and more truth and more charity we should not
remaining miracle and intail of infallibility in the Church to go on in the delivery of this for by that time that all the Apostles were dead and the infallible spirit was departed the Scriptures of the Gospels were believed in all the world and then it was not ordinarily possible ever any more to detract faith from that book and then for the transmitting this book to after ages the Divine providence needed no other course but the ordinaary ways of man that is right reason common faithfulness the interest of souls believing a good thing which there was and could be no cause to disbelieve and an Uniuersal consent of all men that were any ways concern'd for it or against it and this not only preach'd upon the house tops but set down also in very many writings This actually was the way of transmitting this book and the authority of it to after ages respectively These things are of themselves evident yet because I. S. still demands we should set down some first and self evident principle on which to found the whole procedure I shall once more satisfie him And this is a first and self evident principle whatsoever can be spoken can be written and if it he plain spoken it may be as plain written I hope I need not go about to demonstrate this for it is of it self evident that God can write all that he is pleased to speak and all good scribes can set down in writing whatsoever another tells them and in his very words too if he please he can as well transcribe a word spoken as a word written And upon this principle it is that the Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be as easily understood after they are written in a book as when they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians and the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ his doctrines the doctrines of faith as plain as they did speak them at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which they were written which is the salvation of our souls And what necessity now can there be that there should be a perpetual miracle still current in the Church and a spirit of infallibility descendant to remember the Church of all those things which are at once set down in a book the truth and authority of which was at first prov'd by infallible testimony the memory and certainty of which is preserved amongst Christians by many unquestionable records and testimonies of several natures 2. As there was no necessity that an infallible Oral tradition should do any more but consign the books of Scripture so it could not do any more without a continual miracle That there was no continued miracle is sufficiently prov'd by proving it was not necessary it should for that also is another first and self-evident principle that the All wise God does not do any thing much less such things as miracles to no purpose and for no need But now if there be not a continued miracle then Oral tradition was not fit to be trusted in relating the particulars of the Christian Religion For if in a succession of Bishops and Priests from S. Peter down to P. Alexander the seventh it is impossible for any man to be assured that there was no nullity in the ordinations but insensibly there might intervene something to make a breach in the long line which must in that case be made up as well as they can by tying a knot on it It will be infinitely more hard to suppose but that in the series and successive talkings of the Christian religion there must needs be infinite variety and many things told otherwise and somethings spoken with evil purposes by such as preach'd Christ out of envy and many odd things said and doctrines strangely represented by such as creep into houses and lead captive silly women It may be the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches did preach right doctrines for divers ages but yet in Jerusalem where fifteen Bishops in succession were circumcis'd who can tell how many things might be spoken in justification of that practice which might secretly undervalue the Apostolical doctrine And where was the Oral tradition then of this proposition If ye be circumcis'd Christ shall profit you nothing But however though the Bishops did preach all the doctrine of Christ yet these Sermons were told to them that were absent by others who it may be might mistake something and understand them to other senses than was intended And though infallibility of testifying might be given to the Church that is to the chief Rulers of it for I hope I. S. does not suppose it subjected in every single Christian man or woman yet when this testimony of theirs is carried abroad the reporters are not always infallible And let it be considered that even now since Christianity hath been transmitted so many ages and there are so many thousands that teach it yet how many hundreds of these thousands understand but very little of it and therefore tell it to others but pitifully and imperfectly so that if God in his Goodness had not preserv'd to us the surer word of the prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures Christianity would by this time have been a most strange thing litera scripta manet As to the Apostles while they lived it was so easie to have recourse that error durst not appear with an open face but the cure was at hand so have the Apostles when they took care to leave something left to the Churches to put them in minde of the precious doctrine they put a sure standard and fixt a rule in the Church to which all doubts might be brought to trial and against which all heresies might be dashed in pieces But we have liv'd to see the Apostolical Churches rent from one another and teaching contrary things and pretending contrary traditions and abounding in several senses and excommunicating one another and it is impossible for example that we should see the Greeks going any whither but to their own superiour and their own Churches to be taught Christian Religion and the Latins did always go to their own Patriarch and to their own Bishops and Churches and it is not likely it should be otherwise now than it hath been hitherto that is that they follow the religion that is taught them there and the tradition that is delivered by their immediate superiours Now there being so vast a difference not only in the Great Churches but in several ages and in several Dioceses and in single Priests every one understanding as he can and speaking as he please and remembring as he may and expressing it accordingly and the people also understanding it by halves and telling it to their Children sometimes ill sometimes not at all and seldom as they should and they who are taught neglecting it too grosely and attending to it very carelesly and forgeting it too quickly and which is worse yet men expounding it according to
the next best had been to have suppress'd and forgotten it instantly for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists and it could have no determination but the mere nature of the thing it self all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptize in water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and this was an admission to Christianity not to any sect of it and if this had been consider'd wisely so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form there could be no more in it And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose so far was it from being an Article of Faith 4. The next pretence is that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is an Article of our Faith and yet no where told in Scripture and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith To this some very excellent persons have oppos'd this Consideration that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words show that the Controversie it self is trifling or mistaken But though I wish them agreed yet when I consider that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Florence they never understood one another to purposes of peace I am apt to believe that those who would reconcile them shew their piety more than the truth of the thing and that the Greeks and Latins differ'd intirely in this point But then that on the Latin side there should be a tradition Apostolical can upon no other account be pretended but that they could not prove it by Scripture or shew any Ecclesiastical law or authority for it Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine not only from Scripture but also from immemorial tradition that is that they have not innovated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them and on the other side that the Latins have contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus superadded the clause of Filióque to the Constantinopolitan-Creed and that by authority of a little Convention of Bishops at Gentilly neer to Paris without the consent of the Catholick Church and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron Contr. le Râ—y Jaques p. 709. not only the Scripture favours the Greeks but Reason also because it is unimaginable that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind and although the three Persons created the world yet that production was from the Divine essence which is but one principle but the opinion of the Latius is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from two Persons as Persons and therefore from two principles it will be very hard to suppose that because all this is against them therefore it is certain that they had this from Apostolical tradition The more natural consequence is that their proposition is either mistaken or uncertain or not an article of Faith which is rather to be hop'd lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels or perverse Hereticks or else that it can be deriv'd from Scripture which last is indeed the most probable and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins who examin'd things by reason and not by prejudice But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this Titius was accus'd to have deserted his station in the Battel and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna He answers I must either have received Orders from the General or else you must suppose me to be a Coward or a Traytor for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline Well what if you be suppos'd to be a Coward or Traytor what hurt is in that supposition But must I conclude that you had Order from the General for fear I should think you did it on your own head or that you are a Traytor That 's the case Either this proposition is deriv'd to us by Apostolical tradition or we have nothing else to say for our selves well Nempe hoc Ithacus velit The Greeks allow the argument and will say thus You had nothing to say for your selves unless we grant that to you which is the Question and which you can never prove viz. that there is for this Article an Apostolical tradition but because both sides pretend that let us try this thing by Scripture And indeed that 's the only way And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted and turned upon himself For he saying It is not in Scripture therefore it is a tradition of the Church it is as good an argument It is not deliver'd to us by universal Tradition therefore either it is not at all or it is deriv'd to us from Scripture and upon the account of this for my part I do believe it 5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron is the observation of the Lord's Day but this is matter of discipline and external rite and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith or essentially necessary doctrine the consideration is differnt from the rest And it is soon at an end but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Circumcision into Baptism and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical or Lord's-day He might as well have added They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ the Law into the Gospel the Covenant of works into the Covenant of faith Ceremonies into substances and rituals into spiritualities And we need no further inquiry into this Question but to consider Perron ibid. 710. what the Cardinal says that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law Now I demand Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture for the abolishing of the law of Ceremonies If there be then the law of the Sabbath is abolished It is part of the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ nail'd to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory the Church is at liberty but that there should be a time sanctified or set apart for the proper service of God I hope is also very clear from Scripture and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the presidents of religion and then it will follow from Scripture that the Apostles or their Successors or whoever did appoint the Sunday-festival had not onely great reason but full authority to appoint that day and that this was done early and continued constantly for the same reason and by an equal authority is no question But as to the Sabbath S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law and particularly name 's the Sabbath-days Colos. 2. 16. saying They all were a shadow of things
not fully observed others according to the quality of the matter and time being obliterated or abrogated by the Magistery of the whole Church De Coron milit cap. 3. â— Tertullian speaks of divers unwritten Customs of which tradition is the author custom is the confirmer and faith is the observer Such are the renunciations in the office of Baptism trine Immersion tasting milk and honey abstinence from the Bath for a week after the receiving the Eucharist before day or in the time of their meal from the hand of the presisidents of Religion anniversary oblations on birth-days and for the dead not to fast not to kneel on Sundays perpetual festivities from Easter to Whitsuntide not to endure without great trouble bread or drink to fall upon the ground and at every motion to sign the forehead with the sign of the Cross. Some of these are rituals and some are still observed and some are superstitious and observ'd by no body and some that are not may be if the Church please these indeed were traditions or customes before his time but not so much as pretended to be Apostolical but if they were are yet of the same consideration with the rest If they be customs of the Church they are not without great reason and just authority to be laid aside But are of no other argument against Scripture than if all the particular customs of all Churches were urg'd For if they had come from the Apostles as these did not yet if the Apostles say dicit Dominus they must be obeyed for ever but if the word be dico ego non Dominus the Church hath her liberty to do what in the changing times is most for edification And therefore in these things let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions Apostolical she please of this nature the Church may keep them or lay them aside according to what they judge is best For if those Canons and traditions of the Apostles of which there is no question and which are recorded in Scripture yet are worn out and laid aside those certainly which are pretended to be such and cannot be proved cannot pass into perpetual obligation whether the Churches will or no. I shall not need upon this head to consider any more instances because all the points of Popery are pretended to rely upon Tradition The novelty of which because I shall demonstrate in their proper places proving them to be so far from being traditions Apostolical that they are mere Innovations in Religion I shall now represent the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of Traditions in ordinary and the certain deceptions of those who trust them the impossibility of ending many questions by them I shall not bring the usual arguments which are brought from Scriptures against traditions because although those which Christ condemns in the Pharisees and the Apostles in Heretical persons are not reprov'd for being Traditions but for being without Divine authority that is they are either against the Commandment of God or without any warrant from God yet if there be any traditions real and true that is words of God not written they if they could be shown would be very good But then I desire the same ingenuity on the other side and that the Roman Writers would not trouble the Question or abuse their Readers by bringing Scriptures to prove their traditions not by shewing they are recorded in Scripture 2. Thes. 2. but by bringing Scriptures where the word tradition is nam'd 2. Tim. 2. For besides that such places cannot be with any modesty pretended as proofs of the particular traditions it is also certain that they cannot prove that in General there are or can be any unrecorded Scripture when the whole Canon should be written consign'd and entertain'd For it may be necessary that traditions should be call'd on to be kept before Scriptures were written and yet afterwards not necessary and those things which were deliver'd and are not in Scripture may be lost because they were not written and then that may be impossible for us to do which at first might have been done But this being laid aside I proceed to Considerations proper to the Question 1. Tertullian S. Hierom and S. Austin are pretended the Great Patrons of Tradition and they have given rules by which we shall know Apostolical Traditions and it is well they do so for sand ought to be put into a glass and water into a vessel something to limit the running element that when you have receiv'd it you may keep it A nuncupative record is like figures in the air or diagrams in sand the air and the wind will soon disorder the lines And God knowing this and all things else would not trust so much as the Ten words of Moses to oral tradition but twice wrote them in Tables of Stone with his own singer Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 276. I know said S. Clement that many things are lost by length of time for want of writing and therefore I of necessity make use of memorials and collection of Chapters to supply the weakness of my memory And when S. Ignatius in his journey towards Martyrdom confirm'd the Churches through which he passed by private exhortations as well as he was permitted he exhorted them all to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles meaning that doctrine which was preach'd by them in their Churches and added this advice or caution Eusib lib. 3. That he esteem'd it was necessary that this Tradition should be committed to writing Eccles. hist. c. 35. Graec. that it might be preserv'd to posterity and Reports by word of mouth are uncertain that for want of good Records we cannot tell who was S. Peter's Successor immediately whether Clemens Theo loret l. r. c. 8. Eccles. hipâ— Linus or Anacletus and the subscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles having no record but the Uncertain voice of Tradition are in some things evidently mistaken and in some others very uncertain And upon the same account we cannot tell how many Bishops were conven'd at Nice Eusebius says they were 250. S. Athanasius says they were just 300. Eustratius in Theodoret Bellar. de Concil Eccles. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. De numerâ— says they were above 270. Sozomen says they were about 310. Epiphanius and others say they were 318. And when we consider how many pretences have been and are daily made of Traditions Apostolical which yet are not so a wise man will take heed lest his credulity and good nature make him to become a fool S. Clemens Alexandrinus says that the Apostles preach'd to dead Infidels and then rais'd them to life and that the Greeks were justified by their Philosophy and accounts these among the Ancient Traditions Epist. ad Episc. Antioch Pope Marcellus was bold to say that it was an Apostolical Tradition or Canon that a Council could not be called but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome
but the Churches in the first ages practis'd otherwise and the Greeks never believ'd it nor are all the Latin Churches of that opinion as shall be shown in the sequel The second Canon of the Council in Trullo commands observation of no less than fourscore and five Canons Apostolical deliver'd to the Church but besides that no Church keeps them there are not many who believe that they came from the Apostles S. Austin said that the Communicating of Infants was an Apostolical Tradition but neither the Protestants nor the Papists believe him in that particular Stromat lib. 1. lib. 2. c. 39. Clemens Alexandrinus said that Christ preach'd but one year S. Irenaeus confutes that Tradition vehemently and said it was an Apostolical Tradition That Christ was about 50 years of age when he died and therefore it must be that he preach'd almost 20 years for the Scripture says Matth. 4. 17. Jesus began to be about 30 years old Marc. 1. 14. when he was baptiz'd and presently after he began to preach Luc. 3. 23. Now this story of the great age of Christ Irenaeus says That all the old men that were with Saint John the Disciple of our Lord say that S. John did deliver unto them Nay not only so but some of them heard the same from others also of the Apostles There were many more of such traditions the day would fail to reckon all the Vnwritten Mysteries of the Church Cap. 29. said the Author of the last Chapters of the Book de Spiritu Sancto falsly imputed to S. Basil and yet he could reckon but a few all the rest are lost and of those that remain some are not at all observ'd in any Church But there cannot be a greater instance of the vanity of pretending Traditions than the collection of the Canons Apostolical by Clement Lib. 1. c. 18. Câ—â—h fide which Damascen reckons as parts of the New Testament that is equal to Canonical Writings of the Apostles but Isidore Hispalensis says they were Apocryphal made by hereticks and publish'd in the name of the Apostles Apud Gratian. dist 16. c. Canonâ—s but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them and yet their authority is receiv'd by many in the Church of Rome even at this day But it is to be observ'd that men accept them or refuse them not according to their authority which in all the first fifty at least is equal But if they be for their interest then they are Apostolical if against them then they are interpolated and Apocryphal and spurious and heretical as it hath happened in the fifth Canon and the 8â…˜ But this is yet more manifest if we consider what * Tract 26. in Matth. Oportet causè considerare ut nec omnia secreta quae feruntur nomine Sanctorum suscipiamus propter Judaeâ—s qui fortè ad destructionem veritatis Scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa nec omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent ad demonstrationem Scripturarum nostrarum magni ergo viri est audire adimplere quod dictum est Omni probate quod bonum est tenere Tamen propter eos qui non possunt quasi Trapezitae inter verba discernere vera hobeantur an falsa non possunt semetipsos cautè◠servare ut verum quidem teneant apud se ab omni autem specie malâ abstineant nemo uti dâ—bâ—t ad confirmationem dogmatum libris qui sunt extra Canonizatas Scripturas Origen says No man ought for the confirmation of doctrines or opinions to use books which are not Canoniz'd Scriptures Now for ought appears to the contrary many Traditions were two or three hundred years old the first day they were born and it is not easie to reckon by what means the Fathers came or might come to admit many things to be Tradition and themselves were not sure therefore they made rules of their conjecture presumptions and sometimes weak arguings It will be much more hard for us to tell which are right and which are wrong who have nothing but their rules which were then but conjectural and are since prov'd in many instances to be improbable 1. Such is that rule of S. Austin Lib. 4. de baptis contr Donat. c. 24. c. 6. Whatsoever was anciently receiv'd and not instituted so far as men looking back may observe by posterity that is not decreed by Councils may most rightly be believ'd to descend from Apostolical Tradition That is if we do not know the beginning of an universal custom we may safely conclude it to be Primitive and Apostolick Which kind of rule is something like what a witty Gentleman said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and Eve no man living could disprove them But though these persons are so old that no man remembers their beginning and though a custom be immemorial and hath prevail'd far and long yet to reduce this to the beginning of things may be presum'd by him that a mind to it but can never convince him that hath not And it is certain this rule is but a precarious pitiful Presumption since every ancient custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue may for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original like new upstart Gentlemen be entituled to an Honourable House Every one believes the Commandments of his Ancestors to be Traditions Apostolical said S. Hierom And that these came in by private authority and yet obtain'd a publick name we have competent warranty from Tertullian De Coronâ Milit. c. 4. who justifies it thus far Do you not think it lawful for every faithful man to appoint what ever he thinks may please God unto discipline and salvation And From whomsoever the Tradition comes regard not the Author but the Authority And S. Irenaeus tells Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 26. Gr. 24. Lâ—t that the variety of keeping Lent which puts in strongly also to be an Apostolical Tradition began among his Ancestors who did not accurately observe their customs who by a certain simplicity or private authority appointed any thing for their posterity So that here it is apparent that every private man that was of an ancient standing in the Church might introduce customs and usages which himself thought pious And next it is also evident that when these customs deriv'd from their Ancestors hapned to continue in a lasting use their posterity was very apt to call them Traditions Apostolical according to * Lib. de Coronâ Militis Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habitu um quandóque Apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis Tertullian who confessed this very thing Thus things indifferent being esteem'd useful or pious became customary and then came for reverence into a putative and usurp'd authority But they
Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 4. said S. Hierom and S. Austin calls the Sacrament Prece mystica consecratum Vide Divine instit of the Office Ministeriâ—l â—ect 7. Of the Real and Spiâ— presence Sect. 4. But of this thing I have given an account in other places The use I make of it now is this that the Church of Rome is not onely forward to decree things uncertain or to take them for granted which they can never prove but when she is by chance or interest or mistake faln upon a proposition she will not endure any one to oppose it and indeed if she did suffer a change in this particular not onely a great part of their Thomistical Theology would be found out to be sandy and inconsistent but the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation would have no foundation True it is this is a new doctrine in the Church of Rome for Amularius affirms that the Apostles did consecrate onely by Benediction and Pope Innocent the third and Pope Innocent the fourth taught that Christ did not consecrate by the words of Hoc est corpus meum so that the doctrine is new and yet I make no question he that shall now say so shall not be accounted a Catholick But the instances are many of this nature not necessary to be enumerated because they are notorious and when the Quaestiones disputatae as S. Thomas Aquinas calls a Volume of his Disputation are at least many of them past into Catholick propositions and become the general doctrine of their Church they do not so much insist upon the nature of the propositions as the securing of that authority by which they are taught If any man dissent in the doctrine of Purgatory or Concomitancy and the half Communion then presently Hannibal ad portas they first kill him and then damne him as far as they can But in the great questions of Predetermination in which mans duty and the force of laws and the powers of choice and the attributes of God are deeply concerned they differ infinitely and yet they endure the difference and keep the Communion But if the heats and interests that are amongst them had happened to be imployed in this Instance they would have made a dissent in these questions as damnable as any other But the events of salvation and damnation blessed be God do not depend upon the votes and sentences of men but upon the price which God sets upon the propositions and it would be considered that there are some propositions in which men are confident and erre securely which yet have greater influence upon the honour of God or his dishonour or upon good or bad life respectively than many others in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make more noise and have less consideration For these things they teach not as the scribes but as having authority not as Doctors but as Lawgivers which because Christ onely is the Apostles by the assistance of an infallible spirit did publish his Sanctions but gave no laws of faith but declar'd what Christ had made so and S. Paul was careful to leave a note of difference with a. hoc dico ego non Dominus it follows that the Church of Rome does dominari fidei conscientiis make her self mistress of faith and consciences which being the prerogative of God it is part of his glory that he will not impart unto another But this evil hath proceeded unto extremity and armies have been raised to prove their propositions and vast numbers of innocent persons have been put to the sword and burnt in the fire and expos'd to horrible torments for denying any of their articles and their Saints have been their Ensign bearers particularly S. Dominick and an office of torment and Inquisition is erected in their most zealous Countries Nempe hoc est esse Christianum this is the Roman manner of being Christian And whom they can and whom they cannot kill they excommunicate and curse and say they are damned This is so contrary to the communion of Saints and so expressly against the rule of the Apostle commanding us to receive them that are weak in faith but not to receive them unto doubtful disputations and so ruinous to the grace of charity which hopes and speaks the best and not absolutely the worst thing in the world and so directly oppos'd to Christs precept which commands us not to judge that we be not judged and is an enemy to publick peace which is easily broken with them whom they think to be damned wretches and is so forgetful of humane infirmity and but little considers that in so innumerable a company of old and new propositions it is great odds but themselves are or may be deceiv'd and lastly it is so much against the very law of nature which ever permits the Understanding free though neither tongue nor hand and leaves all that to the Divine Judgement which ought neither to be invaded nor antedated that this evil doctrine and practice is not more easily reproved than it is pernicious and intolerable and of all things in the world the most unlike the spirit of a Christian. I know that against this they have no answer to oppose but to recriminate and say that we in the Church of England do so and hang their priests and punish by fines and imprisonment their lay Proselytes To which the answer need not be long or to trouble the order of the discourse For 1. we put none of their Laity to death for their opinion which shews that it is not the Religion is persecuted but some other evil appendix 2. We do not put any of their Priests to death who is not a native of the Kingdoms but those subjects who pass over hence and receive orders abroad and return with evil errands 3. Neither were these so treated until by the Pope our Princes were excommunicated and the Subjects absolved from their duty to them and incouraged to take up arms against them and that the English Priests return'd with traiterous desings and that many conspiracies were discover'd 4. And lastly when much of the evil and just causes of fear did cease the severity of procedure is taken off and they have more liberty than hitherto they have deserv'd Now if any of these things can be said by the Church of Rome in her defence I am content she shall enjoy the benefit of her justification For her rage extends to all Laity as well as Clergy forreign Clergy as well as Domestick their own people and strangers the open dissentients and the secretly suspected those that are delated and those whom they can inquire of and own that which we disavow and which if we did do we should be reproved by our own sentences and publick profession to the contrary But now after all this if it shall appear that the danger is on the part of the Roman Church and safety on our side and yet that we in
would not be amongst them so much modesty as to abstain from the most absolute triumph and the fiercest declamations In the mean time our safety in this Article also is visible and notorious Against the saying of Saint Ambrose which in the Preface to the first part I brought to reprove this practice those who thought themselves oblig'd to object will find the quotation justified in the Section of the Half-Communion to which I referre the Reader 7. What a strange Uncharitableness is it to believe and teach that poor babes descending from Christian Parents if they die unbaptized shall never see the face of God and that of such is not the Kingdom of Heaven The Church of England enjoyns the Parents to bring them and her Priests to baptize them and punishes the neglect where it is criminal and yet teaches no such fierce and uncharitable proposition which can serve no end but what may with less damage and affrightment be very well secur'd and to distrust God's goodness to the poor Infants whose fault it could not be that they were not baptized and to amerce their no-fault with so great a fine even the loss of all the good which they could receive from him that created them and loves them is such a playing with Heads and a regardless treatment of Souls that for charity sake and common humanity we dare not mingle in their Counsels But if we erre it is on the safer side it is on the one side of mercy and charity These seven particulars are not trifling considerations but as they have great influence into the event of Souls so they are great parts of the Roman Religion as they have pleased to order Religion at this day I might instance in many more if I thought it necessary or did not fear they would think me inquisitive for objections therefore I shall add no more only I profess my self to wonder at the obstinacy of the Roman Prelates that will not consent that the Liturgy of their Church should be understood by the people They have some pretence of politick reason why they forbid the translation of the Scriptures though all wise men know they have other reasons than what they pretend yet this also would be considered that if the people did read the Scriptures and would use that liberty well they might receive infinite benefit by them and that if they did abuse that liberty it were the Peoples fault and not the Rulers but that they are forbidden that is the Rulers fault and not the Peoples But for prohibiting the understanding of their publick and sometimes of many of their private devotions there can be no plausible pretence no excuse of policy no end of piety and if the Church of England be not in this also of the surer side then we know nothing but all the reason of all man-kind is faln asleep Well however these things have at least very much probability in them yet for professing these things according to the Scriptures and Catholick tradition and right Reason as will be further demonstrated in the following paragraphs they call us Hereticks and sentence us with damnation Suarezius and Bellarmine confesse that to believe Transubstantiation is not absolutely necessary to salvation with damnation I say for not worshipping of Images for not calling the Sacramental Bread our God Saviour for not teaching for doctrines the Commandements of men for not equalling the sayings of men to the sayings of God for not worshipping Angels for not putting trust in Saints and speaking to dead persons who are not present for offering to desire to receive the Communion as Christ gave it to his Disciples they to all to whom they preach'd If these be causes of damnation what shall become of them that do worship Images and that do take away half of the Sacrament from the people to whom Christ left it and keep knowledge from them and will not suffer the most of them to pray with the Understanding and worship Angels and make dead men their Guardians and erect Altars and make Vows and give consumptive Offerings to Saints real or imaginary Now truly we know not what shall become of them but we pray for them as men not without hope only as long as we can we repeat the words of our Blessed Saviour He that breaks one of the least Commandments Matth. 5. 19. and teaches men so shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven SECTION IX That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandements of Men. THe former Charge hath occasion'd this which is but an instance of their adding to the Christian Faith new Articles upon their own authority And here first I shall represent what is intended in the reproof which our Blessed Saviour made of the Pharisees saying They taught for doctrines the Commandements of men And 2. I shall prove that the Church of Rome is guilty of it and the Church of England is not 1. The words of our Blessed Saviour are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Conjunctively that is In vain do ye worship me Matth. 15. 9. teaching doctrines and Commandements of men that is things which men only have deliver'd and if these once be esteemed to be a worshipping of God it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a vain worship Now this express'd it self in two degrees The first was in over-valuing humane ordinances that is equalling them to Divine Commandments exacting them by the same measures by which they require obedience to God's laws and this with a pretended zeal for God's honour and service Thus the Pharisees were noted and reproved by our Blessed Saviour 1. The things of decency or indifferent practices were counselled by their Forefathers in process of time they became approved by use and Custom and then their Doctors denied their Communion to them that omitted them found out new reasons for them were severe in their censures concerning the causes of their omission would approve none no not the cases and exceptions of charity or piety And this is instanc'd in their washings of cups and platters and the outside of dishes which either was at first instituted for cleanliness and decency or else as being symbolical to the Purifications in the Law but they chang'd the Scene enjoyn'd it as necessity were scandalized at them that us'd it not practis'd it with a frequency passing into an intolerable burden insomuch that at the marriage of Cana in Galilee there were six water-Pots set after the manner of the Purification of the Jews because they washed often in the time of their meals and then they put new reasons and did it for other causes than were in the first institution And although these washings might have been used without violation of any Commandment of God yet even by this Tradition they made Gods Commandment void by making this necessary and imposing these useless and unnecessary burdens on their brethren by making snares for Consciences
salvandi vel tenebris tantum afficiantur vel expiationis igne decoquantur quidam asserunt whether the judgment being pass'd besides the lower hell there remain a place for lighter punishments for that there is below or in hell a Purgatory place in which they that are to be sav'd are either affected aâ—ficiantur invested punish'd with darkness only or else are boiled in the fire of expiation some do affirm What is or can be more plainly said of Purgatory for the places of Scripture brought to confirm this opinion are such which relate to the interval between death and the last judgment juxta illud Patriarchae lugens descendum ad inferos illud Apostoli ipse autem salvus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem I hope the Roman Doctors will not deny but these are meant of Purgatory before the last day and therefore so is the opinion for the proof of which these places are brought 2. By post judicium in the title and transacto judicio in the Chapter Otho means the particular judgment passing upon every one at their death which he in a few lines after calls terminatis in judicio causis singulorum 3. He must mean it to be before the last great day because that which he says some do affirm quidam asserunt is that those which are salvandi to be sav'd hereafter are either in darkness or in a Purgatory fire which therefore must be meant of the interval for after the day of judgment is pass'd and the books shut and the sentence pronounc'd none can be sav'd that are not then acquitted unless Origens opinion of the salvation of Devils and damned souls be reintroduc'd which the Church before Otho many ages had exploded and therefore so good and great a person would not have thought that fit to be then disputed and it was not then a Question nor a thing Undetermined in the Church 4. Whether Otho means it of a Purgatory before or after the day of the last judgment it makes very much against the present Roman doctrine for Otho applies the Question to the case of infants dying without Baptism now if their Purgatory be before the day of judgment then I quoted Otho according to my own sense and his but if he means it to be after the day of judgment then the limbus infantum of the Roman Church is vanish'd for the scruple was mov'd about infants Quid de parvulis qui solo Originali delicto tenentur fiet and there is none such till after dooms day so that let it be as it will the Roman Church is a loser and therefore let them take their choice on which side they will fall But now after S. Austins time especially in the time of S. Gregory and since there were many strange stories told of souls appearing after death and telling strange things of their torments below many of which being gather'd together by the speculum exemplorum the legend of Lombardy and others some of them were noted by the Dissuasive to this purpose to shew that in the time when these stories were told the fire of Purgatory did not burn clear but they found Purgatory in baths in Eves of houses in frosts and cold rains upon spits rosting like Pigs or Geese upon pieces of Ice Now to this there is nothing said but that in the place quoted in the speculum there is no such thing which saying as it was spoken invidiously so it was to no purpose for if the objector ever hath read the distinction which is quoted throughout he should have found the whole story at large It is the 31. example page 205. Col. 1. printed at Doway 1603. And the same words are exactly in an Ancienter edition printed at the Imperial Town of Hagenaw 1519. Impensis Johannis Rynman But these Gentlemen care not for the force of any argument if they can any way put it off from being believ'd upon any foolish pretence But then as to the thing it self Post hoc apparuit eidem presbytero columna quaedam jubaris immensi cujus claritas ultra communem solis valentiam coruscare videbatur de coelâ— usque ad terram porrecta per quam anima quaedam Angelico ductu ad sydera contendebat Sciscitante verò presbytero quidnam hoc esset Respondit alter ipsa est anima Constantini quondam Judicius domini Turritani haec autem per novem annos ventis pluviis algoribus semper exposita à die exitus sui usque nunc in stillicidiâ— domus suae constitit ibique suorum excessuum poenas luit sed qui misericors liberalis in pauperes extitit judicium injuriaâ— patientibus fecit in super etiam de malis quae commisit confessa poenitens à corpore exivit idcircò misericordiam à Deo consecuta hodiernâ die meretur ab omnibus malis liberari c. Haec multa alia sacerdos ille vidit audivit de secretis alterius vitae though learned men deny the Dialogues of S. Gregory from whence many of the like stories are deriv'd to be his as Possevine confesses and Melchior Canus though a little timorously affirms yet I am willing to admit them for his but yet I cannot but note that those Dialogues have in them many foolish ridiculous and improbable stories but yet they and their like are made a great ground of Purgatory but then the right also may be done to S. Gregory his doctrine of Purgatory cannot consist with the present article of the Church of Rome so fond they are in the alledging of authorities that they destroy their own hypothesis by their undiscerning quotations For 1. S. Gregory P. affirms that which is perfectly inconsistent with the whole doctrine of Purgatory S. Greg. M. lib. 13. in Jobum c. 15. c 17. For he says That it is a fruit of our redemption by the grace of Christ our author that when we are drawn from our dwelling in the body Mox forthwith we are lead to coelestial rewards and a little after speaking of those words of Job Cum constat quod apud inferos justi non in locupoenalibus sed in superiori quietis sinu tenerentur magna nobis oâ—oritur questio quidnam sit quod B. Job asserit In profundissimum infernum descendunt omnia mea he says thus Since it is certain that in the lower region the just are not in poenal places but are held in the superior bosom of rest a great question arises what is the meaning of Blessed Job If Purgatory can stand with this hypothesis of S. Gregory then fire and water can be reconcil'd This is the doctrine of S. Gregory in his own works for whether the Dialogues under his name be his or no I shall not dispute but if I were studying to do honour to his memory I should never admit them to be his and so much the rather because the doctrine of the Dialogues contradicts the Doctrine
what I say Melch. 〈◊〉 loc Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. n. 8. Tertia Conclusio Plurium sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma argumenta Theologo sufficere praestare non valet If the Major part of Fathers consenting be not a sufficient argument as Canus here expresly says then no argument from the authority of Fathers can prove it Catholic unless it be Universal Not that it is requir'd that each single point be proved by each single Father as I. S. most weakly would infer for that indeed is morally impossible but that when the Fathers of the later ages of whom we speak are divided in sentence and interest neither from the lesser number nor yet from the greater can you conclude any Catholic consent Ecclesia Universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat it is not to be imputed to the Universal Church unless all of it agree and by this Abulensis asserts the indefectibility of the Church of God Abulens praef in Matth. q. 3. it never erres because all of it does never erre And therefore here is wholly a mistake for to prove a point de fide from the authority of the Fathers we require an Universal consent Not that it is expected that every mans hand that writes should be at it or every mans vote that can speak should be to it for this were unreasonable but an Universal consent is so required that is that there be no dissent by any Fathers equally Catholic and reputed Reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus if others though the fewer number do dissent then the Major part is not testimony sufficient And therefore when Vincentius Lirinensis and Thomas of Walden affirmed that the consent of the Major part of Fathers from the Apostles downwards is Catholic Canus expounds their meaning to be in case that the few Dissentients have been condemned by the Church then the Major part must carry it Thus when some of the Fathers said that Melchisedeck was the Holy Ghost here the Major part carried it because the opinion of the Minor part was condemned by the Church But let me add one caution to this that it may pass the better Unless the Church of that age in which a Minor part of Fathers contradicts a greater do give testimony in behalf of the Major part which thing I think never was done and is not indeed easie to be supposed though the following ages reject the Minor part it is no argument that the doctrine of the Major part was the Catholic doctrine of that age It might by degrees become Universal that was not so at first and therefore unless the whole present age do agree that is unless of all that are esteemed Orthodox there be a present consent this broken consent is not an infallible testimony of the Catholicism of the doctrine And this is plain in the case of S. Cyprian and the African Fathers I. S. p. 3. 4. denying the baptism of heretics to be valid Supposing a greater number of Doctors did at that time believe the contrary yet their testimony is no competent proof that the Church of that age was of their judgement No although the succeeding ages did condemn the opinion of the Africans for the question now is not whether S. Cyprians doctrine be true or no but whether it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church of that age It is answered it was not because many Catholic Doctors of that age were against it and for the same reason neither was their doctrine the Catholic because as wise and as learned men opposed them in it and it is a frivolous pretence to say that the contrary viz. to S. Cyprians doctrine was found and defin'd to be the faith and the sense of the Church for suppose it was but then it became so by a new and later definition not by the oral tradition of that present age and therefore this will do I. S. no good but help to overthrow his fond hypothesis This or that might be a true doctrine but not the doctrine of the then Catholic Church in which the Catholics were so openly and with some earnestness divided And therefore it was truly said in the Dissuasive That the clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholics do deny was not then a matter of faith or a doctrine of the Church If it had these dissentients publicly owning and preaching that doctrine would have been no Catholics but Heretics Against this I. S. hath a pretty sophism or if you please let it pass for one of his demonstrations Ibid. If one or two denying a point which many others affirm argues that it is not of faith then a fortiori if one or two affirm it to be of faith it argues it is of faith though many others deny it This consequent is so far from arising from the antecedent that in the world nothing destroys it more For because the denial of one or two argues a doctrine is not Catholic though affirm'd by many therefore it is impossible that the affirmation of one or two when there be many dissentients should sufficiently prove a doctrine to be Catholic The antecedent supposes that true which therefore concludes the consequent to be false for therefore the affirming a thing to be Catholic by two or three or twenty does not prove it to be so unless all consent because the denying it to be Catholic which the antecedent supposes by two or three is a good testimony that it is not Catholic I. S. his argument is like this If the absence of a few makes the company not full then the presence of a few when more are absent a fortiori makes the company to be full But because I must say nothing but what must be reduc'd to grounds I have to shew the stupendious folly of this argument a self evident Principle and that is Bonum and so Verum is ex integra causa malum ex qualibet particulari and a cup is broken if but one piece of the lip be broken but it is not whole unless it be whole all over And much more is this true in a question concerning the Universality of consent or of tradition For I. S. does praevaricate in the Question which is whether the testimony be Universal if the particulars be not agreed and he instead of that thrusts in another word which is no part of the Question for so he changes it by saying the dissent of a few does not make but that the article is a point of faith for though it cannot be supposed a point of faith when any number of the Catholic Fathers do profess to believe a proposition contrary to it yet possibly it will by some of his side be said to be a point of faith upon other accounts as upon the Churches definition
was Acts 15. 4. that I mean of Jerusalem where the Apostles were presidents and the Presbyters were assistants but the Church was the body of the Council When they were come to Jerusalem they were receiv'd of the Church 22. and of the Apostles and Elders And again Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders with the Church to send chosen men 23. and they did so they sent a Decretal with this style The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send greeting to the Brethren which are of the Gentiles Now no man doubts but the Spirit of Infallibility was in the Apostles and yet they had the consent of the Church in the Decree which Church was the company of the converted Brethren and by this it became a Rule certainly it was the first precedent and therefore ought to be the measure of the rest and this the rather because from hence the succeeding Councils have deriv'd their sacramental sanction of Visum est Spiritui sancto nobis now as it was the first so it was the only precedent in Scripture and it was manag'd by the Apostles and therefore we can have no other warrant of an Authentick Council but this and to think that a few of the Rulers of Churches should be a just representation of the Church for infallible determination of all questions of Faith is no way warranted in Scripture and there is neither here nor any where else any word or commission that the Church ever did or could delegate the Spirit to any representatives or pass Infallibility by a Commission or Letter of Attorney and therefore to call a General Council the Church or to think that all the priviledges and graces given by Christ to his Church is there in a part of the Church is wholly without warrant or authority But this is made manifest by matter of fact and the Church never did intend to delegate any such power but always kept it in her own hand I mean the supreme Judicature both in faith and discipline I shall not go far for instances but observe some in the Roman Church it self which are therefore the more remarkable because in the time of her Reign General Councils were arrived to great heights and the highest pretensions Clement the 7th calls the Council of Ferrara Vide edit Roman Actorum Generalis octavae Synâ—di per Anton. Bladrum 1516. the Eighth General Synod in his Bull of the 22th of April 1527. directed to the Bishop of Fernaesia who it seems had translated it out of Greek into Latin yet this General Council is not accepted in France but was expresly rejected by King Charles the 7th and the instance of the Cardinals who came from P. Eugenius to desire the acceptation of it was denied This Council A. D. 1431. was it seems begun at Basil and though the King did then and his Great Council and Parliament and the Church of France then assembled at Bruges accept it yet it was but in part for of 45 Sessions of that Council France hath receiv'd only the first 32. and those not intirely as they lie but with certain qualifications Aliqua simpliciter ut jacent alia verò cum certis modificationibus formis as is to be seen in the pragmatick Sanction To the same purpose is that which hapned to the last Council of Lateran which was called to be a countermine to the second Council of Pisa and to frustrate the intended Reformation of the Church in head and members This Council excommunicated Lewis the XII th of France repealed the Pragmatical Sanction and condemned the second Council of Pisa. So that here was an end of the Council of Pisa by the Decree of the Lateran and on the other side the Lateran Council had as bad a Fate for besides that it was accounted in Germany and so called by Paulus Langius a Monk of Germany In Chron. Sitizensi A. D. 1513. A pack of Cardinals it is wholly rejected in France and an appeal to the next Council put in against it by the University of Paris And as ill success hath hapned to the Council of Trent which it seems could not oblige the Roman Catholick countries without their own consent But therefore there were many pressing instances messages petitions and artifices to get it to be published in France First to Charles the IX th by Pius Quartus An. Dom. 1563. than by Cardinal Aldobrandino the Pope's Nephew 1572 then by the French Clergy 1576 in an Assembly of the States at Blois Peter Espinac Arch Bishop of Lyons being Speaker for the Clergy after this by the French Clergy at Melun 1579. the Bishop of Bazas making the Oration to the King and after him the same year they pressed it again Nicolas Angelier the Bishop of Brien being Speaker After this by Renald of Beaune Arch-Bishop of Bruges 1582. Vide Thuan. hist. lib. 105. revieu du Concile de Trent lib. 1. and the very next year by the Pope's Nuncio to Henry the 3d. And in An. Dom. 1583. and 88. and 93. it was press'd again and again but all would not do By which it appears that even in the Church of Rome the Authority of General Councils is but precarious and that the last resort is to the respective Churches who did or did not send their delegates to consider and consent Here then is but little ground of confidence in General Councils whom surely the Churches would absolutely trust if they had reason to believe them to be infallible But there are many more things to be considered For there being many sorts of Councils General Provincial Gratian dist 3. caâ— Pâ—rrè National Diocesan the first inquiry will be which of all these or whether all of these will be an infallible guide and of necessity to be obeyed I doubt not but it will be roundly answered that only the General Councils are the last and supreme Judicatory and that alone which is infallible But yet how Uncertain this Rule will be Vbi supra act 3. appears in this that the gloss of the Canon Law * says Non videtur Metropolitanos posse condere Canones in suis Conciliis at least not in great matters imò non licet yet the VII th Synod allows the Decrees Decistones localium Conciliorum the definitions of local Councils But I suppose it is in these as it is in the General they that will accept them may and if they will approve the Decrees of Provincial Councils they become a Law unto themselves and without this acceptation General Councils cannot give Laws to others 2. It will be hard to tell which are General Councils Lib. 1. c. 4. de Concil Eccles Sect. Vocuntur enim and which are not for the Roman Councils under Symmachus all the world knows can but pretend to be local or provincial consisting only of Italians and yet they bear Vniversal in their Style and it is always said as Bellarmine * confesses Symmachus
Concilio Generali praesidens and the 3d. Council of Toledo in the 18th Chapter uses this mandatory form Praecipit haec sancta Vniversalis Synodus 3 But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style and that this title of Vniversal means but a Particular that is an Universal of that place though this be a hard expression because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place yet this may be pardon'd since it is like the Catholick Roman style that is the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church but after all this it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal or General Councils Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General and is reproved for it by Surius who for all the Pope's infallibility pretended to know more than the Pope would allow The last Lateran Council viz. the fifth is at Rome esteem'd a General Council In Germany and France it passes for none at all but a faction and pack of Cardinals 4. There are divers General Councils that though they were such yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world It ought not to be said that these are not General Councils because they were conventions of heretical persons for if a Council can consist of heretical persons as by this instance it appears it may then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC Bishops and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it but the faults that are found with it prove indeed that it is not to be accepted but then they prove two things more First That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches and therefore that all its authority depends on them and they do not depend upon it And secondly that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible that they are directly false schismatical and heretical And if when the Churches are divided in a question and the communion like the Question is in flux and reflux when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side and prevail by it but lose as much when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council for though I believe so yet others do not and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine then all that is to be considered in this affair is Whether they be General Councils Whether they say true or no is not now the question but is to be determin'd by this viz. whether are they General Councils or no for relying upon their authority for the truth if they be satisfied that they are General Councils that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed Now then if this be the question then since divers General Councils are reprobated the consequent is that although they be General Councils yet they may be reprov'd And if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determin'd for the truth but yours for errour for the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General A. D. 755. There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed A D. 786. aut 789. This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches and this was a General Council and yet 26 or as some say 31 years after this was condemned by another General Council viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped not long after about five years this General Council of Nice for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford and generally by the Western Churches Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty and without scruple And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd for if they be General and yet may without reason be condemn'd then they have no authority but if they be condemned with reason then they are not infallible The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last defin'd the Council to be above the Pope the Council of Florence and the fift Council in the Lateran have condemn'd this Council so far as to that article The Council of Basil all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope but therefore though in France it is accepted yet in Italy and Spain it is not But what is the meaning that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Francfort Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the General Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans receive six the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard not that they are infallible but that they have determin'd wisely and holily Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It
is as every one likes for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen are divided and some take-in others and reject some of these as I have shown 5. How can it be known which is a General Council and how many conditions are requir'd for the building such a great House The question is worth the asking not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the supreme Judge and final determiner of questions but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils A. D. 1409. deâ—â—oâ—cil Eccles. l. â— c. 8. The Council of Pisa Bellarmine says is neither approv'd nor reprov'd for Pope Alexander the 6th approv'd it because he acknowledg'd the Election of Alexander the 5th who was created Pope by that Council and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum an unlawful Conventicle But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a General hath condemn'd this Pisan with great interest and fancie and therefore it was both approv'd and reprov'd But it is fit that it be inquir'd How we shall know which or what is a General Council and which is not 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present we cannot find any certain Rule for that but be they many or few the parties interested will if they please call it a General Council And they will not dare not I suppose at Rome make a quarrel upon that point when in the sixth Session of Trent as some printed Catalogues * 1546. inform us they may remember there were but 38 persons in all at their first sitting down of which number some were not Bishops and at last there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all In the first Session were but three Archbishops and twenty three Bishops and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent In Nice were 318 Bishops in that of Chalcedon were 600 and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops and in that of Constance were 300 besides the other Fathers as they call them But this is but one thing of many though it will be very hard to think that all the power and energy the virtual faith and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-Countreys 6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pretences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils we shall find them to be such that by the like which can never be wanting to a witty person the authority of every one of them may be vilified and consequently they can be infallible security to no man's faith Charles the 7th of France and the French Church assembled at Bruges rejected the latter Sessions of the Council of Basil because they depriv'd P. Eugenius and created Felix the 5th and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholick Church But Bellarmine says that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil are invalid and null because certain Bishops fell off there and were faulty Now if this be a sufficient cause of nullity then if ever there be a schism or but a division of opinions the other party may deny the Authority of the Council and especially if any of them change their opinion and go to the prevailing side the other hath the same cause of complaint but this ought not at all to prevail till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present for if some fail if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority But because any thing is made use of for an excuse it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded but just when they serve mens turns The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Romanists because there was no Patriarch present but S. German though all the world knows the reason is because they decreed against images But if the other were a good Reason then it is necessary that all the old Patriarchs should be present and if this be true then the General Council of Ephesus is null because all the Patriarchs were not present at it and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarchs nether could it be Representative of the whole Church because at the same time there was another Council at Rome and which is worse to the Romanists than all that the Council of Trent upon this and a 1000 more is invalid because themselves reckon but three Patriarchs there present one was of Venice another of Aquileia and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem none of which were really any of the old Patriarchs whose Authority was so great in the Ancient Councils 7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil Eccles. cap. 15. since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called and who have decisive voices in Councils Sect. At athâ—licorum At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence and to subscribe and yet anciently not only the Emperours and their Embassadours did subscribe but lately at Florence Lateran and Trent Cardinals and Bishops Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe and in the Council of Basil Priests had decisive voices and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscribed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots not Bishops L â—b 2. de Concil act 6. and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms that sometimes Lay-men were admitted to Councils to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Questions Nay Gerson says that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers who though they believ'd it not yet supposing it such they determin'd what was the proper consequent of such Principles which the Christians consented in and he says Socrat. l. â— c 5. Eccles. hist. it was so in the Council of Nice as is left unto us upon record * And Eutropius a Pagan was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites and against these he gave sentence and in behalf of Origen Certain it is that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VI th that Lay-men might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgments without hindrance And this was no new matter for it was practis'd in all Nations in Germany France England and Spain it self as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo So that it is apparent that the Romanists though now they do not yet formerly
in the second the sixteenth and eighteenth and 33 d Sessions by the Council of Bruges under Charles the VII th and by the pragmatick Sanction all which have declar'd that A General Council hath its authority immediately from Christ and consequently not depending on the Pope and that it is necessary that every person in what dignity soever though Papal should be obedient to it in things that concern faith the extirpation of schism and the reformation of the Church of God both in head and members This is the decree of the Council of Constance which also addes further That whosoever shall neglect to obey the commands statutes ordinances and decrees of this or any other General Council lawfully assembled in the things aforesaid or thereunto pertaining viz. in matters of faith or manners made or to be made if he do not repent of it he shall undergo a condign penance yea and with recourse to other remedies of law against him of what condition estate or dignity soever he be though he be the Pope The same was confirm'd in the Council of Lausanna and the second Pisan in the third Session so that here are six General Councils all declaring the Pope to be inferior and submitted to a Council They created Popes in some of them they decreed when Councils should be called they Judged Popes they deposed them they commanded their obedience they threatned to impose penances if they obeyed not and to proceed to further remedies in law and the second Pisan beside the former particulars declared that the Synod neither could nor should be dissolved without their universal consent nevertheless by the common consent it might be removed to a place of safety especially with the Pope if he could be got to consent thereunto always provided it be not at Rome And yet this very Council was approv'd and commended by Pope Alexander the 5th Platina in Alex. Quinto Naucl. tom 2. generat 47. as both Platina and Nauclerus witness and the Council of Constance was called by Pope John the 23. He presided in it and was for his wicked life deposed by it and yet Platina in his life says he approv'd it and after him so did Pope Martin the 5th as is to be seen in the last Session of that Council and Eugenius the 4th Vide 16. c. 18. Session and the Council of Basil and Lausanna was confirm'd by Pope Nicolas the 5th as is to be seen in his Bull and not only Pope Martin the 5th but Pope Eugenius the 4th approv'd the Council of Basil. It were a needless trouble to reckon the consenting testimonies of many learned Divines and Lawyers bearing witness to the Council's superiority over Popes More material it is that many famous Universities particularly that of Paris Erford Colein Vienna Cracovia all unanimously did affirm the power of General Councils over Popes and principally for this thing relied upon the Authority of the General Councils of Constance and Basil. Now if a General Council confirmed by a Pope be a Rule or Judge of Faith and Manners then this is an Article of Faith that the Authority of a General Council does not depend upon the Pope but on Christ immediately and then the Pope's confirmation does not make it valid any more than the confirmation or consent of the other Patriarchs for their respective Provinces For here are many Councils and they confirmed by divers Popes But that it may appear how Uncertain all De comparatione authoritatis Papae Conci ii even the Greatest things are at Rome Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Book against this doctrine and against the Councils of Constance Basil and Pisa and Gerson the Chancellor of Paris which book King Lewis the XII th of France required the University of Paris to examine which they did to very good purpose And the latter Popes of Rome have us'd their utmost diligence to disgrace and nullifie all these Councils and to stifle the voice and consciences of all men and to trample General Councils under their feet Now how can the Souls of Christian people put their questions and differences to their determination who themselves are biting and scratching one another He was likely to prove but an ill Physician who gave advices to a woman that had gotten a cold when himself could scarce speak for coughing I am not concern'd here to say what I think of the question or whether the Council or the Pope be in the right for I think as to the power of determining matters of Faith infallibly they are both in the wrong But that which I observe is That the Church of Rome is greatly divided about their Judge of Controversies and are never like to make an end of it unless one Party be beaten into a good compliant belief with the other I shall only add a conclusion to these premisses in the words of Bellarmine De Concil cuthor l. 2. c. 24. Sect. Accedit Si Concilia Generalia possent errare nullum esset in Ecclesia firmum judicium quo Controversiae componi Vnitas in Ecclesiâ servari possit If a General Council can erre there is no sure judgement in Church for the composing Controversies and preserving Unity I shall not need to take advantage of these words by observing that Bellarmine hath by them evacuated all the Authority of the Pope's defining questions in Cathedrâ for if a General Council can fail nothing amongst them can be certain This is that which I observe that since this thing is rendred so Uncertain upon the stock of their own wranglings and not agreeing upon which are General Councils one part condemning some which very many others among them acknowledge for such it is impossible by their own Doctrine that they can have any place where to set their foot and say Here I fix upon a Rock and cannot be moved And there being so many conditions requir'd and so many ways of failing laid to their charge and many more that may be found out and it being impossible that we can be infallibly assured that none of them hath hapned in any General Council that comes to be question'd How can any man rely upon the decision of a Council as infallible of which he cannot ever be infallibly assured that it hath proceeded Concilialiter as Bellarmine's new word is or that it hath in it nothing that does evacuate or lessen its authority And after all this suppose we are all agreed about any Convention and allow it to be a General Council yet they do not always end the questions when they have defin'd them and the Decrees themselves make a new harvest of Uncertainties Of this we have too many witnesses even all the Questions which in the world are made concerning the sense and meaning of the Decrees and Canons in the respective Councils And when Andreas Vega and Dominicus à Soto and Soto A. D. 1546. and Catarinus who were all present at the Council of Trent
they confuted hereticks and they made them the measures of right and wrong all that collective body of doctrines of which all Christians consentingly made publick confessions and on which all their hopes of salvation did relye were all contain'd in them and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture And all this is so certain that we all profess our selves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove it self thus prov'd thus descended For we know a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten that 's but accidental and extrinsecal to it for it was first unwritten and then the same thing was written onely when it was written it was better conserv'd and surer transmitted and not easily altered and more fitted to be a rule And indeed onely can be so not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God but we are sure that what is so written and so transmitted is Gods Word whereas concerning other things which were not written we have no certain records no evident proof no sufficient conviction and therefore it is not capable of being own'd as the rule of faith or life because we do not know it to be the Word of God If any doctrine which is offer'd to us by the Church of Rome and which is not in Scripture be prov'd as Scripture is we receive it equally but if it be not it is to be received according to the degree of its probation and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men if it came in after the Apostles if it rely but upon a few Testimonies or is to be laboriously argued into a precarious perswasion it cannot be the true ground of faith and salvation can never rely upon it The truth of the assumption in this argument will rely upon an Induction of which all Churches have a sufficient experience there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life that can pretend to a clear universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches but onely the doctrine contain'd in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament And in the matter of good life the case is evident and certain which makes the other also to be like it for there is no original or primary Commandement concerning good life but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture Now faith being the foundation of good life upon which it is most rationally and permanently built it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure and yet be defective in the foundation Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written and yet those few onely that were written are by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholick Church of the first and all descending ages preserv'd to us and made our Gospel So that as we do not dispute whether the words which Christ spake and the Miracles he did and are not written be as holy and as true as those which are written but onely say they are not our rule and measures because they are unknown So there is no dispute whether they be to be preferr'd or relied upon as the written or unwritten Word of God for both are to be relied upon and both equally always provided that they be equally known to be so But that which we say is That there are many which are called Traditions which are not the unwritten Word of God at least not known so to be and the doctrines of men are pretended and obtruded as the Commandments of God and the Testimonie of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony and particular traditions are equall'd to universal the uncertain to the certain and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient and if they come from we know not whom they are said to come from the Apostles and if postnate they are call'd primitive and they are argued and laboriously disputed into the title of Apostolical traditions by not onely fallible but fallacious arguments as will appear in the following numbers This is the state of the Question and therefore 1. It proves it self because there can be no proof to the contrary since the elder the tradition is the more likely it can be prov'd as being nearer the fountain and not having had a long current which as a long line is always the weakest so in long descent is most likely to be corrupted and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world it follows that nothing can now because nothing of Faith yet hath been sufficiently prov'd 2. But besides this consideration the Scripture it self is the best testimony of it's own fulness and sufficiencie I have already in the Introduction against I. S. prov'd from Scripture that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contain'd that is I have prov'd that Scripture says so Neither ought it to be replyed here that no man's testimony concerning himself is to be accepted For here we suppose that we are agreed that the Scripture says true that it is the word of God and cannot be deceived and if this be allow'd the Scripture then can give testimony concerning it self and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible and all that he says to be true which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversie And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to it self who shall give testimony to it Shall the Church or the Pope suppose which we will But who shall give testimony to them Shall they give credit to Scripture before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible If they be not credible of themselves we are not the neerer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures But if it be said that the Church is of it self credible upon it's own authority this must be prov'd before it can be adâ—itted and then how shall this be proved And at least the Scripture will be pretended to be of it self credible as the Church And since it is evident that all the dignity power authority office and sanctity it hath or pretends to have can no other way be prov'd but by the Scriptures a conformity to them in all Doctrines Laws and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims it must needs be that Scripture hath the prior right and can better be primely credible than the Church or any thing else that claims from Scripture Nay therefore quoad nos it is to be allowed to be primely credible because there is no Creature besides it that is so Indeed God was pleas'd to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word his immediate Word by miraculous consignations and
Scriptures not because of the difficulty of things to be inquir'd but because without such testimony they are not to be believ'd For so are his very words and therefore whether they be easie or hard if they be not in Scripture the Questions will be indeterminable That is the sense of Origen ' s argument In Epist. ad Rom. lib 3. But more plainly yet After these things as his custom is he will affirm or prove from the holy Scriptures what he had said and also gives an example to the Doctors of the Church that those things which they speak to the people they should prove them not as produc'd by their own sentences but defended by divine testimonies for if he so great and such an Apostle believes not that the authority of his saying can be sufficient unless he teaches that those things which he says are written in the Law and the Prophets how much rather ought we who are the least observe this thing that we do not when we teach produce our own but the sentences of the Holy Ghost Add to this what he says in another place Tract 23. in Matth. As our Saviour impos'd silence upon the Sadduces by the word of his Doctrine and faithfully convinc'd that false opinion which they thought to be truth so also shall the followers of Christ do by the examples of Scripture by which according to sound Doctrine every voice of Pharaoh ought to be silent The next in order is S. Cyprian who indeed speaks for tradition not meaning the modus tradendi but the doctrina tradita for it is such a tradition as is in Scripture the doctrine deliver'd first by word of mouth and then consigned in Scripture Epist. ad Pompeium Let nothing be innovated but that is deliver'd Whence is that tradition whether descending from the Lord's and from the Evangelical authority or coming from the Commandments and Epistles of the Apostles For that those things are to be done which are written God witnesses and propounds to Jesus Nave saying The Book of this Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate in it day and night that thou maist observe to do all things which are written Our Lord also sending his Apostles commands the nations to be baptized and taught that they may observe all things whatsoever he hath commanded If therefore it be either commanded in the Gospel or in the Epistles of the Apostles that they that come from any Heresie should not be baptiz'd but that hands should be imposed upon them unto repentance then let even this holy tradition be observ'd This Doctrine and Counsel of S. Cyprian lib. 4. de Bapt. contra Donatist cap. 3. c. 5. Bellarmine says was one of the Errors of S. Cyprian but S. Austin commends it as the best way And this procedure is also the same that the Church in the descending ages always followed of which there can in the world be no plainer testimony given than in the words of S. Cyril of Jerusalem and it was in the High Questions of the Holy and mysterious Trinity Catech. â— 5. 12. 16. 18. Illuminat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech. 4. Illuminat concerning which he advises them to retain that zeal in their minds which by heads and summaries is expounded to you but if God grant shall according to my strength be demonstrated to you by Scripture a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For it behooveth us not to deliver no not so much as the least thing of the holy mysteries of Faith without the holy Scriptures Neither give credit to me speaking unless what is spoken be demonstrated by the Holy Scriptures For that is the security of our Faith not which is from our inventions but from the demonstration of the Holy Scriptures To the same purpose in the Dissuasive was produced the Testimony of S. Basil S. Basil. moral but the words which were not there set down at large Reg. 8. c. 12. edit Paris 1547. ex officinâ Carol â—uillard are these What 's proper for the faithful man That with a certain fulness of mind he believes the force of those things to be true which are spoken in the Scripture and that he rejects nothing and that he dares not to decree any thing that is new For whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin but Faith is by hearing Vide etiam Epist. 80. Stemus itaque arbitratui à Deo inspiratae Scripturae Questio erat an dicendum in Deo tres hypostases vnam naturam apud Bellar. de verbo Dei non scripio lib. 4. cap. 11. Sect. Alium locum and hearing by the word of God without doubt since whatsoever is without the Scripture is not of Faith Vide etiam Reg. 72. c. 1. cum tiâ—ulo praefixo capiti it is a Sin These words are so plain as no Paraphrase is needful to illustrate them to which may be added those fiercer words of the same Saint It is a manifest defection from the Faith and a conviction of Pride Homil. de vera fide 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. either to reject any thing of what is written or to introduce any thing that is not since our Lord Jesus Christ hath said My sheep hear my voice and a little before he said the same thing A stranger they will not follow but will fly from him because they know not the voice of strangers By which words S. Basil plainly declares that the whole voice and words of Christ are set down in Scripture and that all things else is the voice of strangers And therefore the Apostle does most vehemently forbid by an example taken from men lest any thing of those which are in Scripture be taken away or which God forbid any thing be added To these words Bellarmine and his followers that write against the Dissuasive answer that S. Basil speaks against adding to the Scripture things contrary to it and things so strange from it as to be invented out of their own head and that he also speaks of certain particular Heresies 〈◊〉 in the Prâ—face 2. Which endeavour to escape from the pressure of these words is therefore very vain because S. Basil was not then disputing against any particular Heresies as teaching any thing against Scripture or of their own head but he was about to describe the whole Christian Faith And that he may do this with faithfulness and simplicity and without reproof he declares he will do it from the holy Scriptures for it is infidelity and pride to do otherwise and therefore what is not in the Scriptures if it be added to the faith it is contrary to it as contrary as unfaithfulness or infidelity and what soever is not deliver'd by the Spirit of God is an invention of man if offer'd as a part of the Christian Faith And therefore Bellarmine and and his followers make here a distinction where there is no
last days therefore commands that Christians who in Christianity would receive the firmness of true faith should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures otherwise if they regard other things they will be scandalized and perish not understanding which is the true Church and by this shall fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the Church Idem homil 41. in Matth. The summe is this deliver'd by the same Author Whatsoever is sought for unto salvation it is now fill'd full in the Scriptures Therefore there is in this feast nothing less then what is necessary to the salvation of mankind Sixtus Senensis though he greatly approves this book and brings arguments to prove it to be S. Chrysostom's and alleges from others that it hath been for many ages approv'd by the Commandement of the Church which among the Divine laws reads some of these Homilies as of S. Chrysostom and that it is cited in the ordinary and authentick glosses in the Catena's upon the Gospels in the decrees of the Popes and in the Theological sums of great Divine yet he would have it purg'd from these words here quoted as also from many others But when they cannot show by any probable argument that any hereticks have interpolated these words and that these are so agreeing to other words of S. Chrysostom spoken in his unquestion'd works he shews himself and his party greatly pinch'd and for no other reason rejects the words but because they make against him which is a plain self-conviction and self-condemnation Dissuasive in the Preface Theophilus Alexandrinus is already quoted in these words and they are indeed very severe It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing divine without the authority of the holy Scriptures Here E. W. and A. L. say the Dissuasive left out some words of Theophilus It is true but so did a good friend of theirs before me for they are just so quoted by * Lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. Sect. Profert nonò Theophilum Bellarmine who in all reason would have put them in if they had made way for any answer to the other words The words are these as they lie intirely Truly I cannot know with what temerity Origen speaking so many things * In censuris super Matth. expositoribus and following his own errour not the authority of Scriptures does dare to publish such things which will be hurtful And a little after addes Sed ignorans quod demoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum Sophisms of his own mind and things that are not in Scriptures are explicative one of another and if he had not meant it meerly diabolical to induce any thing without the authority of Scripture he ought to have added the other part of the rule and have called it Devilish to adde any thing without Scripture or tradition which because he did not we suppose he had no cause to do and then whatsoever is not in Scripture Theophilus calls the sophism of humane minds He spake it indefinitely and universally Paschal 11. vide etiam Paschal 3. It is true it is instanc'd in a particular against Origen but upon that occasion he gives a general rule And therefore it is a weak subterfuge of Bellarmine to say that Theophilus onely speaks concerning certain Apocryphal books which some would esteem Divine but by the way I know not how well Bellarmine will agree with my adversaries for one or two of them say A. L. and E. W. page 4. Theophilus spake against Origen for broaching fopperies of his own and particularly that Christs flesh was consubstantial with the Godhead and if they say true then Bellarmine in his want invented an answer of his own without any ground of truth But all agree in this that these words were spoken in these cases onely Lib. 4. De verb. Dei cap. 11. and it is foolish says Bellarmine to wrest that which is spoken of one thing to another But I desire that it may be observ'd that to the testimony of Tertullian it is answered He speaks but of one particular To that of S. Basil it is answered He spake but against a few particular heresies And to one of the testimonies of S. Athanasius it is answered He spake but of one particular viz. the heresie of Samosatenus and to this of Theophilus Alexandrinus it is just so answered he spake likewise but of this particular viz. that against Origen and to that of S. Hierom * Cited in the next page in 23. Matth. he onely spake of a particular opinion pretended out of some apocryphal book and to another of S. Austin It is spoken but of a particular matter Lib. de bono vidâ—itatis c. 1. the case of widowhood But if Hermogenes and Origen and Samosatenus and the hereticks S. Basil speaks of and they in S. Hierom be all to be confuted by Scripture and by nothing else nay are therefore rejected because they are not in Scripture if all these Fathers confute all these heresies by a negative argument from Scripture then the rule which they establish must be more than particular It is fitted to all as well as to any for all particulars make a general This way they may answer 500 testimonies if 500 Authors should upon so many several occasions speak general words But in the world no answer could be weaker and no elusion more trifling and less plausible could have been invented However these and other concurrent testimonies will put this question beyond such captious answers S. Hierom was so severe in this Article that disputing what Zechary it was who was slain between the Porch and the Altar Whether it was the last but one of the small Prophets S. Hierom. in 23. Matth. Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ prâ—batur Et 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Titum Sine authoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non habet fidem nisi viderentur perver sam doctrinam etiam Diviâ—is testimoniis roborare Sic citantur verba apud Bellarm. qui sequutus Kemnitium in objectionibus responsiâ—nem de bene esse paravit Non curavit tamen nec metuit ne non recte cuarentur verba or the Father of the Baptist he would admit neither because it was not in the Scriptures in these words This because it hath not authority from Scripture is with the same easiness despis'd as it is approv'd And they that prattle without the authority of Scriptures have no faith or trust that is none would believe them unless they did seem to strengthen their perverse doctrine with Divine testimonies but most pertinent and material to the whole inquiry are these words In c. 1. Aggaei Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque contingunt
percu it gladius Dei Those things which they make and find as it were by Apostlical tradition without the authority and testimonies of Scripture the word of God smites By which words it appears that in S. Hierom's time it was usual to pretend traditions Apostolical and yet that all which was then so early called so was not so and therefore all later pretences still as they are later are the worse and that the way to try those pretences was the authority and testimony of Scriptures without which testimony they were to be rejected and God would punish them Adverâ— Helvid And disputing against Helvidius in defence of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin But as we deny not those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written We believe our Lord to be born of a Virgin because we read it We believe not Mary was married after her delivery because we read it not And therefore this very point the Fathers endeavour to prove by Scripture Ambr. tom â— particularly Ep. 9. Epiphan haeres 78. S. Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Austin August de haeres 84. S. Basil de human gen Christi Homil. 25. though S. Basil believ'd it not to be a point of faith and when he offer'd to prove it by a tradition concerning the slaying of Zechary upon that account S. Hierom rejects the tradition as trifling as before I have cited him And therefore S. John Damascen going upon the same Principle Lib. 1. de orthod fide cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says We look for nothing beyond these things which are deliver'd by the Law and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists And after all this S. Austin who is not the least amongst the greatest Doctors of the Church is very clear in this particular If any one Lib. 3. cont lit concerning Christ or his Church Petâ—â—â—ani c. 6. or concerning any other thing which belongs to faith or our life I will not say if we but what Paul hath added if an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you Praeter quam in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis beside what ye have receiv'd in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed The words Bellarmine quotes and for an answer to them says that praeter must signifie contra besides that is against and the same is made use of by Hart the Jesuit in his Conference and by the Lovain Doctors But if this answer may serve Non habebis Deos alienos praeter me may signifie contra me and then a man may Absit mihi gloriari praeterquam in Cruce Jesu Christi for all this Commandment say there are two Gods so one be not contrary to the other and the Apostle may glory in any thing else in that sense in which he glories in the Cross of Christ so that thing be not contrary to Christ's Cross. But S. Austin was a better Grammarian than to speak so improperly Praeter Elegant lib. 3. cap. 54. and Praeterquam are all one as I am covetous of nothing praeter laudem vel praeterquam laudis Nulli places praeterquam mihi vel praeter me And indeed Praeterquam eandem aut prope parem vim obtinet quam Nisi said Laurentius Valla but to make praeterquam to signifie contra quam is a violence to be allowed by no Master of the Latin tongue which all the world knows S. Austin was And if we enquire what signication it hath in law In vocabâ—lar utriusque Juris we find it signifies variously indeed but never to any such purpose When we speak of things whose nature is wholly separate then it signifies Inclusively As I give all my vines praeter domum besides my house there the house is suppos'd also to be given But if we speak of things which are subordinate and included in the general then praeter signifies Exclusively as I give unto thee all my Books praeter Augustinum de civitate Dei besides or except S. Austin of the City of God there S. Austins Book is not given And the reason of this is because the last words in this case would operate nothing S. August vocat Scripturas sacâ—as Divinam stateram l. 2. contr unless they were exclusive and if in the first they were exclusive they were not sense But that praeterquam should mean only what is contrary Donat. c. 1â— is a Novelty taken up without reason but not without great need Lib. â— de doctr But however that S. Austin did not mean only to reprove them that introduc'd into faith and manners Christ. c. 9. vide eundem l. 1. c. ult de Consensâ— Evangelistarum Quicquid Servator de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit such things which were against Scripture but such which were besides it and whatsoever was not in it is plain by an establish'd doctrine of his affirming that all things which appertain to life and doctrine are found in those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures And if this be true as S. Austin suppos'd it to be then who ever adds to this any thing of faith and manners though it be not contrary yet if it be not here ought to be an anathema because of his own he adds to that rule of faith manners which God who only could do it hath made To this Lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scâ—ipto c. 11. Bellarmin answers that S. Austin speaks only of the Creed and the ten Commandments such things which are simply necessary to all He might have added that he speaks of the Lord's Prayer too and all the other precepts of the Gospel and particularly the eight Beatitudes and the Sacraments And what of the infallibility of the Roman Church Is the belief of that necessary to all But that is neither in the Creed nor the ten Commandments And what of the five Precepts of the Church are they plainly in the Scripture And after all this and much more if all that belongs to faith and good life be in the plain places of Scripture then there is enough to make us wise unto salvation And he is a very wise and learned man that is so For as by faith S. Austin understands the whole Christian Faith so by mores vivendi he understands hope and charity as himself in the very place expresses himself And beyond faith hope and charity and all things that integrate them what a Christian need to know I have not learned But if he would learn more yet there are in places less plain things enough to make us learned unto Curiosity Briefly by S. Austin's doctrine the Scripture hath enough for every one and in all cases of necessary Religion and much more then what is necessary nay there is nothing besides it that can come into our rule a Lib. de bono
Book or Chapter of it should be detected to be imposture But there were two cases in which tradition was then us'd The one was when the Scriptures had not been written or communicated as among divers nations of the Barbarians The other was when they disputed with persons who receiv'd not all the Scriptures as did the Carpocratians of whom * Lib. 1. c. 1. c. 24. Irenaeus speaks In these cases tradition was urg'd that because they did not agree about the authority of one instrument they should be admitted to trial upon the other For as Antonius Marinarius said truly and wisely The Fathers served themselves of this topick onely in case of necessity never thinking to make use of it in competition against holy Scripture But then it is to be observ'd that in both these cases the use of tradition is not at all pertinent to the Question now in hand For first the Question was not then as now it is between personn who equally account of Scriptures as the word of God and to whom the Scriptures have been from many generations consign'd For they that had receiv'd Scriptures at the first relied upon them they that had not were to use tradition and the topick of succession to prove their doctrine to have come from the Apostles that is they were fain to call Witnesses when they could not produce a Will in writing But secondly in other cases the old hereticks had the same Question as we have now S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 24. For besides the Scripture they said that Jesus in mystery spake to his disciples and Apostles some things in secret and apart S. August tract 97. in Johan because they were worthy And so Christ said I have many things to say but ye cannot hear them now For this place of Scripture was to this purpose urg'd by the most foolish hereticks Just thus do the Doctors of the Church of Rome at this day De verb. Dei non script lib. 4. ca. 11. Sect. His notatis So Bellarmine They preach'd not to the people all things but those which were necessary to them or profitable but other things they deliver'd apart to the more perfect Here then is the popish ground of their traditions they cannot deny but necessary and profitable things were deliver'd in publick and to all but some secret things were reserv'd for the secret ones For the Scriptures are as the Credential Letters to an Embassadour but traditions are as the private Instructions This was the pretence of the old Hereticks and is of the modern Papists who while they say the same thing pretend for it also the same authority saying that Traditions also are to be receiv'd Pag. 16. because they are recommended in Scripture Of this I shall hereafter give account In the mean time Concerning this I remember that a great man of the Roman party falls foul upon Castellio Salmeron tom 15. in 2 Tim. 3. disp 4. p. â—07 for saying The Apostle had some more secret doctrine which he did not commit to writing but deliver'd it to some more perfect persons and that the word of God was not sufficient for deciding controversies of religion however it be expounded but that a more perfect revelation is to be expected Upon which he hath these words Intolerabile est ut Paulus quam accepit reconditiorem doctrinam non scripto consignaverit fuisset enim alioqui infidelis depositi Minister And it was most reasonable which Antonius Marinarius a Frier Carmelite did say If some things were deliver'd in secret it was under secret because the Apostles might as well have publish'd it as their disciples but if it was deliver'd as a secret and consequently to be kept as secret how came the successors of the Apostles to publish this secret to break open the seal and reveal the forbidden secret And secondly If the secret tradition which certainly was not necessary to all be made publick how shall we know which traditions are necessary and which are not Certain it is the secret tradition could not of it self be necessary and therefore if it becomes so by being made publick it is that which the Apostles intended not for they would have it secret And therefore it follows that now no man can tell that any of their traditions was intended as necessary because the onely way by which we could know which was and which was not necessary viz. the making the one publick and keeping the other private is now destroyed since they are all alike common All that which was delivered to all and in publick was by the providence of God ministring apt occasions and by the Spirit of God inspiring the Apostles and Evangelists with a will to do it set down in writing that they might remain upon record for ever to all generations of the Church So S. Peter promis'd to the Jews of the dispersion that he would do some thing to put them in remembrance of the things he had taught them and he was as good as his word and imployed S. Mark to write the Gospel others also of the Apostles took the same care and all were directed by God and particular occurrences were concentred in the general design and counsel of God Lib. 3. c. 1. So S. Irenaeus The Gospel which the Apostles preach'd afterwards by the will of God they deliver'd to us in the Scriptures It was a Tradition still but now the word signified in its primitive and natural sense not in the modern and Ecclesiastical But Irenaeus speaks of the Gospel Tract 49. in Johan that is the whole Gospel of God not all the particulars that Jesus spake and did S. Augustin lib. 1. c. 35. de consensu Evangel but What ever Christ would have us to read of his words and works he commanded them to write as if it were by his own hands And therefore Electa sunt quae scriberentur quaè saluti credentium sufficere videbantur There was a choice made of such things as were to be written It was not therefore done by chance and contingency as many of the Roman Doctors in disparagement of the Scriptures sufficiency do object but the things were chosen saith S. Austin it was according to the will of God said S. Irenaeus and the choice was very good all that suffic'd to the salvation of believers according to the words of S. John These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Joh. 20. 30 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name And indeed there cannot be any probable cause inducing any wise man to believe that the Apostles should pretend to write the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that they should insert many things more then necessary and yet omit any thing that was and yet still call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus calls the Epistles of S. Paul Lib. 2. hist. c. 34. A summary of what he plainly
is whatsoever was deliver'd and preach'd was recorded which they so firmly believed that they rejected the Tradition unless it were so recorded and 2. It hence also follows that Tradition was and was esteemed the worse way of conveying propositions and stories because the Church requir'd that the Traditions should be prov'd by Scriptures that is the less certain by the more Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani That this was so S. Cyprian is a sufficient witness For when Pope Stephen had said Let no thing be chang'd only that which is deliver'd meaning the old Tradition that was to be kept S. Cyprian enquires from whence that Tradition comes Does it come from the Gospels or the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles So that after the writing and reception of Scriptures Tradition meant the same thing which was in Scripture or if it did not the Fathers would not admit it Damasc. de orthod fide c. 1. All things which are deliver'd to us by the Law and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists we receive and know and reverence But we enquire not further Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing beyond them If the Traditions be agreeable to Scripture said S. Irenaeus that is if that which is pretended to be taught at first be recorded by them who did teach it then all is well And this affair is fully testified by the words of Eusebius Lib. 5. cap. 8. which are greatly conclusive of this Inquiry We have saith he promis'd that we would propose the voices of the old Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Writers by which they declared the traditions by the authority witnessed and consign'd of the approv'd Scriptures Amongst whom was Irenaeus says the Latin version But I shall descend to a consideration of the particulars which pretend to come to us by tradition and without it cannot as it is said be prov'd by Scripture 1. It is said that the Scripture it self is wholly deriv'd to us by tradition and therefore besides Scripture Tradition is necessary in the Church And indeed no man that understands this Question denies it This tradition that these books were written by the Apostles and were deliver'd by the Apostles to the Churches as the word of God relies principally upon Tradition Universal that is it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consign'd Now then this is no part of the word of God but the notification or manner of conveying the word of God the instrument of it's delivery So that the tradition concerning the Scripture's being extrinsecal to Scripture is also extrinsecal to the Question This Tradition cannot be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation but must go before this question For no man inquires Whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation unless he believe that there are Scriptures that these are they and that they are the word of God All this comes to us by Tradition that is by universal undeniable testimony After the Scriptures are thus receiv'd there is risen another Question viz. Whether or no these Scriptures so deliver'd to us do contain all the word of God or Whether or no besides the Tradition that goes before Scripture which is an instrumental Tradition onely of Scripture there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consign'd by Tradition as well as the Scripture and of things as necessary or useful as what is contain'd in Scripture and that is equally the Word of God as Scripture is The Tradition of Scripture we receive but of nothing else but what is in Scripture And if it be ask'd It is therefore weakly said by E. W. pag 5. If he says that he impugns all tradition in General all doctrine not expressly contain'd in Scripture forced he is to throw away Scripture it self c. Why we receive one and not the rest we answer because we have but one Tradition of things necessary that is there is an Universal Tradition of Scripture and what concerns it but none of other things which are not in Scripture And there is no necessity we should have any all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men being plainly contain'd in Scriptures and this sufficiency also being part of that Tradition as I am now proving But because other things also are pretended to be E. W. ibid. He is forc'd not onely to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicene definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of persons in one Divine essence Baptizing of children c. but every tenet of Protestant religion as Protestantism E. g. The belief of two Sacraments onely c. or are necessary and yet are said not to be in Scripture it is necessary that this should be examin'd 1. First all the Nicene definitions Trinity of persons in one Divine essence This I should not have thought worthy of considering in the words here expressed but that a friend The same also he says concerning the Nicene and the other three Councils and S. Athanasius Creed p. 8. it seems of my own whom I know not but yet an adversary as he who should know him best that is himself assures me is pleas'd to use these words in the objection To this I answer first that this Gentleman would be much to seek if he were put to it to prove the Trinity of persons in one Divine essence to be an express Nicene definition and therefore if he means that as an instance of the Nicene definitions he will find himself mistaken Indeed at Nice the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was determin'd but nothing of the Divinity of the holy Ghost That was the result of after-Councils But whatever it was which was there determin'd I am sure it was not determin'd by tradition but by Scripture So S. Athanasius tells us of the faith which was confess'd by the Nicene Fathers Epist. ad Epictet Corinth Episc. it was the faith confess'd according to the holy Scriptures and speaking to Serapion of the holy Trinity Lib. 3. ad Serap de Spir. S. Id. de Incarnat he says Learn this out of the holy Scriptures For the documents you find in them are sufficient And writing against Samosatenus he proves the Incarnation of the Son of God out of the Gospel of S. John saying It becomes us to stick close to the word of God Theodoret. l. 1. c. 7. And therefore when Constantine the Emperour exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be disputed they being Divine matters he would they should be ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures For saith he the books of the Evangelists and Apostles Et apud Gelas. Cyzicen in actis Concil Nicen. l. 2. c. 7. as also the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Deity Therefore all seditious contention being laid
who having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes will yet swallow the hook deserve to live upon air and fancy and to chew deceit But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world for it is discover'd of some things that are called Apostolical tradition that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one man Some I say have been so discover'd Papias was the Author of the Millenary opinion which prevailed for about three whole ages and that so Universally that Justin Martyr said it was believ'd by all that were perfectly Orthodox and yet it recurres to him onely as the fountain of the Tradition But of this I shall say no more because this instance hath been by others examin'd and clear'd The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteem'd a Tradition Apostolical but it can derive no higher then S. Austin In serm de Assumptione whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of But the Tradition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon deriv'd onely from S. John Salmeron tract 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg and the Asâ—atick Bishops but the other from S. Peter and S. Paul prevail'd though it had no greater authority But the Communicating of Infants prevail'd for many ages in the West S. Hierom. dial adv Lucifer and to this day in the East and went for an Apostolical Tradition but the fortune of it is chang'd and it now passes for an errour and S. Hierom said It was an Apostolical Tradition that a Priest should never baptize without Chrism but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own But besides this there was in the beginning of Christianity some Apocryphal books of these Origen gave great caution Tract 26. in Matth. and because the falsity of these every good man could not discover therefore he charges them that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books but from the Canonical Scriptures as I have already quoted him but these were very busie in reporting traditions The book of Hermes seduc'd S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief that the Apopostles preach'd to them that died Infidels and then rais'd them to life and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul make him believe that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy and the Gospel of Nicodemus so far as yet appears was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross at every motion of the body and led Tertullian and S. Basil and in consequence the Churches of succeeding ages into the practise of it A little thing will draw on a willing mind and nothing is so credulous as piety and timerous Religion and nothing was more fearful to displease God and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians and every thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail and how many such pretences might enter in at this wide door every man can easily observe Add to this that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholick Church to prove a Tradition which way if it were sufficient then it is certain that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteem'd tradition would be found not to be such because as appears in divers instances above reckon'd they admitted many traditions which the present Church rejects 2. If this were the way then truth were as variable as time and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimony but still the present were to carry it that is every age were to believe themselves and no body else And the reason of these things is this because some things have in some ages been universally receiv'd in others universally rejected I instance in the state of Saints departed which once was the opinion of some whole ages and now we know in what ages it is esteemed an error 3. The Communicating Infants before instanc'd in was the practise of the Church for 600 years together Maldonat in 6. Joh. 53. videetiam Espéncaeuâ— de adorat Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Now all that while there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice or at least none known for if there had these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine But if there were no tradition against it at that time there is none now And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men that were against it only in a negative way it can be pretended that is if there was no doctrine or practice or report ever to the contrary then they that have a mind to it may suppose or hope it was Apostolical or at least they cannot be sure that it was not But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christendom because in them there is Father against Son and Son against Father Greeks against Latin and their minds differ as far as East and West and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions that there was never any thing said to the contrary but if there was then the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholick and Apostolick 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure record of Tradition Apostolical then it is because the present Church is infallible but for that there is neither Scripture nor Tradition or if there were for its infallibility in matter of faith yet there is none for its infallibility in matter of fact and such is the Tradition concerning which the Question only is Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle and transmitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches Antiquissimum quodque verissimum We know the fountains were pure and the current by how much the nearer it is to the spring it is the less likely to be corrupted And therefore it is a beginning at the wrong end to say The present Church believes this therefore so did the primitive but let it be shewed that the primitive did believe this for else it is Out-facing of an Opponent as if he ought to be aasham'd to question whether you have done well or no. For if that question may be ask'd it must be submitted to trial and it must be answer'd and the holding the opinion will not justifie the holding it that must be done by something else therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compar'd together and it will be an ill excuse if a servant who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord and tells him Thus it was deliver'd to me for thus you see
wills some are scarce worth the remembring and are of an obsolete and worn-out authority Now if these men say true then they prove a tradition or else nothing will prove it but a consent absolutely Universal which is not to be had For on the other side They that speak against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin particularly Cardinal Cajetan bring as he says the irrefragable testimony of fifteen Fathers against it others bring no less then two hundred and Bandellus brings in almost three hundred and that will go a great way to prove a Tradition But that this also is not sufficient see what the other side say to this They say that Scotus and Holcot and Vbertinusde Casalis and the old Definition of the University of Paris and S. Ambrose and S. Augustine are brought in falsely or violently and if they were not yet they say it is an illiteral disputation and not far from Sophistry to proceed in this way of arguing For it happens sometimes that a multitude of Opiners proceeds onely from one famous Doctor and that when the Donatists did glory in the multitude of Authors S. Austin answer'd that it was a sign the cause wanted truth when it endeavour'd to relie alone upon the authority of many and that it was not fit to relate the sentiment of S. Bernard Bonaventure Thomas and other Devotes of the Blessed Virgin as if they were most likely to know her priviledges and therefore would not have denied this of Immaculate Conception if it had been her due For she hath many devout servants the world knows not of and Elisha though he had the spirit of Elias doubled upon him yet said Dominus celavit à me non indicavit mihi and when Elias complain'd he was left alone God said he had 7000 more And the Apostles did not know all things and S. Peter walk'd not according to the truth of the Gospel and S. Cyprian err'd in the point of rebaptizing hereticks For God hath not given all things unto all persons that every age may have proper truths of its own which the former age knew not Thus Salmeron discourses and this is the way of many others more eminent who make use of authority and antiquity when it serves their turn and when it does not it is of no use and of no value But if these things be thus then how shall Tradition be prov'd if the little remnant of the Dominican party which are against the Immaculate Conception should chance to be brought off from their opinion as if all the rest of the other Orders and many of this be already it is no hard thing to conjecture that the rest may and that the whole Church as they will then call it be of one mind shall it then be reasonable to conclude that then this doctrine was and is an Apostolical Tradition when as yet we know and dare say it is not That 's the case and that 's the new doctrine but how impossible it is to be true and how little reason there is in it is now too apparent I see that Vowing to Saints is now at Rome accounted an Apostolical doctrine but with what confidence can any Jesuite tell me that it is so when by the Confession of their chief parties it came in later than the fountains of Apostolical Doctrines De cultu S S. lib. 3. c. 9. Sect. Praetereà When the Scriptures were written the use of vowing to Saints was not begun saith Bellarmine and Cardinal * Contre le Roy Jaques Perron confesses that in the Authors more neer to the Apostolical age no footsteps of this custom can be found Where then is the Tradition Apostolical or can the affirmation of the present Church make it so To make a new thing is easie but no man can make an old thing The consequence of these things is this All the doctrines of faith and good life are contain'd and express'd in the plain places of Scripture and besides it there are and there can be no Articles of faith and therefore they who introduce other articles and upon other principles introduce a faith unknown to the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primitive Church And that the Church of Rome does this I shall manifest in the following discourses SECTION IV. There is nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Apostolical Churches did not believe IN the first Part of the Dissuasive it was said that the two Testaments are the Fountains of Faith and whatsoever viz. as belonging to the faith came in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not to Christ and now I suppose what was then said is fully verified And the Church of Rome obtruding many propositions upon the belief of the Church which are not in Scripture and of which they can never shew any Universal or Apostolical Tradition urging those upon pain of Damnation imposing an absolute necessity of believing such points which were either denyed by the Primitive Church or were counted but indifferent and matters of opinion hath disordered the Christian Religion and made it to day a new thing and unlike the great and glorious Founder of it who is the same yesterday and to day and for ever The charge here then is double they have made new Necessities and they have made new Articles I chuse to speak first of their tyrannical Manner of imposing their Articles viz. every thing under pain of damnation The other of the new Matter is the subject of the following Sections First then I alledge that the primitive Church being taught by Scripture and the examples Apostolical affirm'd but few things to be necessary to salvation They believed the whole Scriptures every thing they had learn'd there they equally believ'd but because every thing was not of equal necessity to be believ'd they did not equally learn and teach all that was in Scripture But the Apostles say some othes say that immediately after them the Church did agree upon a Creed a Symbol of Articles which were in the whole the foundation of Faith the ground of the Christian hope and that upon which charity or good life was to be built There were in Scripture many Creeds the Gentiles Creed Matth. 16. 16. Martha's Creed the Eunuch's Creed S. Peter's Creed 1 Joh. 4. 2. 15. S. Paul's Creed To believe that God is and that he is the rewarder of them that seek him diligently To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God Joh. 20. 31. 11. 27. that Jesus is come in the flesh Hebr. 11. 6. 69. that he rose again from the dead these Confessions were the occasions of admirable effects by the first the Gentiles come to God by the following Matth. 16. 17. blessedness is declar'd salvation is promis'd to him that believes and to him that confesses this God will come and dwell in him and he shall dwell in God and this belief
at Nice they procur'd great authority to the Nicene faith which was not onely the truth but a truth deliver'd and confirm'd by the most famous and excellent Prelates that ever the Christian Church could glory in since the death of the Apostles But yet that the inconvenience might be cut off which came in upon the occasion of the Nicene addition for it produc'd thirty explicative Creeds more in a short time as Marcus Ephesius openly affirm'd in the Council of Florence in the Council of Ephesus which was the third general it was forbidden that ever there should be any addition to the Nicene faith Concil Ephes. Can. 7. That it should not be lawful from thence forward for any one to produce to write or to compose any other faith or Creed besides that which was defin'd by the Holy Fathers meeting at Nice in the Holy Spirit Here the supreme power of the Church a General Council hath declar'd that it never should be lawful to adde any thing to the former confession of faith explicated at Nice and this Canon was renewed in the next General Council that of Chalcedon That the faith formerly determin'd should at no hand in no manner be shaken or moved any more The Author of the Letter p. 7. meaning by addition or diminution There are some so impertinently weak as to expound these Canons to mean onely the adding any thing contrary to the Nicene faith which is an answer against reason and experience for it is not imaginable that any man admitting the Nicene Creed can by an addition intend expressly to contradict it and if he does not admit and believe it he would lay that Confession aside and not meddle with it but if he should design the inserting of a clause that should secretly undermine it he must suppose all men that see it to be very fools not to understand it or infinitely careless of what they believe and profess but if it should happen so then this were a very good reason of the prohibition of any thing whatsoever to be added lest secretly and undiscernably the first truth be confuted by the new article And therefore it was a wise caution to forbid all addition lest some may prove to be contrary And then secondly it is against the experience of things for first the Canon was made upon the occasion of a Creed brought into the Council by Charisius but all Creeds thereupon were rejected and the Nicene adhered to and commanded to be so for ever In Can. 7. vide Balsam in â—unâ— For as Balsamon observes there were three things done in this Canon 1. There was an Edict made in behalf of the things decreed at Ephesus 2. In like manner the holy Creed being made in the first Synod this Creed was read aloud and caution was given that no man should make any other Creed upon pain of deposition if he were an Ecclesiastick of excommunication if he were a Laick 3. The third thing he also thus expresses The same thing also is to be done to them who receive and teach the decrees of Nestorius So that the Creed that Charisius brought in was rejected because it was contrary to the Nicene faith but all Symbols were for ever after forbidden to be made not onely lest any thing contrary be admitted but because they would admit of no other and this very reason S. Athanasius assign'd why the Fathers of the Council of Sardis denyed the importunity of some Epist ad Epict. who would have something added to the Nicene confession they would not do it lest the other should seem defective And next to this it was carefully observed by the following Councils 4. 5. 6. and 7. and by it self in a great Affair for 1. though this Council determin'd the Blessed Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against Nestorius yet 2. the Fathers would not put the Article into the Creed of the Church but esteemed it sufficient to determine the point and condemn Nestorius And 3. the Greek Church hath ever since most religiously observ'd this Ephesine Canon And 4. upon this account have vehemently spoken against the Latines for adding a clause at Gentilly in France Epist ad Epict. 5. S. Athanasius speaking of the Nicene Faith or Creed says It is sufficient for the destruction of all impiety and for the confirmation of all the Holy Faith in Christ and therefore there could be no necessity of adding any thing to so full so perfect an Instrument and consequently no reasonable cause pretended why it should be attempted especially since there had been so many so intolerable inconveniencies already introduc'd by adding to the Symbols their unnecessary Expositions 6. The purpose of the Fathers is fully declar'd by the Epistle of S. Cyril Cyril Alex. ad Johan Antioch Sess. 5. in which he recites the Decree of the Council and adds as a full explication of the Council's meaning We permit neither our selves nor others to change one word or syllable of what is there The case is here as it was in Scripture to which no addition is to be made nothing to be diminished from it But yet every Doctor is permitted to expound to inlarge the expressions to deliver the sense and to declare as well as they can the meaning of it And much more might the Doctors of the Church do to the Creed To which although something was added at Nice and Constantinople yet from thence forward they might in private or in publick declare what they thought was the meaning and what were the consequents and what was virtually contain'd in the Articles but nothing of this by any authority whatsoever was to be put into the Creed For in Articles of Belief simplicity is part of it's excellency and sacredness and those mysteriousnesses and life-giving Articles which are fit to be put into Creeds are as Philistion said of Hellebore medicinal when it in great pieces but dangerous or deadly when it is in powder And I remember what a Heathen aid of the Emperour Constantius who troubled himself too much in curiosities and nice arguings about things Unintelligible and Unnecessary Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem anili superstitione confudit In qua scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ graviùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium Christian Religion is absolute and simple and they that conduct it should compose all the parts of it with gravity not perplex it with curious scrutinies not draw away any word or Article to the sense of his own interest For if it once pass the bounds set by the first Masters of the Assemblies and lose that simplicity with which it was invested there is no term or limit which can be any more set down Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem The
all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
If the Catholicks sometimes say That the Scriptures depend upon the Church or a Council they do not understand it in respect of authority or in themselves but by explication and in relation to us * Bellarm. de Concil author lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus Which is too crude an affirmative to be believ'd for besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms that the whole authority of the Scripture depends upon the Church and the Testimonies above cited doe in terms confute this saying of his the distinction it self helps not all for if the Scriptures have quoad nos no authority but what the Pope or the Church is pleas'd to give them then they have in themselves none at all For the Scriptures were written for our learning not to instruct the Angels but to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church and they have no other use or design And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great authority he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos that is that we are bound to believe them for their own truth and excellency And if a man shall say They have no authority quoad nos but what the Church gives them he says They are not credible in themselves and in se have no authority so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider And he that says one says the other or as bad under a thin and transparent cover The Church gives testimony external to the Scripture but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God But let the witness of the Church be of as perfect force as can be desir'd I meddle not with it here but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors is that they give to their Church a power of introducing and imposing new Articles of Belief and pretending that they have power so to do and their definitions are of authority equal if not superiour to the Scriptures And this I have now prov'd by many testimonies to all which I add that of the Canon Law it self Dist. 19. Can. in Canonicis In which Gratian most falsly alledges pretended words of Saint Austin which Bellarmine * De Concil authorit lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respondâ—o ad Graâ—ianum calls a being deceiv'd by a false Copy and among the Canonical Scriptures reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes inter quas sanè illae sunt quas Apostolica Sedes habere ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin or heard of any in which these words were seen Certainly no man alive but if Gratian was deceiv'd the deceivers were among themselves and yet they lov'd the deception or else they might have expung'd those words when Gregory the 13th appointed a Committee of learned men to purge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it yet remains and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words yet they are good Law at Rome 10â— Com. tit 1. de Ecclesiâ ejus authorit And Hereticks indeed talk otherwise said Eckius Objiciunt Haeretioi Major est authoritas Scripturae quam Ecclesiae but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument The Church using bloud and strangled hath by authority chang'd a thing defin'd by the Scripture Behold says he the power of the Church over Scripture I love not to take in such polluted channels he that is pleased with it may find enough to entertain his wonder and his indignation if he please to read a fol. 126. 1. b. 104. b. 133. b. Capistrano b pag. 42. n. 15. p. 11. n. 18. 124. n. 9. Cupers c defens Trid. l. 1. l. 2. explic orthod l. 2. Andradius d pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3. Antonius e de fide justif 74. 6. hierarch Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. in praefatione ad Paulum terâ—ium Pighius f Contr. Luthâ— Concl. 56. Sylvester Prierias g dis contr Luther 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit 1554. Johannes Maria Verratus h Encherid cap. 1. Coster i in 3. l. decâ—etal de convers conjug c. ex publico n. 16. Zabarel and k de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum Bellarmine himself who yet with some more modesty of expression affirms the same thing in substance which according as it hath been is and is still likely to be made use of is enough to undo the Church The word of the Pope teaching out of his Chair is non omnino not altogether or not at all the word of man that is a word liable to error but in some sort the word of God c. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say that the Canon Law is the Divine Law so said * Super. 2. decret de jurejur c. Nimis n. 1. Hostiensis I hope I shall not be esteemed to slander her when these writers think they so much honour the Church of Rome in these sayings In pursuance of this power and authority Pope Pius the 4th made a new Creed and putting his power into act did multiply new Articles one upon another And in the Council of Trent amongst many other new and fine Doctrines this was one That it is Heresie to say That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Ecclesiastical Judges and yet we in England owe this priviledge to the favour and bounty of the King and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperour and if it were so or not so it is but matter of Discipline and cannot by a simple denial of it become an Heresie So that what I have alledged is not the opinion of some private Doctors but the publick practise of the Roman Church Lib. Benedicti de Benedict Bon niae excusus A. D. 1600. Commissum ei Papae munus non modò articulos indeterminatos determinandi sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agnovisse palam confessos esse it was said to Paulus Quintus in an address to him And how good a Catholick Baronius was in this particular An. Dom. 373. n. 22. we may guess by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists in which the Pope did and undid Vt planè appareat says Baronius ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis Decreta sancire sancita mutare 2. That which I am next to represent is that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles for they having in the body of their Articles and in the publick Doctrines allowed by them and in the profession and practises of their Church so many new things
are apt to be earnest in their perswasion and over-act the proposition and from being true as he supposes he will think it profitable and if you warm him either with confidence or opposition he quickly tells you It is necessary and as he loves those that think as he does so he is ready to hate them that do not and then secretly from wishing evil to him he is apt to believe evil will come to him and that it is just it should and by this time the Opinion is troublesome and puts other men upon their guard against it and then while passion reigns and reason is modest and patient and talks not loud like a storm Victory is more regarded than Truth and men call God into the party and his judgments are us'd for arguments and the threatnings of the Scripture are snatched up in haste and men throw arrows fire-brands and death and by this time all the world is in an uproar All this and a thousand things more the English Protestants considering deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it and believes the Apostles Creed and is of the Religion of the four first General Councils they hope well of all that live well they receive into their bosome all true believers of what Church soever and for them that erre they instruct them and then leave them to their liberty to stand or fall before their own Master It was a famous saying of Stephen the Great King of Poland that God had reserved to himself three things 1. To make something out of nothing 2. To know future things and all that shall be hereafter 3. To have the rule over Consciences It is this last we say the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade 1. By imposing Articles as necessary to salvation which God never made so Where hath God said That it is necessary to salvation that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop Extrav de Majorit obedien Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae Creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici But the Church of Rome says it and by that at one blow cuts off from Heaven all the other Churches of the world Greek Armenian Ethiopian Russian Protestants which is an Act so contrary to charity to the hope and piety of Christians so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ so disparaging to the justice to the wisdom and the goodness of God as any thing which can be said Where hath it been said That it shall be a part of Christian Faith To believe that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate Infants yet they did it without any opinion of necesty And yet the Church of Rome hath determin'd it in one of her General Councils Sess. 1. cap. 4 as a thing Sine Controversiâ Credendum to be believ'd without doubt or dispute It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent for that 's a secret and that this is a part of their Religion I suppose will not be denied when a General Council hath determin'd it to be a truth without controversie and to be held accordingly Where hath God said that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot conferre true Orders nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ and yet Super totam materiam the Church of Rome is so implacably angry and imperious with the Churches of the Protestants that if any English Priest turn to them they re-ordain him which yet themselves call sacrilegious in case his former Ordination was valid as it is impossible to prove it was not there being neither in Scripture nor Catholick tradition any Laws Order or Rule touching our case in this particular Where hath God said that Penance is a Sacrament or that without confession to a Priest no man can be sav'd If Christ did not institute it how can it be necessary and if he did institute it yet the Church of Rome ought not to say it is therefore necessary for with them an Institution is not a Command though Christ be the Institutor and if Institution be equal to a Commandment how then comes the Sacrament not to be administred in both kinds when it is confessed that in both kinds it was instituted 2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles that few of the Laity know the half of them and yet imposes them all under the same necessity and if in any one of them a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith and had as good be an Infidel for the Churche's Authority being the formal object of Faith that is the only reason why any Article is to be believ'd the reason is the same in all things else and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says than all she says and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven as any Christian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions which with her are esteem'd de fide Now if it be considered that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of mankind as the doctrine of Transubstantiation that some are at least of a supicious improbity as worship of Images and of the consecrated Elements and many others some are of a nice and curious nature as the doctrine of Merit of Condignity and Congruity some are perfectly of humane inventions without ground of Scripture or Tradition as the formes of Ordination Absolution c. When men see that some things can never be believ'd heartily and many not understood fully and more not remembred or consider'd perfectly and yet all impos'd upon the same necessity and as good believe nothing as not every thing this way is apt to make men despise all Religion or despair of their own Salvation The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this and by a distinction undertakes to save you harmless you are not tied to believe all with an explicite Faith it suffices that your Faith be implicite or involved in the Faith of the Church that is if you believe that she says true in all things you need inquire no further So that by this means the authority of their Church is made authentick for that is the first and last of the design and you are taught to be sav'd by the Faith of others and a Faith is preached that you have no need ever to look after it a Faith of which you know nothing but it matters not as long as others do but then it is also a Faith which can never be the foundation of a good life for upon ignorance nothing that is good can be built no not so much as a blind obedience for even blindly to obey is built upon something that you are bidden explicitely to believe viz.
our censure of their doctrines are not so fierce and in our fears of their final condition not so decretory and rash then this doctrine of theirs against us is both the more uncharitable and the more unreasonable 1. That the Church of Rome is infinitely confident they are in the right I easily believe because they say they are and they have causes but too many to create or to occasion that confidence in them for they never will consider concerning any of their Articles their unlearned men not at all their learned men only to confirm their own and to confute their adversaries whose arguments though never so convincing they are bound to look upon as temptations and to use them accordingly which thing in case they can be in an error may prove so like the sin against the Holy Ghost as Milk is to Milk if at least all conviction of error and demonstrations of truth be the effect and grace of the Spirit of God which ought very warily to be consider'd But this confidence is no argument of truth for they telling their people that they are bound to believe all that they teach with an assent not equal to their proof of it but much greater even the greatest that can be they tie them to believe it without reason or proof for to believe more strongly than the argument inferrs is to believe something without the argument or at least to have some portions of Faith which relies upon no argument which if it be not effected by a supreme and more infallible principle can never be reasonable but this they supply with telling them that they cannot erre and this very proposition it self needing another supply for why shall they believe this more than any thing else with an assent greater than can be effected by their argument they supply this also with affrighting Homilies and noises of damnation So that it is no wonder that the Roman people are so confident since it is not upon the strength of their argument or cause for they are taught to be confident beyond that but it is upon the strength of passion credulity interest and fear education and pretended authority all which As we hope God will consider in passing his unerring sentence upon the poor mis-led people of the Roman Communion So we also considering their infirmity and our own dare not enter into the secret of God's judgement concerning all or any of their persons but pray for them and offer to instruct them we reprove their false doctrines and use means to recall them from darkness into some more light than there they see but we pass no further and we hope that this charity and modesty will not we are sure it ought not be turned to our reproach for this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that toleration of our erring Brethren Rom. 2. 4. and long sufferance which we have learn'd from God and it ought to procure Repentance in them and yet if it does not we do but our duty always remembring the words of the Great Apostle which he spake to the Church of Rome Thou art inexcusable v. 1. O man whosoever thou art that judgest another for in what thou judgest another thou condemnest thy self and we fear and every man is bound to do so too lest the same measure of judgment we make to the errors of our Brother be heap d up against our own in case we fall into any And the Church of Rome should do well to consider this for she is not the less likely to erre but much more for thinking she cannot erre her very thinking and saying this thing being her most Capital error as I shall afterwards endeavour to make apparent I remember that Paganinus Gaudentius a Roman Gentleman tells that Theódore Beza being old and coming into the Camp of Henry the 4th of France was ask'd by some Whether he were sure that he followed the true Religion He modestly answer'd That he did daily pray to God to direct him with his holy Spirit and to give him a light from Heaven to guide him Upon which answer because they expounded it to be in Beza uncertainty and irresolution he says that may who heard him took that hint and became Roman Catholicks It is strange it should be so that one man's modesty should make another man bold and that the looking upon a sound eye should make another sore But so it is that in the Church of Rome very ill use is made of our charity and modesty However I shall give a true account of the whole affair as it stands and then leave it to be consider'd SECTION VIII The Insecurity of the Roman Religion 1. AS to the security which is pretended in the Church of Rome it is confidence rather than safety as I have already said but if we look upon the propositions themselves we find that there is more danger in them than we wish there were I have already in the preface to the First Part instanc'd in some particulars in which the Church of Rome hath suffer'd infirmity and fallen into error and the errors are such which the Fathers of the Church for we meddle not with any such judgment call damnable As for example to add any thing to Scriptures or to introduce into the Faith any thing that is not written or to call any thing Divine that is not in the authority of the Holy Scriptures which Tertullian says whosoever does may fear the woe pronounc'd in Scripture against adders and detracters and S. Basil says is a manifest note of infidelity and a most certain sign of pride and others add it is an evil heart of immodesty and most vehemently forbidden by the Apostles Against the testimonies then brought some little cavils were made and many evil words of railing publish'd which I have not only washt off in the second Section of this Second part but have to my thinking clearly prov'd them guilty of doing ill in this question and receding from the rule of the primitive Church and have added many other testimonies concerning the main Inquiry to which the weak answers offer'd can no way be applied and to which the more learned answers of Bellarmine and Perron are found insufficient as it there is made to appear So that I know nothing remains to them to be considered but Whether or no the primitive and holy Fathers were too zealous in condemning this doctrine and practice of the Roman Church too severely We are sure the thing which the Fathers so condemn is done without warrant and contrary to all authentick precedents of the purest and holiest Ages of the Church and greatly derogatory to the dignity and fulness of Scripture and infinitely dangerous to the Church for the intromitting the doctrines of men into the Canon of Faith and a great diminution to the reputation of that providence by which it is certain the Church was to be secur'd in the Records of Salvation which could not be done by
Origen Homil. 2. in Psal. 37. Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum Si intellexerit praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat curari ex quo fortassis caeteri aedificari poterunt tu ipse facilè sanari multâ hoc deliberatione satis perito medici illius consilio procurandum est By which words he affirms 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor to command the publication of certain crimes 2. That though it was not lightly to be done yet upon great reason it might 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent and the edification of others were causes sufficient for the publication 4. That of these the Confessor was judge 5. That this was no otherwise done by the consent of the party but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoyn'd it And the matter is evident in the case of the incestuous Corinthian who either was restor'd without private Confession or if he was not S. Paul caus'd it to be publish'd in the Church and submitted the man to the severest discipline and yet publick that was then or since in the world The like to this we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo Epist. 80. ad Epist◠Companiae for when some Confessors exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents as formerly they were but commanded that all their whole Confessions should be written down and publickly read he says Though the plentitude of Faith might be landable that is not afraid to blush in publick yet the Confession is sufficient if it be made in secret first to God and then to the Priest and adds Non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt non timeant publicare All sins are not of that nature that are fit to be publish'd and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo let such a reprovable custome be taken away In which words of S. Leo we find 1. That the Seal of Confession as at this day it is understood at Rome was no such inviolable and religious secret for by a contrary custom it was too much broken 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins but that they indiscriminately did publish all 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it for as he adds afterwards men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies who would bring them before tribunals in some cases 4. That this was not spoken in case of publick Crimes delated and brought into publick notice but such as were spoken in private Confession And here I cannot but desire there had been some more ingenuity in Bellarmine who relating to this Epistle of S. De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta Leo affirms that S. Leo says It is against the Apostolical Rule to reveal secret sins declar'd in Confession when it is plain that S. Leo only blames the Custom of revealing all saying that all sins are not of that nature as to be fit to be reveal'd And by these precedent authorities we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest whose Office was as I prov'd out of Origen Sozomen and Burchard to enjoyn the publication of some sins according to his discretion It hapned in Constantinople that a foul fact was committed and it was published in the ears of the people and a tumult was rais'd about it and the Remedy was that Nectarius took away the Office and the Custom together Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret prout sibi ipse conscius esset consideret ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty according to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience to come to the Communion and this afterwards pass'd into a Rite for the manners of men growing degenerate and worse sins being now confess'd than as he supposes formerly they had been the judges having been more severe and the people more modest it was fit enough that this Custom upon the occasion of such a scandal and so much mischief like to follow it should be laid aside wholly and so it was Here is a plain story truly told by Sozomen and the matter is easie to be understood But Bellarmine seeing the practice and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinch'd by it makes a distinction deriv'd from the present Custom of his Church of publick Confession and private saying That Nectarius took away the publick and not the private This I shall have occasion to discuss in the next Section I am now onely to speak concerning the Seal of Confession which from this authority is apparent was not such a sacred thing but that it was made wholly to minister to the publick and private edification of the penitent and the whole Church Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church In descending ages when private Confessions grew frequent and were converted into a Sacrament the Seal also was made more tenacious and yet by the discipline of the Church there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos lib. 4. Decretal tit 1. De Sponsalibus Matrimonio where the Pope answering to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage says that the marriage is good unless the Inquiring Bishop of Brescia could have assur'd him that the man did never consent or intend the marriage Quod qualiter tibi constiterit non videmus The Gloss upon these words says Imò benè potuit constare quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur The Bishop might well know it because the man had confessed it to him or because he had revealed it to him in penitential confession For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the prejudice of a third person yet in penitential Confession he is to be believ'd because it is not to be supposed that he then is unmindful of his salvation Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be or not to be a marriage and to treat the persons accordingly it follows that the thing it self might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul and this was done by the Cardinal of S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a supposititious Child to the inheritance of her husband Lib. 5. decret tit 38. and this revelation of the Confession produc'd a decretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case Cap. officii de poenit remiss
Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the Mass-books and prayer for the soul of S. Leo was chang'd into a prayer to S. Leo * Vide Missal Roman Paris 1529. and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could Cap. cum Marthae Extrav de celebrat Missarum in Gloslâ yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for S. Leo put in again * Missale Rom. in decreto Concil Trid. restit in festo S. Leonis That by these offices of holy atonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word Letter to a friend pag. 12. but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great authorities only one of them striving to find some fault says that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence And these are the words of Senensis concerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he says that Pope Benedict XI affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the house of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church Annot. 345. who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new article of faith is therefore certain because it was no article of faith in S. Austins time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of S. Austin Enchirid. cap. 68 69. The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted 1 Cor. 3. and expounds the words of S. Paul he shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quâ—ri potest That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to
poenas nullas futuras opinetur nisi ante illud ultimum tremendumque judicium Cap. 16. Whoever therefore desires to avoid the eternal pains let him be not only baptiz'd but also justified in Christ and truly pass from the Devil into Christ. But let him not think that there shall be any Purgatory pains but before that last and dreadful Judgment meaning not only that there shall be none to cleanse them after the day of judgment but that then at the approach of that day the General fire shall try and purge And so himself declares his own sense In Psal. 6. All they that have not Christ in the foundation are argued or reproved when in the day of Judgment but they that have Christ in the foundation are chang'd that is purg'd who build upon this foundation wood hay stubble So that in the day of Judgment the trial and escape shall be for then shall the trial and the condemnation be But yet more clear are his words * De C. D. lib. 16. c. 24. lib. 20. c. 25. in other places So at the setting of the Sun that is at the end viz. of the world the day of judgment is signified by that fire dividing the carnal which are to be sav'd by fire and those who are to be damned in the fire nothing is plainer that that S. Austin understood that those who are to be sav'd so as by fire are to be sav'd by passing through the fire at the day of judgment that was his opinion of Purgatory And again out of these things which are spoken it seems more evidently to appear that there shall be certain purgatory pains of some persons in that judgment For what thing else can be understood where it is said who shall endure the day of his coming c. 3. S. Austin speaks things expresly against the doctrine of Purgatory know ye that when the soul is pluck'd from the body presently it is plac'd in Paradise according to its good deservings or else for her sins is thrown headlong in inferni Tartara Aug. tam. 9. de vanitate saeculi c. 1. de consolatione mortuorum Serm. 2. cap. 1. into the hell of the damned for I know not well how else to render it And again the soul retiring is receiv'd by Angels and plac'd either in the bosom of Abraham if she be faithful or in the custody of the infernal prison De Dâ—gmat 6. Eccles. cap. 79. if it be sinful until the appointed day comes in which she shall receive her body pertinent to which is that of S. Austin Aut Augustini aut Gennadii if he be Author of that excellent book de Eccles. dogmatibus which is imputed to him After the ascension of our Lord to the Heavens the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and going from the body go unto Christ expecting the resurrection of their body But I shall insist no further upon these things I suppose it very apparent that S. Austin was no way confident of his fancy of Purgatory and that if he had fancied right yet it was not the Roman Purgatory that he fancied There is only one objection which I know of which when I have clear'd I shall pass on to other things S. Austin speaking of such who have liv'd a middle kind of an indifferent pious life saith Constat autem c. but it is certain that such before the day of judgment being purg'd by temporal pains which their spirit suffer when they have receiv'd their bodies shall not be deliver'd to the punishment of Eternal fire here is a positive determination of the article by a word of confidence and a full certificate and therefore S. Austin in this article was not a doubting person To this I answer it may be he was confident here but it lasted not long this fire was made of straw and soon went out for within two Chapters after he expresly doubts as I have prov'd 2. These words may refer to the purgatory fire at the general conflagration of the world and if they be so referred it is most agreeable to his other sentiments 3. This Constat or decretory phrase and some lines before or after it are not in the old books of Bruges and Colein nor in the copies printed at Friburg and Ludovicus vives supposes they were a marginal note crept since into the Text. Now this objection being remov'd Contra Pharis tit 8. there remains no ground to deny that S. Austin was a doubting person in the article of Purgatory And this Erasmus expresly affirm'd of him In exposit precationis missae Advers haeres lib. 12. tit Purgatorium and the same is said of him by Hofmeister but modestly and against his doubting in his Enchiridion he brings only a testimony in behalf of prayer for the dead which is nothing to the purpose and this is also sufficiently noted by Alphonsus a Castro In Cathol Romao pacifico 9 de purgat and by Barnesius Well! but suppose S. Austin did doubt of Purgatory This is no warranty to the Church of England for she does not doubt of it as S. Austin did but plainly condemns it So one of my adversaries objects To which I answer that the Church of England may the rather condemn it because S. Austin doubted of it for if it be no Catholic doctrine it is but a School point and without prejudice to the faith may be rejected But 2. I suppose the Church of England would not have troubled her self with the doctrine if it had been left as S. Austin left it that is but as a meer uncertain opinion but when the wrong end of the opinion was taken and made an article of faith and damnation threatned to them that believed it not she had reason to consider it and finding it to be chaff wholly to scatter it away 3. The Church of England is not therefore to be blamed if in any case she see more than S. Austin did and proceed accordingly for it is certain the Church of Rome does decree against divers things of which S. Austin indeed did not doubt but affirm'd confidently I instance in the necessity of communicating infants and the matter of appeals to Rome The next Authority to be examin'd is that of Otho Frisnigensis concerning which there is a heavy quarrel against the Dissuasive for making him to speak of a Purgatory before whereas he speaks of one after the day of judgment with a Quidam asserunt some affirm it viz. that there is a place of Purgatory after death nay but you are deceiv'd says E. W. and the rest of the adversaries he means that some affirm there is a place of Purgatory after the day of judgment Now truly that is more than I said but that Otho said it is by these men confess'd But his words are these I think it ought to be search'd Esse quippe apud inferos locum purgationum in quo
the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies In Epist. 61. 101. ad Pammach But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9. that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34. was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem sinceritatem postremo quid inter superstitionis Sirenas portum religionis intersit Nolite mihi colligere professores Nominis Christiani nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti ut obliti sint quid promiserint Deo Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vivant he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to issue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchers and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons Sed illa quà m vana sint quà m noxia quà m sacrilega quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum atque adeò penè ab omnibus vâ—bis non observentur alio volumine oftendere institâ—i Nunc vos illud admaneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filioâ— corrigere studeâ— But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics did reproach the Catholic Church he says Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church by reproaching the manners of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchers and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive De fide symb c. 7. Contr. Adimant c. 13. there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the * Pag. 27. Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tried The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to his part of the question Contr. Adimant c. 13. and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God
P. sub Helena Constantino filio ejus congregata ab ipsis non tantum septima verum etiam Universalis est appellata ut nec septima nec Universalis diceretur habereturque quasi supervacua in totum ab omnibus abdicata est 3. Now for the third thing which the Dissuasive said that they published a book under the name of the Emperor I am to answer that such a book about that time within three or four years of it was published in the name of the Emperor is notoriously known and there is great reason to believe it was written three or four years befor the Synod and sent by the Emperor to the Pope but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it but that it was written by the Synod and contains the acts of the Synod but published under the Emperors name Now this the Dissuasive affirm'd by the authority of Hincmarus who does affirm it Vide supra Sect. primò quia and of the same opinion is Bellarmine Scripti videntur in Synodo Francofordiensi acta continere synodi Francofordiensis enim asserit Hincmarus ejus temporis Author So that by all this the Reader may plainly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was affirm'd and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects Only this I add that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt though it might be partly true yet not wholly For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks and was so decretory against the worship of images quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur A. D. 793. said Hoveden and Matthew of Westminster that it is vehemently suspected that the Patrons of Images the objector knows whom I mean have taken a timely course with it so that the monuments of it are not to be seen nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preserved It was urg'd as an argument a minori ad majus Of making of images that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church A. L. p. 27. To this purpose Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen were alledged First for Tertullian of whom the Letter says that he said no such thing sure it is this man did not care what he said supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged for more will believe him than examine him But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person The Quotations out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent but the words were not cited but now they must to justifie me and themselves Cap. 3. 1. That reference to Tertullians book of idolatry the objector takes no notice of as knowing it would reproach him too plainly see the words the artificers of statues and images and all kind of representations Diabolum soeculo intulisse artifices statuarum imaginum omnis generis simulachrorum the Devil brought into the world and when he had given the Etymology of an Idol saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is formula he adds Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit Inde omnis Idoli artifex ejusdem Unius est criminis And a little before Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit And in the beginning of the fourth chapter Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit tanto prius est ne fiat si coli non licet And again toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei And a little after he brings in some or other objecting Sed ait quidam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere fecit To this at last he answers Si eundem Deum observas habes legem ejus ne feceris similitudinem si praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis tu imitare Moysen Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliquod nisi tibi Deus jusserit Now here is no subterfuge for any one For Tertullian first fays the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of statues images and all sorts of similitudes 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols And 3. that God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them and that the maker is guilty of the same crime and lastly I add his definition of Idolatry Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus servitus Every image is an idol and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry I hope all this put together will convince the Gentlemen that denied it that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for Now for the other place quoted Lib. 2. advers Marc. c. 22. the words are these proinde similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo in terra in aquis ostendit causas idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth and in the Waters shews the causes that restrain idolatry the causes of idolatry he more fully described in the fore-cited place Quando enim sine idolo idololatria fiat for he supposes the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping and he calls this making statues and images Daemoniis corpora facere Lib. 4. c. 22. But there is yet another place in his books against Marcion where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie says it upon this reason Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri quanto magis imaginis suae By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame for denying that Tertullian said the making of images to be Unlawful Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive Pag. 27. The objector in the Letter says they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens Alexandria Pag. 54. 55. because the books quoted are too big and he could not espy them The author of the Letter never examined them but took them for
in the ancient Apostolical Creeds expounded by Marcellus Ruffinus Chrysologus Maximus Taurinensis Venantius Fortunatus Etherius and Beatus Lib. 1. contra Elipand Tolet. yet because it is so plain in the Article of the Church as the omission is no prejudice to the integrity of the Christian Faith so the inserting it is no addition of an Article or Innovation So these Copies now reckon'd omit in the beginning of the Creed Maker of Heaven and Earth but out of the Constantinopolitan Creed it is now inserted into all the Copies of the Apostolical Symbol Now as these omissions or additions respectively that is this variety is no prejudice to these being the Apostles Creed So neither is the addition made at Nice any other but a setting down what was plainly included in the Filiation of the Son of God and therefore was no addition of an Article nor properly an explication but a saying in more words what the Apostles and the Apostolical Churches did mean in all the Copies and what was deliver'd before that Convention at Nice But there was ill use made of it and wise men if they had pleased might easily have foreseen it But whether it was so or no for I can no otherwise affirm it than as I have said yet to add any new thing to the Creed or to appoint a new Creed was at that time so strange a thing so unknown to the Church that though what they did was done with pious intention and great advantage in the Article it self yet it did not produce that effect which from such a concurrence of sentiments might have been expected For first even some of the Fathers then present refus'd to subscribe the Additions some did it as they said against their will some were afraid to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantial and most men were still so unsatisfied that presently after Council upon Council was again called at Sirmium Ariminum Seleucia Sardis to appease the new stirrs rising upon the old account and instead of making things quiet they quench'd the fire with oyle and the Principal persons in the Nicene Council Casu Hosii planè miserabâ—li Cathulicus Orbis contremâ—it concussaeque sunt solidissimae petrae Baron A. C. 347. 17. 18. chang'd their minds and gave themselves over to the contrary temptation Even Hosius himself who presided at Nice and confirm'd the former Decrees at Sardis yet he left that Faith and by that desertion affrighted and shook the fabrick of the Christian Church in the Article added or explained at Nice In the same sad condition was Marcellus of Ancyra Vide Epist. Marcellinorum ad Episcipos in Dio-Caesarea exulantes a great friend of S. Athanasius and an earnest opposer of Arius so were the two Photinus's Eustathius Elpidius Heracides Hygin Sigerius the President Cyriacus and the Emperour Constantine himself who by banishing Athanasius into France by becoming Arian and being baptiz'd by an Arian Bishop secur'd the Empire to his sons as themselves did say as it is reported by Lucifer Calaritanus * Pro S. Athanas l. 1. apud Baron A. â— 336. 13. and that he was vehemently suspected by the Catholicks is affirmed by Eusebius Hierom Ambrose Theodoret Sozomen and Socrates But Liberius Bishop of Rome was more than suspected to have become an Arian Idem aiunt Martinus Polâ—nus Alphonsus de Castro Volaterranus as Athanasius himself S. Hierom Damasus and S. Hilary report So did Pope Felix the second and Leo his successor It should seem by all this that the definitions of General Councils were not accounted the last determination of truths or rather that what propositions General Councils say are true are not therefore part of the body of faith though they be true or else that all these persons did go against an establish'd rule of faith and conscience which if they had done they might easily have been oppress'd by their adversaries urging the plain authority of the Council against them But Neither am I to urge against thee the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum against me was the saying of S. Austin even long after the Council of Nice had by Concession obtain'd more authority than it had at first Now the reason of these things can be no other than this not that the Nicene Council was not the best that ever was since the day that a Council was held at Jerusalem by all the Apostles but that the Council's adding something to the Creed of the Church which had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian faith for 300 years together was so strange a thing that they would not easily bear that yoke And that this was the matter appears by what the Fathers of the Church after the Council did complain Dum in verbis pugna est dum de novitatibus quaestio est dum de ambiguis dum de Authoribus querelae est dum de studiis certamen est dum in consensu difficultas est dumque alter alteri anathema esse coepit prope jam nemo est Christi S. Hilar. After the Nicene Synod we write nothing but Faiths viz. new Creeds while there is contention about Words while there is question about Novelties while there is complaint of ambiguities and of Authors while there is contention of parties and difficulty in consenting and while one is become an Anathema to another scarce any man now is of Christ. And again We decree yearly and monethly faiths of God we repent when we have decreed them we defend them that repent we anathematize them that are defended we either condemn foreign things in our own or condemn our own in forein things and biting one another we are devour'd of one another This was the product of leaving the simplicity and perfection of the first rule by which the Church for so many ages of Martyrdom was preserv'd and defended and consummated their religious lives and their holy baptism of bloud and which they oppos'd as a sufficient shield against all heresies arising in the Church And yet the Nicene Fathers did adde no new Article Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hâ—c idem posteà diligentiùs crederetur Vincent Lirin contr haeres cap. 32. of new matter but explicated the Filiation of Jesus Christ saying in what sense he was the Son of God which was in proper speaking an interpretation of a word in the Apostles Creed and yet this occasion'd such stirs and gave so little satisfaction at first and so great disturbances afterward that S. Hilary * Lib. de Synodis call'd them happy who neither made nor knew nor receiv'd any other Symbol besides that most simple Creed us'd in all Churches ever since the Apostles days However it pleas'd the Divine Providence so to conduct the spirits of the Catholick Prelates that by their wise and holy adhering to the Creed as explicated