perpetually pure and uncorrupted in her doctrine we cannot say We cannot say it in the Cardinal's sense for if we speak of pure and uncorrupted doctrine he meanes it of such a priviledge and freedome from Errour as the Church of Rome challenges which is not necessary to the preservation of the Catholike Church and Faith or if we speak of the Catholick Church he takes it as most visibly appearing in the chief Pastors and their adherents binding that priviledge and freedom to that succession or those that are chief in it Whereas we grant the Catholike Church wholly according to all the Pastors and Members of it shall not be infected with any destructive or dangerous Errours but that purity of saving Doctrine shall be preserved in it Yet not bound as a Priviledge to any one Church as to the Roman or to those that are for Number most and for Place chief in the Church but that in some part or other of the Catholike Church and by some Pastors it shall be preserved and propagated They that dreame of a Church alwayes so gloriously visible and so apparently holding out Purity of Doctrine and Saving Truth as the Romanists doe to the end all men may readily finde out the true Church and easily come to the knowledge of that Truth do not consider that God doth somtimes for the sins of Christians turning his grace into wantonnesse make his Word precious as 1 Sam. 3. and his saving Truth not to be found without difficulty and diligent search after it We see the Fathers interpreted that promise the Gates of Hell shall not of the not failing of the Church never of the not erring of it and we see by experience the contrary As for example the Millenary belief and the excommunicating of Infants both which the Church of Rome acknowledge errours did as generally prevail in the Catholike Church as any error of their New Faith can be said which they boast often to be the general belief and doctrine of the whole Church We say then The Gates of Hell cannot prevaile to the overthrowing of the Fundamental saving Faith or to the corrupting and extinguishing of the Purity of saving Doctrine absolutely through the Catholike Church but may prevaile very farre and generally over the visible face of the Church Catholike viz. as it shews it self in the parts of it all particular Churches holding the Foundation For these considered as above according to their more visible and conspicuous appearance in those that are chiefest in them for place and most for number 〈◊〉 lose the purity of Saving Do 〈…〉 though holding the Foundation admit of the Superstructions of hay stubble and worse Errors in belief and practice And though Hell-Gates may prevaile very farre and generally by Superstructures yet are they such at least in some particular Churches as the foundation may bear Such as may still be convinced by the Doctrine of Saving Truth preserved still in the Church For the Pastors voice as was said above cap. 12. will be so heard alwaies in the Church that the strange voice of false Teachers and false Doctrines may be discerned and will by them that have eares to hear and their senses exercised to put a difference between good and evill true and false Now the Romish Church with which we had to doe had not preserved the Faith entire without mixture of many Errours and Superstitions had not kept the foundation clear from such burthensome and dangerous Superstructures yet has the fundamentall Faith in expresse termes been delivered downe in that Church and such saving knowledge as was sufficient to discern the Foundation from the Superstructures the true and ancient Faith from the new erroneous Belief the true Pastors voice from the strange Doctrines of unwritten Traditions To follow that voice to cast off those Superstructures to contend for the Faith once delivered and clear it from adventitiall errours that was our duty and the work of our Reformation And thus far against their generall plausible Pretences Now to some Triall of their particular Doctrines of Belief and Practice which we have cast off as erroneous and superstitious For the way of Triall The Affirmative in those Doctrines being theirs it lies upon them to prove the Doctrines affirmed by them to be true and Catholike by such Rules as are allowable The Rules admitted by both sides though not in equal rank are Scripture and consent of Antiquity gathered by the Writings of the Fathers and the Acts of ancient Councils We say they cannot by these make good what they affirm but shew that both make against them CHAP. XXI Of the Tryall of Doctrines by Scripture FIrst for Scripture Whatsoever is revealed in that Scripture which both sides admit as Canonical is likewise admitted by both sides as of divine Authority But such Scripture is not acknowledged by them as a sufficient Rule for the triall and judging of the controverted points therefore they are necessitated to fly to Tradition not that which delivers down to us the sense of any Scripture by the consent of all Ages of the Church but to unwritten Traditions which deliver Doctrines of Beliefe and Practise that have not footing in Scriptures This I note because they are ready to abuse the unwary by urging sometimes the former sort to make them swallow unwritten Traditions upon the same pretence For the former sort we grant as appears by the points of Christianity not controverted between us because these points as they are grounded on Scripture so are they brought down to us by the profession and tradition of all Ages as the confessed sense of those Scriptures on which they are grounded and this not derogatory to the sufficiency of Scripture But to their other sort of Traditions viz. unwritten on which they generally ground their Doctrines rejected by us we cannot admit as any ground of Faith or Worship such Traditions being uncertain not possibly to be proved Apostolical but received upon the Testimony of their present Church and indeed generally inconsistent with Scripture Yet are we to note that in all the controverted points they pretend Scripture and alledge several places in every point yea in those points which they themselves confess as most of the controverted points are by the most ingenuous Romanists confessed to have no ground or footing in Scripture To let passe the want of candor and plain dealing in this we must observe First that their labouring to pretend Scripture for every Doctrine is a tacite acknowledgement that doctrines of Faith and Religion should have their ground there For instance Invocation of Saints they acknowledge not used in the Old Testament yea and give us reason for it because the souls of the Patriarchs were not then in heaven and so not to be Invocated yet doe they alledge very many places for it out of the Old Testament to make a shew of Scripture So for the New Testament They acknowledge Invocation of Saints departed was not commanded or taught
cap 12.32 against adding to his precepts And Rev. 22.18 a Woe pronounced to him that addes And Gal. 1.6 an Anathema to them that bring in another Gospel beside what they had received And Gal. 3.15 to a mans Testament none addes much lesse to Gods And Mat. 15. our Saviour expresly condemnes the Pharisees that taught for Doctrines of Worship the Traditions and Commandements of men Now see what shift they make with these places One is that the prohibition of adding concernes the whole Word of God written and unwritten no man may adde to that We answer that the places of Deut. and of Rev. are expresly of the written Word Also that of Gal. 1. and Gal. 3. must be meant of the written for that which is written beares the name of the Gespel and of the Testament of God and can we thinke it beares it partially Saint Aug. lib. 3. contra Lit. Petil. and elswhere expresly applies that of Gal. 1. to the Scripture thereby excluding all doctrines of Faith not received from Scripture And Saint Hier. upon 1. of Hag. relating to that place saith Percutit Dei gladius that sword of God or Anathema strikes through all those doctrines which absque authoritate testimonio scripturae quasi traditione Apostolicâ confingunt without the authority and testimony of Scripture they hold forth under pretence of Apostolical Tradition And for that other of Gods Testament The Romanists must suppose that God Almighty has done as it fares with many men who intending to write their Will and having begun and prefixed the Title This is my Will and Testament and proceeded far in it being prevented by hastening death leave the rest by word of mouth so will they have God to make a Will partly Written partly Nuncupatory Now how derogatory this is to the providence of God who sees not Another shift That those Traditions are onely forbid which are contrary to what is written and so no man may adde We answer The Apostle saith Gal. 1. praeter beside that which ye have received and Bell. expresly interprets that praeter by contra but in the judgement of Saint Aug. and St. Hier. in the places above cited it is enough to incurre the Anathema if they teach any thing of faith which is besides that which is received from Scripture saith St. Aug. and absque authoritate testimonio Scripturae the authority and testimony of the Scripture saith St. Hier. to which adde Tertul. against Hermogenes Non est scriptum timeat vae illud adâ—icientibus It is not written Let him fear that curse which is denounced against them that adde It was then enough to bring a man under the woe pronounced against them that added if the thing they added was not written and not onely because it was contrary to what was written But our Saviours speech Mat. 15. taken from Is 29.13 Their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men shews that all Traditions though not contrary to what is written yet if they teach for Worship or Faith necessary to salvation that which is not commanded or written they are to be condemned For though the Pharisees Corban was directly against the written command yet their superstitious washing was not And upon that occasion our Saviour condemnes them as to this point To this very purpose is one of St. Basil's Ethick Rules Quicquid extra Scripturam est cum non sit ex side peccatum est He saies not contrà against but extra besides or without Scripture and being so it cannot be of Faith and therefore sinfull if so propounded and imposed And this excludes the Romish Traditions from being rules of Faith or Worship besides that they are to be challenged of contrariety and repugnancy to Scripture for the most part CHAP. XXIV Their Arguments against Scriptures sufficiencie and for Traditions THeir Arguments for their Traditions and against the sufficiency of Scripture are so many aspersions cast upon the undoubted Word of God not without derogation to the Providence and Wisdome of God nor for the most part without some contradiction to themselves Their first concerns the purpose of God in it That he did not purpose it to contain a perfect Rule because the Pen-men of holy Scripture had no command to write but did it upon occasion or as Bel. necessitate quadam coacti upon occasions ministred and urging them to write We answer 1. If the necessity of the Churches call'd for Scripture and urged them to write it shews of what concernment it is to the Church But 2. though the necessity of the Church ministred the outward occasion to some bookes it supposes the purpose and special providence of God in applying them to the work Hear Bell. himself acknowledging lib. 4. c. 3. Deo volente inspirante Aposelos scripsisse quae scripserunt That the Apostles wrote what they did write by the will and inspiration of God This is well but this amounts not to a command faith he Being then prest with St Aug. saying Quicquid ille Christus de suis dictis factis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam manibus imperavit Whatsoever Christ would have us read of his sayings and deeds that he commanded them to write lib. 1. de consens evang c. ult He is forced to confesse they had mandatum internum an internal command to write And now what needs more for if they had had all of them as expresse outward command as Saint John had to write his Revelations or as Moses had to write what he had from God it would not have made it more the purpose of God than did the inward command Nor would it have made Bellarmine any whit more granted the Scripture of the Apostles to be written for such a Rule for he does not grant it of Moses Writings though he had such a command and therefore we may leave it as a vaine reasoning But see what he saith of Scripture as written for a Rule That it is a Rule and Regula fidei Catholicae the Rule of Catholike Faith and Regula credendi certissima tutissima The Rule of Belief and that most certain most safe Bell. affirms l. 1. c. 2. and this is well towards a perfect Rule and there he inferres upon it seeing it is so sunâ—â— profecto non erit qui eâ neglectâ spiritus interni semper incerti saepe fallacis judiciose commiserit He is not well advised who neglecting Scripture rests upon the judgement of a private spirit which is alwaies uncertain often deceiving How well might the inference been made so against unwritten Traditions seeing the scripture is Regula fidei Catholicae regula credendi certissima tutissima sanus profecto non erit c. He is ill advised who neglecting Scripture commits himself to unwritten Traditions which are often deceitfull alwaies uncertaine But in his fourth Book cap 12. Scripture is with him but a partial Rule unwritten Tradition is the other part Nay
sounds propter convenientiorem institutionem seu principium That Church being from Saint Peter and Saint Paul and therefore the most convenient example to shew the succession of Pastors and Doctrine For from thence he fetches his argument to confute those Hereticks that being pressed with Scripture did accuse it as he saith of obscurity as not to be understood of them who were ignorant of Tradition therefore he confutes them by the undeniable succession of the Churches and because Longum est saith he omnium Ecclesiarum enumerare successiones therefore he singles out the Roman as that which was maxima omnibus cognita à gloriosissimis Apostolis Petro Paulo fundata instituta there is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a more convenient beginning of succession in that than in other lesse famous Churches and by the doctrine received from the Apostles and delivered down in that Church he confounds the Hereticks Now saith he with this Church because of such a beginning and succession every Church ought to agree and so they did then and therefore it was needlesse for him to instance in any other Church Thus are we also willing to deal with the Romanists at this day They being pressed with Scripture accuse it of obscurity and say as those Hereticks that Irenaeus had to deal with It is not to be understood by them that are ignorant of Tradition We therefore tell them of the Doctrine of Faith delivered down in all Churches and bring them to the Antient Roman Church which was glorious then for its foundation and preservation of true doctrine and tell them because of such an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to agree with it now which they doe not in the main points between us and them controverted as abovesaid and in this particular of an Infallible Universal Judge for the whole Church ¶ Thus farre we have proceeded upon the first and chief Rule of Triall Scripture the Sufficiency and Evidence of it Now to the other CHAP. XXIX Of Consent of Antiquity OUr second Rule of Triall is Consent of Antiquity We say the Romanists cannot prove their Doctrines by that as they ought to doe if they will have them passe for Catholick for then according to Vincentius his Rule semper ubique they must be alwaies and generally held in the Church Yet is there a pretence made to it and great confidence and boasting among them of the Fathers not that they know they have indeed advantage by them as to the due proving of their cause but because the Protestants have freely and ingenuously spoken their Judgment of the Fathers and their authority Therefore the Romanists make advantage of it with their own Proselytes as if the Protestants declined all Triall that way Now should we speak with that liberty of the Fathers writings as they doe of the Scripture loading it with imputations of obscurity imperfection corruptions c. it might I hope be so much more justifiable in us as the divine authority of Scripture surpasses all humane writings But this we professe however they are obliged to disparage the written Word of God and a miserable cause it must be which obliges men to such a plea yet are not we obliged to detract any thing from the due worth of the Antient Fathers for take their Writings as they are we averre that the Popish faith cannot prove it self to be Catholick by them Yet if we say the Fathers were men and subject to error which the Scripture is not we doe but say what they ost acknowledge themselves If we say they have erred in several Ages and that many of them together with a general consent as in the Millenary belief the Infant communion and the place of faithfull Souls out of Heaven till the Day of Judgment we doe but say what the Romanist cannot deny who doe acknowledge the Fathers erred in these If therefore we say they are no Rule of Faith to us we doe but say what they of the Ages following thought that they were not bound to follow them in these errors after they were once detected and what the Romanists must acknowledge for they also have forsaken them in these If again we say the Writings of the Fathers have come through ill hands unto us which have corrupted or maimed the true and patched false and supposititious writings to them the Romanists cannot but acknowledge we have great cause to think there was more providence of God in the preserving of Scripture entire than the Writings of the Fathers Onely here is the mischief again they are obliged to speak any casualty that happens to Scripture and to make a noise of corruptions obscurity c. because they finde it too plain against them and are afraid the people should see it too but of the Fathers writings more rarely doe they acknowledge any such thing not because they have cause to joy of them as plain and full for the Romish faith but because their advantage is by their forged writings and the corruptions of the true ones also because those writings came through their hands for several Ages and so the false dealing that has been used becomes chargeable upon the professors of their cause False dealing I say what by the cunning of Monks that had those Writings in Manuscript what by their several editions of the Fathers what by their expurgatory Indexes In all which it is easie to see what labouring there has been to make the Antients speake the Language of their present Church Hence have they advantage not truly by the Writings of the Antients but such as serves to their purpose especially when to deal with those that are lesse learned whom they can turn to this or that place in such or such a Father knowing they are not able to judge whether the writing be supposititious or the place corrupted or whether the same Father elswhere expresses himself otherwise or be contradicted by other Fathers and there speaks onely his private opinion This caution Vincentius gives us in his Rules for Catholick doctrine cap. 39. Whatever any quamvis sanctus doctus Episcopus Martyr praeter vel contra though holy learned though a Bishop or Martyr holds beside or against the rest of the Fathers id inter proprias privatas opiniunculas it must be severed from the Publick doctrine and placed among private opinions Well though all this makes for the disadvantage of the Protestants that they have not the Fathers writings as they came from their own hands and pens but as through the hands of many Adversaries yet take them as they are with all the difficulties of finding what is truly theirs and what is the sense of it the Protestants never doubted to enter this kinde of triall by Antiquity not standing or falling by every thing we meet with in one or moe Fathers for the Romanists will not so but maintaining 1. That the Romanist cannot prove his Affirmative by a full and sufficient consent or
by the Apostles or in their time yea and give us reasons why it was not published at first because say Eckius Copus Salmeron It had been unseasonable and dangerous for Jew and Gentile at first to have heard it lest they might think the Christians set forth and worshipped many Gods or that the Apostles were ambitious of having such honour done them after their death It is then acknowledged not to have been so much as taught in that first Age and yet will they again when they come to maintain it make the world believe it was also written then and bring many places of the New Testament for a seeming proof of it So of Image-worship Purgatory Indulgences and most of their Sacraments the more ingenuous among them acknowledge as our Authors have gathered their Testimonies they have not ground in Scripture and indeed if they truly had why should the Romanist so earnestly contend for unwritten Traditions to hold them by yet must Scripture be alledged for them all by every Controversie-writer Which consequently as was observed does acknowledge that Doctrines of Faith and Religion should be grounded there Secondly that the necessity they have of resting upon unwritten Traditions equalized in Authority to the written Word of God is a plain confession they cannot stand by the undoubted Word of God nor have any certaine ground of their New faith which rests upon pretended unwritten Traditions and these you must take upon the word of their own Church Thirdly that the same necessity of resting upon unwritten Traditions forces them to lay upon Scripture Imputations of Imperfection and Insufficiency of darknesse and obscurity very unbeseeming the Testament of God written by the dictate of Gods Spirit and left us as a signification of his will and a Rule for the direction of his Church Let us then take leave a little more largely to speake to these two points of the sufficient perfection of this written Rule then of the sufficient perspicuity of it The one casts off the necessity of their unwritten Tradition the other the pretence of their Infallible Judge or Interpreter And upon these indeed rests the whole frame of the New Roman faith and therefore worthy of all other points to be a little insisted on CHAP. XXII Sufficient perfection of the Scripture as a Rule FIrst then of the sufficient perfection of Scripture which we say containes all things of themselves necessary to be believed or done to salvation All such things we say it contains not expresly and in so many words but either so or as deducible thence by evident and sufficient consequence The Romanists are forced to grant that the Scripture contains plainly the prima credibilia as some of them expresse it the first and chiefe points of belief or those that are simpliciter necessaria and omnia omnibus necessaria as Bell. expresses it lib. 4. cap. 1. but they also say that there are many other things necessary in belief and practise to salvation not there contained or thence deduced therefore they adde Traditions to make a supply CHAP. XXIII Of Traditions which we allow FOr Tradition We allow 1. That Universal Tradition which brings down Scripture unto us through the consent of all Ages for that Tradition is supposed in the reception of the Scripture But we say the Scripture contains all material objects of Faith necessary to Salvation i.e. all things that had been necessary for Christians to believe and doe for Salvation though there had been no Scripture Secondly we allow that kind of Tradition which brings down the sense of Scripture to us through all Ages of the Church So the Creed may be called a Tradition and other Catholike Declarations of the Church bringing downe the sense of Scripture in any point of Faith Now as the Scripture does suppose the former Tradition so this kind supposes the Scriptures for its ground delivering nothing but what is contained in them and neither of these sorts derogatory to the sufficiency of them Thirdly we allow some Traditions that bring down matters of practise touching Order Ceremony Usages in the Church as of Fasts or Festivals or Rites about Sacraments and the like But such if they be not contained in the Scripture so neither are they within the limits of the question which concerns necessaries to salvation such we deny those to be and such things as are necessary to believe to salvation we deny to come down to us by unwritten Tradition and what Traditions the Romanists pretend for the controverted points we deny that they contain such things necessary or to have been delivered down in all Ages and therefore can be no ground for necessary faith whether we consider the matter of them or the uncertainty of them Our Arguments briefly are I. Such as shew the Scriptures sufficient for Salvation as Joh. 5. ver 39. for in them ye think ye have salvation Where our Saviour supposes they thought true in it or else his reason had not been good for because they might have Salvation by them i. e. know all things necessary to it therefore he bids them search the Scriptures and they should find they testified of him So 2 Tim. 3.15 expresly they are able to make wise unto salvation c. They have two shifts here 1. That Scripture is profitable to that end for that word Profitable the Romanists lay hold on because the Apostle saith there All Scripture is profitable for doctrine c. and so say they is every book profitable to that end though not sufficient and so they will have the whole Scripture but partially profitable But we answer Sufficiencie belongs to the whole Scripture though in proportion also to every Book And the other expressions of the Apostle there shew this to be onely a shift For he said before that Scriptures are able to make wise to salvation can that be said to be able to make a man wise to such a purpose and onely to doe it in part and imperfectly teaching him onely some knowledges to that purpose Also he saith after ver 17. by the Scripture The man of God is throughly furnished or perfected to every good work i.e. to Doctrine Instruction c. such as he spoke of before which must needs imply a sufficiencie to that end 2. Their other shift is That the Scripture is said to doe this because it contains many things plainly in it self and shews from whence we may have the rest i.e. from their Church We answer Had it shewn us that which it does not yet could not this shift be reasonable here For so the Law might have been said to make us perfect because it shews us Christ and was a School-master to him Gal. 3. and John Baptist might have been said to have perfected his Disciples by shewing them Christ II. Such Arguments as forbid and exclude all Additions to the Scripture and so imply the perfection and sufficiency of it and condemne their super-added Traditions as Deut. 4.2 and