things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
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 definition of the Church Thousands of the people and the very boys see the pictures of S. Austin sold in Fairs and Markets and yet are not so wise as to know the notion or nature of the Church and indeed many wiser people both among them and us will be very much to seek in the definition when your learned men amongst your selves dispute what that nature or definition is But it may be though I. S. put Fathers and Councils into the same proposition yet he means it of Councils only and that it is the existence of Councils which is not to be had without the notion or definition of Church and this is as false as the other for what tradesman in Germany Italy France or Spain is not well enough assur'd that there was such a thing as the Council of Trent and yet to the knowing of this it was not necessary that they should be told how Church is to be defin'd Indeed they can not know what it is to be Church-Councils unless they know as much of Church as they do of Councils But what think we Could not men know there was a Council at Ariminum more numerous than that at Nice unless they had the notion of Church Certainly the Church was no part of the definition of that Council nor did it relate save only as enemies are relatives to each other and if they be yet it is hard to say they are parts of each others definition But it may be I. S. means this saying of good and Catholic Councils yet they also may be known to have been without skill in definitions Definitions do not tell An sit but quid sit the first is to be supposed before any definition is to be inquir'd after Well! but how shall the being or nature of Church be known that 's his second proposition and tells us a pretty thing Nor is the being or nature of Church known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith who not which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of faith Why but does the having the true rule of faith make a man faithful Cannot a man have the true rule of faith and yet forsake it or not make use of it or hide the truth in unrighteousness Does the having the best antidote in the world make a man healthful though he live disorderly and make no use of it But to let that pass among the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is more remarkable is That the being or Nature of Church is not known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith I had thought that the way in the Church of Rome of pronouncing men faithful or to have true faith had been their being in the Church and that adhering to the Church whose being and truth they must therefore be presupposed to believe had been the only way of pronouncing them faithful which I suppos'd so certain amongst them that though they have no faith at all but to believe as the Church believes had been a sufficient declaration of the faith of ignorant men But it seems the Tables are turned It is not enough to go to the Church but first they must be assured that they are faithful and have true faith before they know any thing of the Church But if the testimony of the present Church be the only rule of faith as I. S. would fain make us believe then it had been truer said a man can not know the being or nature of faith till he be well acquainted with the Church And must the Rule of faith be tried by the Church and must the Church be tried by the rule of faith Is the testimony of the Church the measure and touchstone of faith and yet must we have the faith before we have any knowledge whether there be a Church or no Are they both first and both prove one another and is there here no circle But however I am glad that the evidence of truth hath brought this Gentleman to acknowledge that our way is the better way and that we must first chuse our religion and then our Church and not first chuse our Church and then blindly follow the religion of it whatsoever it be But then also it will follow that I. S. hath destroyed his main hypothesis and the oral tradition of the present Church is not the Rule of faith for that must first be known before we can know whether there be such a thing as the Church or no whose rule that is pretended to be And now follows his conclusion which is nought upon other accounts Wherefore saith he since the properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule and none of them to theirs it follows the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is either right Scripture Father or Council and so ought not to meddle with either of them To this I have already answered and what I. S. may do hereafter when he happens to fall into another fit of demonstration I know not but as yet he hath been very far from doing what he says he hath done that is evidently prov'd what he undertook in this question And I suppose I have in a following Section of this book evidently prov'd that Tradition such I mean as the Church of Rome uses in this inquiry leads into error or may do as often as into truth and therefore though we may and do use tradition as a probable argument in many things and some as certain in one or two things to which in the nature of the thing it is apt to minister yet it is infinitely far from being the rule of faith the whole Christian faith But I wonder why I. S. saith that for want of Tradition we cannot know either right Scripture Fathers or Councils I do not think that by tradition they do know all the books of Scriptures Do they know by Universal or Apostolical Tradition that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four hundred years and they receiv'd it at last from the tradition of the Greek Church and then they not the Roman Church are the great conservers of tradition and they will get nothing by that And what universal tradition can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some Councils as particularly that of Laodicea which is in the Code of the Universal Church and some of the Fathers which yet they now receive certainly in that age which rejected them there was no Catholic tradition for them and those Fathers which as I. S. expresses it were eminent witnesses to their immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received in all likelyhood did teach their posterity what themselves professed and therefore it is possible the Fathers in that Council and some others of the same sentiment might joyn in saying something which might deceive their
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
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
posterity and consequently the very ground of I. S. his demonstration is digg'd up for it was very possible the Fathers might teach something that contradicts the present oral tradition of the Church because when they were alive they believed the contradictory But further yet can I S. affirm that by the oral tradition of the present Church we can be infallibly taught which books were written by the Fathers and which not If he can how haps it that the Doctors of his Church are not agreed about very many of them some rejecting that as spurious which others quote as Genuine If he cannot then we may have a title to make use of the Fathers though we did renounce tradition because by tradition certain and infallible they do not know it and then if either they do not know it at all or know it any others ways than by tradition we may know it that way as well as they and therefore have as good a title to make use of them as themselves But the good man proceeds Since pretended instances of traditions failing depend on history and historical certainty cannot be built upon dead characters but on living sense in Mens hearts deliver'd from age to age that those passages are true that is on Tradition it follows that if the way of tradition can fail all history is uncertain and consequently all instances as being matters of fact depending on history To this I answer that it is true that there are many instances in which it is certain that tradition hath fail'd as will appear in the following Section and it is as true that the record of these instances is kept in books which are very Ancient and written by Authors so credible that no man questions the truth of these instances Now I grant that we are told by the words deliver'd by our Forefathers that these books were written by such men but then it may be our Forefathers though they kept the books safe yet knew not what was written in them and if all the contents of the book had been left only to rely upon the living sense in their hearts and the hearts of their posterity we should have had but few books and few instances of the failing of tradition only one great one would have been left that is the losing of almost all that that is now recorded would have been a fatal sign that Traditions fail was the cause of so sad a loss It is well tradition hath help'd us to the dead characters they bear their living sense so within themselves that it is quickly understood when living men come to read them But now I demand of I. S. whether or no historical certainty relies only on certain and indefectible tradition If it does not then a man may be certain enough of the sacred history though there be no certain oral tradition built on living sense in mens hearts delivered from age to age If he does then I must ask whether I. S. does believe Tacitus or that there was such a man as Agricola or that the Senate decreed that Nero should be punish'd more majorum If he does believe these stories and these persons then he must also conclude that there is an Oral indefectible tradition that Tacitus wrote this book and that every thing in that book was written by him and it remains at this day as it was at first and that all this was not convey'd by dead and unfens'd characters but by living sense in our hearts But now it will be very hard for any man to say that there is such an infallible Tradition delivering all that Roman story which we believe to be true No man pretends that there is and therefore 1. History may be relied on without a certain indefectible oral tradition And 2. The tradition that consigns history to after ages may be and is so most commonly nothing but of a fame that such a book was written by such a famous person who liv'd in that age and might know the truth of what he wrote and had no reason to lie but was in all regards a very worthy and a credible person Now here is as much certainty as need to be the thing it self will bear no more and almost all humane affairs are transacted by such an Oeconomy as this and therefore it is certain enough and is so esteemed because it does all it's intentions and loses no advantage and perswades effectually and regularly engages to all those actions and events which history could do if the certainty were much greater For the certainty of persuasion and prevailing upon the greatest parts of mankind may be as great by history wisely and with great probability transmitted as it can be by any imaginary certainty of a tradition that any dreamer can dream of Nay it may be equal to a demonstration I mean as to the certainty of prevailing For a little reason to a little understanding as certainly prevailes as a greater to a deep and inquisitive understanding and mankind does not need demonstrations in any case but where reason is puzled with an aequilibrium and that there be great probabilities hinc inde And therefore in these cases where is a probability on one side and no appearance of reason to the contrary that probability does the work of a demonstration For a reason to believe a thing and no reason to disbelieve it is as proper a way to persuade and to lead to action as that which is demonstrated And this is the case of history and of instances which though they cannot no not by an Oral tradition be so certain as that the thing could not possibly have been otherwise yet when there is no sufficient cause of suspicion of fraud and imposture and great reason from any topic to believe that it is true he is a very fool that will forbear to act upon that account only because it is possible that that instance might have been not true though he have no reason to think it false And yet this foolish sophisme runs mightily along in I. S. his demonstrations he cannot for his life distinguish between credible and infallible Nothing by him can make faith unless it demonstrate that is nothing can make faith but that which destroys it by turning it into Science His last argument for his second way of mining is so like the other that it is the worse for it Since reasons are fetch'd from the Natures of things and the best nature in what it is abstracting from disease and madness unalterable is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition and most incomparable strength is supperadded to it as it is Christian by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost It is a wild conceit to think any peice of nature or discourse built on it can be held certain if Tradition especially Christian tradition may be held uncertain In this Jargon for I know not what else to call it there are a pretty company of nothings put
profess to be infallible I am certain in nothing and without an infallible oral tradition it is impossible I should be certain of any thing In answer to this I demand why I may not be as certain of what I know or believe as Mr. White or I. S. Is the doctrine of Purgatory fire between death and the day of judgement and of the validity of the prayers and Masses said in the Church of Rome to the freeing of souls from Purgatory long before the day of judgment is this doctrine I say delivered by an infallible oral tradition or no If no then the Church of Rome either is not certain it is true or else she is certain of it by some other way than such a tradition If yea then how is Mr. White certain that he speaks true in his book de statu animarum where he teaches that prayers of the Church do no good and free no souls before the day of judgement for he hath no oral tradition for his opinion for two oral traditions cannot be certain and infallible when they contradict one another and if the traditions be not infallible as good for these men that they be none at all So that either Mr. White cannot be certain of any thing he says by not relying on oral tradition or the Church of Rome cannot be certain and therefore he or she may forbear to persuade their friends to any thing And for my present adversary I. S. who also affirms that oral tradition of the present Church is the whole rule of faith how can he trust himself or be certain of any thing or teach any thing when his Church says otherwise than he says and makes tradition to be but a part of the rule of faith as is to be seen in the Council of Trent it self in the first decree of the fourth Session Perspiciensque hanc verita tem disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis sine scripto traditionibus omnes libros tamveteris quam N. T. nec non Traditiones ipsa◠c. pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit veneratur So that in effect here are two rules of faith and therefore two Churches Mr. I. S.'s is the traditionary Church so called from relying solely on tradition the other what shall we call it for distinction sake the Purgatorian Church from Purgatory or if you will the imaginary Church from worshiping images And since they do not both follow the same rule of faith the one making tradition alone to be the ground the other not so it will follow by Mr. I. S. his argument that either the one or the other missing the true ground of faith cannot be certain of any thing that they say And now when he hath considered these things let him reckon the advantage which his Catholic faith gains by the opposition from her adversaries if they be rightly handled as Mr. S. hath handled them and brought to his grounds But however the opposition which I have now made hath it's advantages upon the weakness of Mr. Whites grounds and I. S.'s demonstrations yet I shall without relation to them but upon the account of other grounds which his wiser and more learned brethren of the other Church do lay make it appear that there is indeed in the Church of Rome no sure footing no foundation of faith upon which a man can with certainty rely and say Now I am infallibly sure that I am in the right The fifth Way THe fifth way I. S. says is built on the fourth which being prov'd to be a ruinous foundation I have the less need to trouble my self about that which will fall of it self but because he had no reason to trust that foundation for all his confidence he is glad to build his fifth way on the Protestants voluntary Concession for they granting they have no demonstration for the ground of their faith must say they have only probability But I pray who told I. S. that we grant we have no demonstration for the ground of our faith Did ever any Protestant say that there is no moral demonstration of his faith or that it cannot be prov'd so certain so infallible that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it If I. S. will descend so low as to look upon the book of a Protestant besides many better Book 1. chap. pag. 124. he may finde in my Cases of Conscience a demonstration of Christian Religion and although it consists of probabilities yet so many so unquestion'd so confess'd so reasonable so uncontradicted pass into an argument of as much certainty as humane nature without a Miracle is capable of as many sands heap'd together make a bank strong enough to resist the impetuosity of the raging sea But I have already shown upon what certainties our faith relies and if we had nothing but high probabilities it must needs be as good as their prudential motives and therefore I shall not repeat any thing but pass on to consider what it is he says of our high probabilities if they were no more If there be probabilities on both sides then the greatest must carry it so he roundly professes never considering that the latter Casuists of his Church I mean those who wrote since Angelus Silvester Cordubensis and Cajetan do expresly teach the contrary viz. that of two probabilities the less may be chosen and that this is the common and more receiv'd opinion But since I. S. is in the right let them and he agree it as we do if they please I hope he relates this only to the Questions between us and Rome and not to the Christian Faith well but if the matter be only between us I am well enough content and the greater probability that is the better argument shall carry it and I will not be asking any more odd Questions as why I. S. having so clearly demonstrated his religion by grounds firm as the land of Delos or O Brasile he should now be content to argue his cause at the bar of probability Well but let us see what he says for his party That there is no probability for our side says I. S. is very hard to be said since the whole world sees plainly we still maintain the field against them nay dare pretend without fearing an absolute baffle which must needs follow had we not at least probabilities to befriend us that our grounds are evidently and demonstrably certain Here I. S. seems to be afraid again of his probabilities that he still runs to covert under his broad shield of demonstration but his postulatum here is indeed very modest he seems to desire us to allow that there are some probable things to be said for his side and indeed he were very hard hearted that should say there are none at all some probabilities we shall allow but no grounds evidently and demonstratively certain good Sir And yet let me tell you this There are some of your propositions for
which there is probable reason or fair pretence in the world Nothing that can handsomely or ingeniously deceive a man Such as is your half Communion worship of images prayers not understood and some others And therefore you may be ashamed to say you still maintain the field against us for if you do not why do you say you do but if you still maintain the field you may be more asham'd for why will you stand in a falshood and then call your selves equal combatants if not Conquerors But you may if you please look after victory I am only in the pursuit of truth But to return It seems he knows my mind for this and in my liberty of prophecying my own words will beyond all confute evince it that they have probabilities and those strong ones too But now in my Conscience this was unkindly done that when I had spoken for them what I could and more than I knew that they had ever said for themselves and yet to save them harmless from the iron hands of a tyrant and unreasonable power to keep them from being persecuted for their errors and opinions that they should take the arms I had lent them for their defence and throw them at my head But the best of it is though I. S. be unthankful yet the weapons themselves are but wooden daggers intended only to represent how the poor men are cosen'd by themselves and that under fair and fraudulent pretences even pious well meaning men and men wise enough in other things may be abus'd And though what I said was but tinsel and pretence imagery and whipt Cream yet I could not be blam'd to use no better than the best their cause would bear yet if that be the best they have to say for themselves their probabilities will be soon out-ballanc'd by one Scripture testimony urg'd by Protestants and Thou shalt not worship any graven images will out weigh all the best and fairest imaginations of their Church But since from me they borrow their light armour which is not Pistol proof from me if they please they may borrow a remedy to undeceive them and that in the same kind and way of arguing If I. S. please to read a letter or two of mine to a Gentlewoman not long before abus'd in her religion by some Roman Emissaries there he shall see so very much said against the Roman way and that in instances evident and notorious that I. S. may if he please he hath my leave put them in ballance against one another Collection of Polemical and moral discourses Pag. 703 and try which will preponderate They are printed now in one Volume and they are the easier compar'd But then I. S. might if he had pleas'd have considered that I did not intend to make that harangue to represent that the Roman Religion had probabilities of being true but probabilities that the religion might be tollerated or might be endured that is as I there express'd it whether the Doctrines be commenc'd upon design and manag'd with impiety and have effects not to be endur'd and concerning these things I amass'd a heap of considerations by which it might appear probable that they were not so bad as to be intollerable and if I was deceiv'd it was but a well meant error hereafter they shall speak for themselves only for their comfort this they might have also observ'd in that book that there is not half so much excuse for the Papists as there is for the Anabaptists and yet it was but an excuse at the best as appears in those full answers I have given to all their arguments in the last edition of that book amongst the Polemical discourses in folio I shall need to say no more for the spoiling this Mine for I. S. hath not so much as pretended that the probabilities urg'd for them can out-weigh or come to equal what is said against them and I humbly suppose that the difficulties will be increased by the following book The sixth and seventh Ways THE sixth mine is most likely at the worst to prove but a squib I. S. says I should have made a preface and before hand have prov'd that all the arguments I us'd were unanswerable and convictive which indeed were a pretty way of making books to make a preface to make good my book and then my book cannot but in thankfulness make good the preface which indeed is something like the way of proving the Scriptures by the Church and then back again proving the Church by the Scriptures But he adds that I was bound to say That they were never pretended to be answer'd or could not or that the Protestants had the last word But on the contrary I acknowledge that the evidences on both sides have been so often produc'd that it will seem almost impossible to bring in new matter or to prevail with the old This is the great charge the sum of which is truly this I have spoken modestly of my own undertaking and yet I had so great reason to deplore the obstinacy of the Roman Priests their pertinacy and incorrigible resolution of seeming to say something when they can say nothing to the purpose that I had cause to fear the event would not be so successful as the merit of our cause and the energy of the arguments might promise I confess I did not rant as I. S. does and talk high of demonstrations and unmistakable grounds and scientifical principles and Metaphysical nothings but according as my undertaking requir'd I proceeded upon principles agreed on both sides If Scripture and Fathers Councils and reasons the analogy of faith and the Doctrines of the Primitive Church from which I proved and shall yet more clearly prove the Church of Rome hath greatly revolted will not prevail I have done I shall only commit the cause to God and the judgement of wise and good men and so sit down in the peace of my own persuasions and in a good Conscience that I have done my endeavor to secure our own people from the temptation and to snatch others as brands from the fire Only I wish here I had found a little more worthiness in I. S. than to make me speaking that I have brought nothing but common objections or nothing new I suppose they that are learned know this to be a Calumny and by experience they and I find that whether the objections be new or old it is easier to rail at them all than answer any To this as it is not needful to say any more so there cannot any thing else well be said unless I should be vain like the man whom I now reprove and go about to commend my self which is a practice I have neither reason nor custome for But the seventh Way is yet worse For it is no thing but a direct declamation against my book and the quotations of it and having made a ridiculous Engine of Corollaries in his Sure-footing against the quotations in Dr. P. his
partly and shall in the sequel largely make good In the mean time whether it be principle or conclusion let us see what is objected against it or what use is made of it For I. S. says it is an improv'd and a main position But then he tells us the reason of it is because No heretic had arisen in those days denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write expresly for them but occasionally only Let us consider what this is no heretic had arisen in those days denying these points True but many Catholics did and the reason why no heretics did deny those things was because neither Catholic nor heretic ever affirm'd them Well! but however the Roman controvertists are frequent for citing them for divers points Certainly not for making vows to Saints not for the worship of images nor for the half Communion for these they do not frequently cite the Fathers of the first 300. years It may be not but for the ground of our faith the Churches voice or tradition they do to the utter overthrow of the Protestant cause They do indeed sometimes cite something from them for tradition and where ever the word tradition is in Scripture or the Primitive Fathers they think it is an argument for them just as the Covenanters in the late wars thought all Scripture was their plea where ever the word Covenant was nam'd But to how little purpose they pretend to take advantage of any of the primitive Fathers speaking of tradition I shall endeavour to make apparent in an inquiry made on purpose Sect. 3. In the mean time it appears that this conclusion of mine was to very good purpose and in a manner confess'd to be true in most instances and that it was so in all was not intended by me Well! but however it might be in the first three ages yet he observes that I said that in the succeeding ages secular interest did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous and many things more that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively And is not all this very true He cannot deny it but what then why then he says I may speak out and say all the Fathers after the first three hundred years are not worth a straw in order to decision or controversie and the Fathers of the first three hundred years spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of my own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it There is no great hurt in this If the Fathers be gone my Dissuasive may go too it cannot easily go in better company and I shall take the less care of it because I have I. S. his word that there is a part of it which relies upon the Fathers But if the Fathers be going it is fit we look after them and see which way they go For if they go together as in many things they do they are of very good use in order to decision of controversie if they go several ways and consequently that Controvertists may eternally and irrefutably bring sayings out of them against one another who can help it No man can follow them all and then it must be tried by some other topic which is best to follow but then that topic by it self would have been sufficient to have ended the Question Secondly If a disputer of this world pretends to rely upon the authority of the Fathers he may by them be confuted or determin'd The Church of Rome pretends to this and therefore if we perceive the Fathers have condemned doctrines which they approve of or approve what they condemn which we say in many articles is the case of that Church then the Dissuasive might be very useful and so might the Fathers too for the condemnation of such doctrines in which the Roman Church are by that touchstone found too blame And where as I. S. says that the first three ages of Christianity medled not with the present controversies it is but partly true for although many things are now adays taught of which they never thought yet some of the errors which we condemn were condemn'd then very few indeed by disputation but not a few by positive sentence and in explications of Scripture and rational discourses and by parity of case and by Catechetical doctrines For rectum est Index sui obliqui they have without thinking of future controversies and new emergent heresies said enough to confute many of them when they shall arise The great use of the Fathers especially of the first three hundred years is to tell us what was first to consign Scripture to us to convey the Creed with simplicity and purity to preach Christs Gospel to declare what is necessary and what not And whether they be fallible or infallible yet if we find them telling and accounting the integrity of the Christian faith and treading out the paths of life because they are persons whose conversation whose manner and time of living whose fame and Martyrdom and the venerable testimony of after-ages have represented to be very credible we have great reason to believe that alone to be the faith which they have describ'd and consequently that whatever comes in afterwards and is obtruded upon the world as it was not their way of going to heaven so it ought not to be ours So that here is great use of the Fathers writings though they be not infallible and therefore I wonder at the prodigious confidence to say no worse of I. S. to dare to say that as appears by the Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them infallible nor useful Nay that this is my fourth Principle He that believes Transubstantiation can believe any thing and he that says this dares say every thing for as that is infinitely impossible to sense and reason so this is infinitely false in his own Conscience and experience And the words which in a few lines of his bold assertion he hath quoted out of my book confute him but too plainly He tells us so saith I. S. the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation Do not I also though he is pleas'd to take no notice of it say that although we acknowledge not the Fathers as the Authors and finishers of our faith yet we owne them as helpers of our faith and heirs of the doctrine Apostolical That we make use of their testimonies as being as things now stand to the sober and the moderate the peaceable and the wise the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory to them that know well how to use it Can he that says this not acknowledge the Fathers useful I know not whether I. S. may have any credit as he is one of the
Fathers but as he is a witness no man hath reason to take his word But to the thing in question Whatever we Protestants think or say yet I. S. saith our constant and avowed doctrine meaning of the Church of Rome is that the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such is infallible If this be the avowed doctrine of the Roman Church then I shall prove that one of the avowed doctrines of that Church is false And secondly I shall also prove that many of the most eminent Doctors of the Church are not of that mind and therefore it is not the constant doctrine as indeed amongst them few doctrines are 1. It is false that the Testimony of the Fathers speaking of them properly as such is infallible For God only is true and every man a lyar and since the Fathers never pretended to be assisted by a supernatural miraculous aide or inspired by an infallible spirit and infallibility is so far beyond humane nature and industry that the Fathers may be called Angels much rather than infallible for if they were assisted by an infallible spirit what hinders but that their writings might be Canonical Scriptures And if it be said they were assisted infallibly in some things and not in all it is said to no purpose for unless it be infallibly known where the infallibility resides and what is so certain as it cannot be mistaken every man must tread fearfully for he is sure the Ice is broken in many places and he knows not where it will hold It is certain S. Austin did not think the Fathers before him to be infallible when it is plain that in many doctrines as in the damnation of infants dying Unbaptiz'd and especially in questions occurring in the disputes against the Pelagians about free will and predestination without scruple he rejected the doctrines of his predecessors And when in a question between himself and S. Hierom about S. Peter and the second chapter to the Galatians he was press'd with the authority of six or seven Greek Fathers he roundly answered that he gave no such honour to any writers of books but to the Scriptures only as to think them not to have erred Ep. S. Aug. ad Hierom. quâ— est 19. Inter operâ— Hierom. 97. multiâ—â—liis locis other Authors he read so as to believe them if they were prov'd by Scriptures or probable reason Not because they thought so but because he thought them prov'd And he appeals to S. Hierom whether he were not of the same minde concerning his own works And for that S. Hierom hath given satisfaction to the world in divers places of his own writings * S. Hierom. l. 2. apelog contr Ruff Epist. 62. ad Theoph. Alex Epist. 65 ad Pammach Ocean Epist. 76. ad Tranquil epist. 13. ad Paulinum praefat in lib. de Hebr. nomin I suppose Origen is for his learning to be read as Tertullian Novatus Arnobius Apollinarius and some writers Greek and Latin that we chuse out that which is good and avoid the contrary So that it is evident the Fathers themselves have no conceit of the infallibility of themselves or others the Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists only excepted and therefore if this be an avowed doctrine of the Roman Church there is no oral tradition for it no first and self evident principle to prove it and either the Fathers are deceiv'd in saying they are fallible or they are not If they be deceiv'd in saying so then that sufficiently proves that they can be deceiv'd and therefore that they are not infallible but if they be not deceiv'd in saying that they are fallible then it is certain that they are fallible because they say they are and in saying so are not deceiv'd But then if in this the Fathers are not deceiv'd then the Church of Rome in one of her avowed doctrines is deceiv'd saying otherwise of the Fathers than is true and contrary to what themselves said of themselves But 2. If it be the avowed doctrine of the Church of Rome as I. S. says it is yet I am sure it is not their constant doctrine Certain it is S. Austin was not infallible for he retracted some things he had said and in Gratians time neither S. Austin nor any of the Fathers were esteemed infallible and this appears in nine chapters together of the ninth distinction of Gratians decree Dist. 9. Decret cap. Nolo meis but because this truth was too plain to serve the interest of the following ages the gloss upon cap. Nolo meis tells us plainly that this was to be understood according to those times when the works of S. Austin and of the other holy Fathers were not authentic but now all of them are commanded to be held to the last title and a marginal note upon the gloss says Scripta Sanctorum sunt ad unguem observanda So that here is plain variety and no constant oral tradition from S. Austins time downwards that his and the fathers writings were infallible till Gratians time it was otherwise and after him till the gloss was written It is as Solomon says There is a time for every thing under the Sun There is a time in which the writings of the Fathers are authentic and a time in which they are not But then this is not setled no constant business Now I would fain know whether Gratian spake the sense of the Church of his age or no If no then the Fathers were of one mind and the Church of his age of a contrary and then which of them was infallible But if yea then how comes the present Church to be of another mind now And which of the two ages that contradict each other hath got the ball which of them carries the infallibility Well! however it come to pass yet the truth is I. S. does wrong to his own Church and they never decreed or affirm'd the Fathers to be infallible And therefore the Glossator upon Gratian was an ignorant man and his gloss ridiculous Ecce quales sunt decretorum glossatores quibus tanta fides adhibetur said A. Castor and Duns Scotus gave a good character of them Mittunt remittunt tandem nihil ad propositum But the mistake of this ignorant Glossator is apparent to be upon the account of the words of Gelasius in dist 15. cap. Sancta Rom. Eccl. where when he had reckon'd divers of the Fathers writings which the Church receives he hath these words Item Epistola B. Leonis Papae ad Flavianum Episcopum C. P. destinatum cujus textum aut unum iota si quisquam idiota disputaverit non eam in omnibus venerabiliter acceperit anathema fit Now although this reaches not neer to infallibility but only to a non disputare and a venerabiliter accipere and that by idiots only and therefore can do I. S. no service yet this which Gelasius speaks of S. Leo's Epistle to Flavianus the
Glossator falsly applies to all the works of the Fathers against the mind of the Fathers themselves quoted by Gratian in the ninth distinction and against the sense of Gelasius himself in that very chapter which he refers to in the fifteenth distinction It may be I. S. had not so much to say for his bold proposition as this it self comes to which if he had ever seen he must needs have seen in the same place very much to the contrary But that not only the Fathers themselves have taught him to speak more modestly of them than he does and that divers leading men of his Church have reprov'd this foolish affirmative of his he may be satisfied if he please to read Aquinas Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur sacra doctrina ex necessitate argumentando Primâ parte q. 1. part 8. ad 2. arg authoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabiliter Now I know not what hopes of escaping I. S. can have by his restrictive terms the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such for besides that the words mean nothing and the testimony of Fathers is the testimony of Fathers as such or it is just nothing at all Besides this I say that Aquinas affirms that their whole authority and therefore of Fathers as such is only probable and therefore certainly not infallible But this is so fond a proposition of I. S. that I am asham'd to speak any more of it and if he were not very ignorant of what his Church holds Lib. 1. adv haeres c. 7. he would never have said it Lib. 7. loc Theol c. 3. n. 4. c. But for his better information I desire the Gentleman to read Alphonsus a Castro Melehior Canus and Bellarmine De verb. Dei lib. 3. c. 10. Sect. Dices It is not therefore the constant doctrine of the Romanists that the Fathers are infallible for I never read or heard any man say it but I. S. and neither is it the avowed doctrine of that Church unless he will condemn all them for heretics that deny it some of which I have already nam'd and more will be added upon this occasion Well! but how shall we know that the Fathers testimony is a testimony of Fathers speaking properly as such for this doughty Question we are to inquire after in the pursuit of I. S. his mines and crackers He says in two cases they speak as Fathers 1. When they declare it the doctrine of the present Church of their time 2. When they write against any man as an heretic or his Tenet as heresie It seems then in these the Fathers testimony is infallible Let us try this 1. All or any thing of this may be done by Fathers supposed such but really not so and if it be not infallibly certain which are and which are not the writings of the Fathers we are nothing the neerer though it were agreed that the true Fathers testimony is infallible Or 2. If the book alledged was the book of the Father pretended and not of an obscure or heretical person yet it may be the words are interpolated or the testimony some way or other corrupted and then the testimony is not infallible when there is no absolute certainty of the witnesses themselves or the records and what causes there are of rejecting very many and doubting more and therefore in matters of present interest and Question of Uncertainty and fallibility in too many is known to every learned man and confessed by writers of both sides 2. It is very seldom that any of the Fathers do use that expression of saying This or this is the doctrine of the Church and therefore if they speak as Fathers never but when these two cases happen the writings of the Fathers will be of very little use in I. S.'s way 3. And yet after all this if we shall descend to instances I. S. will not dare to justifie what he says Was Justin Martyr infallible when he said that all Christians who were pure believers did believe the Millenary doctrine Certainly they were the Church for the others he says were such as denied the resurrection But was Gennadius or else S. Austin fathers and they infallible in the book de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis in which he intends to give an account of the doctrine of the Church I. S. Seems to acknowledge it by affirming a saying out of that book to have been then de fide which because it had been oppos'd by very many of the fathers he had no reason to affirm but upon the witness of Gennadius putting it into his book of Ecclesiastical doctrines and he afterwards calls it the testimony of Gennadius delivering the doctrine of the Catholic Church Pag. 315. It is there said that all men shall die Christ only excepted that death might reign from Adam upon all Hanc rationem maxima Patrum turba tradente suscepimus This account we have receiv'd from the tradition of the greatest company of the Fathers If this be a tradition delivered by the greatest number of the fathers then 1. Tradition is not a sure rule of saith for this tradition is false and expresly against Scripture and 2. It follows that Tradition was not then esteemed a sure rule of faith for although this was a tradition from so great a troop of fathers at he says it was yet there were in his time alii aeque Catholici eruditi viri others as good Catholics and as learned that believ'd as S. Paul believ'd that we shall not all dye but we shall all be chang'd and however it be yet all that troop of fathers he speaks of from whence the tradition came were not infallible for they were actually deceiv'd Now this instance is of great consideration and force against I. S. his first and self evident principle concerning oral tradition For all that number of fathers if the rule of faith had been only oral tradition would horribly have disturbed the pure current of tradition and of necessity must have prevailed in I. S. his way or at least the contrary which is the truth and expresly affirm'd in Scripture could never have had the irrefragable testimony of oral tradition But thanks be to God in this the Church adher'd to the surer word of Prophecy the Scripture prov'd the surer rule of faith But again S. Austin or Gennadius says That after Christs resurrection the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and that going forth from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies This he delivers as the Ecclesiastical doctrine and do the Patrons of Purgatory believe him in this to be infallible for my part I think S. Austin is in the right but I think I. S. will not grant this to be the avowed and constant doctrine of his Church The second case in which they speak as Fathers is when they write against any man as an
in interpretations differing from those that went before them and in the Synod in Trullo * Canon 19. ex divinâ scripturâ Colligentes intelligentias all Curates of souls were commanded to interpret Scriptures so as not to transgress the bounds and tradition of the fathers and the same was the way taken in the Council of Vienna and commanded since in the Lateran under Leo the tenth and at last in Trent yet all this was but good advice which when the following Doctors pretended to follow they nevertheless still took their liberty and went their own way and if they followed some of the Fathers they receded from many others for none of them esteem'd the way infallible but they that did not think their own way better left their own reason and followed their authority But of late knowledge is increased at least many writers think so and though the Ancient interpretations were more honoured In Epist. ad Rom. 5 disp 51 p. 468. than new yet Salmeron says plainly that the younger Doctors are better sighted and more perspicacious And the Question being about the conception of the Blessed Virgin without original sin against which a multitude of fathers are brought the Jesuit answers the argument with the words in Exodus 23. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to sin And to the same purpose S. Austin answered the Donatists L. â—â—ntr Donat. But of this I shall afterwards have occasion to speak more particularly In the mean time it must needs be acknowledged that the Protestants cannot more slight the Fathers than the Jesuites do and divers other Doctors of the Church of Rome though I think both of them do equally think them to be fallible Well! but at last of what use are the Fathers to Protestants in their writings And what use do I or can I make of them in my Dissuasive First for the Protestants the Church of England can very well account by her Canon in which she follows the Council in Trullo and the sixth General Synod and ties her Doctors as much as the Council of Trent does to expound Scriptures according to the sense of the Ancient Fathers and indeed it is the best way for most Men and it is of great use to all men so to do For the Fathers were good men and learned and interest and partiality and error had not then invaded the world so much as they have since done The Papacy that great fountain of error and servile learning had not so debaucht the world and all that good which can be supposed could be ministred by the piety and learning of so many excellent persons all that we can use and we do make use of it upon all just occasions They speak reason and religion in their writings and when they do so we have reason to make use of the good things which by their labours God intended to convey to us They were better than other men and wiser than most men and their Authority is not at all contemptible but in most things highly to be valued And is at the worst a very probable inducement Are not the books of the Canonists and Casuists in a manner little else than a heap of quotations out of their predecessors writings Certainly we have much more reason to value the authority of the Ancient Fathers And now since I. S. requires an account from me in particular and thinks I have no right to use them Pag. 312. I shall render him an account of this also But first let us see what his charge is He says indeed I tell him that the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine delivered from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation I did tell them so indeed and in the same place I said that we admit the Fathers as admirable helps for the understanding of the Scriptures I told them both these things together and therefore I. S. may blush with shame for telling us that it appears by the Dissuader that the Protestants do not acknowledge the Fathers infallible or useful But then in what degree of usefulness the Fathers are admitted by us we may perceive by the instances of which the one being the interpretation of Scriptures it is evident because of their great variety and contrariety of interpretations we do not admit them as infallible but yet of admirable use so in the testimony which they give of the doctrines of their forefathers concerning the way of salvation we give as great credit as can be due to any relator except him that is infallible Pro magno teste vetustas Creditur â—vid acceptam parce movere fidem Nay we go something further for although in asserting and affirming in teaching and delivering positively we do believe them with great veneration but not without liberty and inquiry yet when we make use of them in a negative way we find use of them much nearer to infallibility than all the demonstrations of surefooting For the argument lies thus Chap. 1. Sect. 1 Dissuasive In the ages succeeding the three first secular interest did much prevail the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous full of controversie and ambiguous senses fitted to their own times and questions full of proper opinions and such variety of sayings that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively This ground I lay of the ensuing argument and upon this I build immediately That things being thus that is in the ages succeeding the first three the primitive and purest the case being so vastly changed the books so vast the words so many the opinions so proper the contrariety so apparent it is very possible that two litigants shall from them pretend words serving their distinct hypothesis especially when they come to wrangle about the interpretations of ambiguous sayings and of things so disputed there can be no end no determination And therefore it will be impossible for the Roman Doctors to conclude from the sayings of a number of Fathers viz. in the latter and succeeding ages of the Church for of them only the argument does treat that their doctrine which they would prove thence was the Catholic doctrine of the Church And the reason of this is deriv'd from the ground I laid for the argument because these Fathers are oftentimes gens contra gentem and sometimes one man against himself and sometimes changing his doctrine and sometimes speaking in heat and disputing fiercely and striving by all means to prevail and conquer heretics and therefore a testimony of many of them consenting is not a sufficient argument to prove a doctrine Catholic unless all consent in this case the major part will not prove a doctrine Catholic Of this I have given divers instances already and shall add more in the Section of Tradition for the present I shall only recite the words of the Bishop of the Canaries a great Man amongst them to attest
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
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
difference S. Basil here declar'd that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord so now also at this time Ibidem in seqâ—entibus viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying * Truth will out pag. 3. that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned which is not in Scripture For although the Church of Rome does that also putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged or by the Primitive Church of Christians yet besides this S. Basil having having said Vbi supra Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures is not of faith and therefore it is a sin he says also by certain consequence That to add to the Scriptures is all one as to add to the Faith And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures In Regul brev reg 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to his 95th question Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture he answers It is right and it is necessary that those things which appertain to use every one should learn from the Scriptures both for the replenishing of their mind with piety as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions By which words he not onely declares that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety but that humane traditions by which he means every thing that is not contain'd in Scripture are not to be receiv'd but ought to be and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks Moral Regul 26. Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures both for the full persuasion of the good and the confusion or damnation of evil things There 's your rule that 's the ground of all true faith And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council Epist. ad Epicteâ—um Corinthiorum Episc. made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God because it was determin'd and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ. De Incarnat Nay he affirms that the Catholick Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Which words I the rather remark Idem Athanas. in Exhort ad Monachos because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father is brought as an instance by the Romanists of the necessity of tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture But not in this onely but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely Moral contra Gentiles in 〈◊〉 that is the whole truth of the Gospel he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety does not much need the ministery of man and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth Coloniae ex officâ—â— Melcâ—â—â—â—â— Novefiani 1548. ad omnem instructionem veritatis so the Latine Translation for the whole instruction of truth or the instruction of all truth But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion than himself to draw it from Scripture S. Athanasius tells him that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers and our masters which if men will diligently read over he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures and obtain that notion of truth which he desires Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan who compares the Scriptures to a Door which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in and introduce us to God and to the knowledge of God This surely is sufficient if it does this it does all that we need and if it does not S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd and so are we and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages But he is constant in the same affirmative Homil 9. in 2 Timoth. If there be need to learn or to be ignorant thence we shall learn it Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem if to confute or argue that which is false thence we shall draw it if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhortation if any thing be wanting for our comfort and that we ought to have it nevertheless from thence from the Scriptures we learn it That the man be perfect therefore without it he cannot be perfected In stead of me he saith thou hast the Scriptures if thou desirest to learn any thing hence thou mayest But if he writes these things to Timothy who was fill'd with the holy Spirit how much more must we think these things spoken to us To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Homil. 9. in Coloss. in 2 Thess. 2. which is here too long to transcribe Let no man look for another master Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper imperfecti Thou hast the Oracles of God No man teaches thee like to them Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith but that of the Divine Scripture but now by no means is it known by them who would know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert Bellarmine very learnedly sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation and it being without cause to suspect it though the Author of it had been an Arian because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the
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
and explicitely did teach much more is every Gospel But when all the four Gospels and the Apostolical Acts and Epistles and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume by the counsel of God by the dictate of the Holy Spirit and by the choice of the Apostles it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Will and Testament Contre le Roy Jaq. p. 715. And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknowledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christianity as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence as the Institutions of Justinian is of the study of the law as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it It is not in his sense the foundation of Christian doctrine but it contains it all not onely in general but in special not onely virtual but actual not mediate but immediate for a few lines would have serv'd for a foundation General virtual and mediate If the Scripture had said The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholick Church and the foundation of faith she shall be infallible and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determination of their Questions this had been a sufficient virtual and mediate foundation But when four Gospels containing Christs Sermons and his Miracles his Precepts and his Promises the Mysteries of the Kingdom and the way of Salvation the things hidden from the beginning of the world and the glories reserv'd to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus to say that yet all these Gospels and all the Epistles of S. Paul S. Peter S. James and S. John and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles in the first establishing the Church are all but a foundation virtual and that they point out the Church indeed by saying she is the pillar and ground of truth but leave you to her for the foundation actual special and immediate is an affirmation against the notoreity of fact Add to this that S. Irenaeus spake these words concerning the Scriptures Lib. 3. cap. 2. in confutation of them who leaving the Scriptures did run to Traditions pretendedly Apostolical And though it be true that the traditions they relyed upon were secret Apocryphal forg'd and suppos'd yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded and even then the Hereticks could not want pretences sufficient to deceive and hopes to prevail How is it to be imagined that in the descent of sixteen ages the cheat might not be too prevalent when if the traditions be question'd it will be impossible to prove them and if they be false it will except it be by Scripture be impossible to confute them And after all if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contain'd in Scripture and yet were preach'd by the Apostles let that be prov'd let the traditions be produc'd and the records sufficient primely credible and authentick and we shall receive them So vain a way of arguing it is to say The Traditions against which S. Irenaeus speaks were false but ours are true Theirs were secret but ours were open and notorious For there are none such And Bellarmine himself acknowledges that the necessary things are deliver'd in Scriptures and those which were reserv'd for tradition were deliver'd apart that is secretly by the Apostles Now if they were so on all sides what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script l. 4. and why shall we believe these more than those since all must be equally taken upon private testimony at first And although it will be said That the Roman Traditions were receiv'd by after-ages and the other were not yet this shews nothing else but that some had the fate to prevail and others had not For it is certain that some were a long time believ'd even for some whole ages under the name of Apostolical Tradition as the Millenary opinion and the Asiatick manner of keeping Easter which yet came to be dis-believ'd in their time and also it is certain that many which really were Apostolical Traditions perished from the memory of men and had not so long lives as many that were not So that all this is by chance and can make no difference in the just authority And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron That the case is not the same because theirs are wrong and ours are right For this ought not to have been said till it were prov'd and if it were prov'd the whole Question were at an end for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical But in this there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus his words concerning the fulness of Scripture as to the whole doctrine of Christ being so clear and manifest as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will l. 5. contr Parmer biblioth Patrum per Binium â—om 4. Paris 1589. pag. 510. If there be a controversie amongst the descendants of the house run to the Scriptures see the Original will The Gospels are Christ's Testament and the Epistles are the Codicils annex'd and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once nor at once communicated nor at once receiv'd therefore the Churches of God at first were forc'd to trust their memories and to try the doctrines by appealing to the memories of others that is to the consenting report and faith deliver'd and preach'd to other Churches especially the chiefest where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent The mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood the perfection of his sacrifice and the unity of it Christ's advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven might very well be accounted traditions before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for Canonical but now they are written truths and if they had not been written it is likely we should have lost them But this way could not long be necessary and could not not long be safe Not necessary because it was supplied by a better and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk because at first in his infancy it was fit he should Not safe because it grew worse and worse every day And therefore in a little while even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touch-stone of true doctrine that themselves were brought to the stone of trial And the Tradition would not be admitted unless it were in Scripture By which it appears that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith distinct from the Scriptures but it self was a part of it that
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
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
and making Religion and the Service of God to consist in things indifferent So they made void Gods Commandment by turning Religion into superstition 2. Whereas humane laws customs and traditions may oblige in publick and for order sake and decency and for reputation and avoiding scandal and to give testimony of obedience and are not violated if they be omitted without scandal and contempt and injury with a probable reason yet to think they oblige beyond what man can see or judge or punish or feel is to give to humane laws the estimate which is due to divine laws So did the Pharisees Quicquid sapientes vetant palà m fieri id etiam in penetralibus vetitum est said Rabbi Bachai But this is the Prerogative of Divine Laws which oblige as much in private as in publick because God equally sees in the Closet and in the Temple Men cannot do this and therefore cannot make Laws to bind where they can have no cognisance and no concern 3. Humane authority is to command according to its own rate that is at the rate of humane understanding where the obedience may be possibly deficient because the understanding is fallible But the Divine authority is infallible and absolute and supreme and therefore our obedience to it must be as absolute perpetual and indeficient But the Pharisees had a saying and their practice was accordingly Si dixerint scribae dextram esse sinistram sinistram esse dextram audi eos said the forenamed Rabbi 2. The second degree in which this express'd it self among the Pharisees was that they did not onely equal but preferr'd the Commandments of men before the Commands of God Plus est in verbis scribarum quam in verbis legis * In â—itulis Thalmudicis Baba Metzias B. rechoâ—h c. and of this the instance that our Blessed Saviour gives is in the case of the Corban and not relieving their Parents Sacrum erit quicquid paravero in futurum ad os patris * Rabbi Nissim If they said it was dedicated their Father 's hungry belly might not be relieved by it And this our Blessed Saviour calls as being the highest degree of this superstition a making the Commandment of God of no effect by their tradition this does it directly as the other did it by necessary and unavoidable consequence Now that the Church of Rome is greatly guilty of this criminal way of teaching and mis-leading the Consciences of her disciples will appear in these amongst many other instances SECTION X. Of the Seal of Confession 1. I First instance in their Seal of Confession And the question is not Whether a Priest is to take care of his Penitent's fame or whether he be not in all prudent and pious ways to be careful lest he make that Entercourse odious For certainly he is But whether the Seal of Confession be so sacred and impregnable that it is not to be opened in the imminent danger of a King or Kingdom or for the doing the greatest good or avoiding the greatest evil in the world that 's now the question and such a Broad Seal as this is no part of the Christian Religion was never spoken of by the Prophets or Apostles in the Old or the New Testament never was so much as mention'd in the Books of the Ancient Fathers and Doctors not so much as named in the Ancient Councils of the Church and was not heard of until after the time of Pope Gregory the seventh Now how this is determin'd practis'd in the Church of Rome we may quickly see The first direct Rule in the Western Church we find in this affair Decretal de poenitentâ—is remissionibus is the Canon of the Lateran Council Cap. Omnis utriusque in which to Confess at Easter was made an Ecclesiastical Law and as an Appendix to it this caution Caveatautem omninò ne verbo aut signo aut alio quovis modo aliquatenus prodat peccatorem sed si prudentiore consilio indiguerit illud absque ullâ expressione personae requirat This Law concerning them that do confess their secret sins to a Priest in order to Counsel comfort and pardon from God by his Ministery is very prudent and pious and it relates only to the person not to the crimes these may upon the account of any doubt or the advantage of better counsel and instruction be reveal'd the person upon such accounts may not Nisi veritas aut obedientia aliud exigat In 3. dist 21. as S. Bonaventure said well Unless truth or obedience require the contrary for indeed the person is not often so material as to the inquiry of future counsel or present judgment as the greatness and other circumstances of the sin But this was an ancient Ecclesiastical Rule â—ib 7. cap. 16. hist. Eccles. as we find it related by Sozomen Presbyterum aliquem vitae integritate quam maximè spectabilem secretorum eitam tenacem ac sapientem huic officio praefecerunt A penitentiary Priest was appointted for the Penitents a man that was of good life wise and secret So far was well and agreeable to common prudence and natural reason and the words of Solomon Prov. 11. 13. Qui ambulat fraudulenter revelat arcanum qui autem fidelis est celat amici commissum There is in this case some more reason than in ordinary secrets but still the obligation is the same and to be governed by prudence and is subject to contradiction by greater causes The same also is the Law in the Greek Church Epist. ad Amphilochium mentioned by S. Basil Our Fathers permitted not that women that had committed Adultery and were penitent should be delated in publick * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A. D. 1603. This is the whole ground and foundation on which the Seal of Confession does or can rely save only that in several Churches there were several Laws in after-ages to the same purpose and particularly in the 11th Canon of the Church of England adding also the penalty of irregularity to every Priest that shall reveal any thing committed to him in private Confession but with this Proviso that it be not binding in such cases where the concealment is made capital by the Laws of the Kingdom which because it is very strict and yet very prudent I shall make it appear that the Church of England walks wisely in it and according to the precedents of the Ancient Catholick Church in commanding the Seal to be broken up in some cases and yet she hath restrain'd it more than formerly was observed in the Churches of God Burchard expresâ—ly affirms Lib. 19. Decreti sui c. 37. Concil Moguaâ— cap. 10. 21. that before the Nicene Council the penitentiary Priest might publish what he heard in Confessions if it were for the good of the penitent or for the greatness of the crime it seem'd fit to the Confessor And that he says true we have sufficient testimony from
shines In the Liturgy of S. Basil Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Andrea Masio ex Syriaco conversa which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for religion and have fed thy holy flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of thanks for them or praying to them but a direct praying for them even for holy Bishops Confessors Martyrs that God meaning in much mercy would remember them that is make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham in the region of the living as S. James expresses it And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to S. Basil Greg. Naz. and S. Cyril the Churches pray Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning our Holy Fathers the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs Confessors Preachers Evangelists and all the Souls of the just which have died in the faith but chiefly of the holy glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God of S. John Baptist the forerunner and Martyr S. Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr S. Mark Apostle Evangelist and Martyr Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy offices of Priesthood For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy house and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou lover of men pardon them And again moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in faith our Ancestors Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary and after concludes with this prayer Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them Add to these if you please the Greek Mass of S. Peter To them O Lord and to all that rest in Christ we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory To these add the doctrine and practice of the Greek Fathers Eccles. hier Cap. 7. in theoria Dionysius speaking of a person deceased whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pronounced to be a happy man and verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world yet the Bishop prayed for him that God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place To the same purpose is that of S. Gregory Naz. Naz. in fuâ—â—s Caesarii orat 10. in his funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new â—reated soul yet he presently prays for his soul Now O Lord receive Caesarius I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church their doctrine and practice in this particular and I desire it may be observed that there is no greater testimony of the doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy Their Doctors may have private opinions which are not against the doctrine of the Church but what is put into their publick devotions and consign'd in their Liturgies no man scruples it but it is the confession and religion of the Church But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling objections of these Roman adversaries and my defences I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew that they would not have oppos'd my affirmation in this particular if they had understood their own mass-Mass-book for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer Missa latina Antiqua edit Argentinae 1557. pag. 52. Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent And in the very Canon of the Mass which these Gentlemen I suppose if they be Priests cannot be ignorant in any part of they pray Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei dormiunt in somno pacis Ipsis Domine omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii lucis pacis ut indulgeas deprecamur Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory it is plain that the Church of Rome prays for Saints who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful but I summ up this particular with the words of S. Austin De curapto mortuis cap. 4. Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia The Church prays for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholic faith And therefore I wonder how it should drop from S. Austins pen De verbis Apostoli Serm. 17. Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them as if they were in an uncertain state and so it is probable enough but else his words were not only against himself in other places but against the whole practice of the ancient Catholic Church I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons Sacramentarium Gregor antiquum why the prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo
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
well they that Minister as the rest of the believers And no wonder since for their so doing they have the example and institution of Christ by which as by an irrefragable and undeniable argument the Ancient Fathers us'd to reprove and condemn all usages which were not according to it For saith Saint Cyprian If men ought not to break the least of Christs commandments Epist. 63. how much less those great ones which belong to the Sacrament of our Lords passion and redemption or to change it into any thing but that which was appointed by him Now this was spoken against those who refus'd the hallowed wine but took water instead of it and it is of equal force against them that give to the Laity no cup at all but whatever the instance was or could be S. Cyprian reproves it upon the only account of prevaricating Christs institution The whole Epistle is worth reading for a full satisfaction to all wise and sober Christians Ab eo quod Christus Magister praecepit gessit humana novella institutione decedere by a new and humane institution to depart from what Christ our Master commanded and did that the Bishops would not do tamen quoniam quidam c. because there are some who simply and ignorantly In calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt quod Jesus Christus Dominus Deus noster sacrificii hujus author Doctor fecit docuit c. In sanctifying the cup of the Lord and giving it to the people do not do what Jesus Christ did and taught viz. they did not give the cup of wine to the people therefore S. Cyprian calls them to return ad radicem originem traditionis Dominicae to the root and original of the Lords delivery Now besides that S. Cyprian plainly says that when the chalice was sanctified it was also ministred to the people I desire it be considered whether or no these words do not plainly reprove the Roman doctrine and practice in not giving the consecrated chalice to the people Do they not recede from the root and original of Christs institution Do they do what Christ did Do they teach what Christ taught Is not their practice quite another thing than it was at first Did not the Ancient Church do otherwise than these men do And thought themselves oblig'd to do otherwise They urg'd the doctrine and example of our Lord and the whole Oeconomy of the Mystery was their warrant and their reason for they always believed that a peculiar grace and vertue was signified by the symbol of wine and it was evident that the chalice was an excellent representment and memorial of the effusion of Christs bloud for us and the joyning both the symbols signifies the intire refection and nourishment of our souls bread and drink being the natural provisions and they design and signifie our redemption more perfectly the body being given for our bodies and the bloud for the cleansing our souls the life of every animal being in the bloud and finally this in the integrity signifies and represents Christ to have taken body and soul for our redemption For these reasons the Church of God always in all her publick communions gave the chalice to the people for above a thousand years This was all I would have remarked in this so evident a matter but that I observed in a short spiteful passage of E. W. Pag. 44. a notorious untruth spoken with ill intent concerning the Holy Communion as understood by Protestants The words are these seeing the fruit of Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith in the receiver I can find no reason why their bit of bread only may not as well work that effect as to taste of their wine with it To these words 1. I say that although stirring up faith is one of the Divine benefits and blessings of the Holy Communion yet it is falsely said that the fruit of the Protestant Communion is only to stir up faith For in the Catechism of the Church of England it is affirmed that the body and bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received of the faithful in the Lords Supper and that our souls are strengthened and refreshed by the body and bloud of Christ as our bodies are by the bread and wine and that of stirring up our faith is not at all mentioned So ignorant so deceitful or deceiv'd is E. W. in the doctrine of the Church of England But then as for his foolish sarcasm calling the hallowed Element a bit of bread which he does in scorn he might have considered that if we had a mind to find fault whenever his Church gives us cause that the Papists wafer is scarce so much as a bit of bread it is more like Marchpane than common bread and besides that as Salmeron acknowledges anciently Salmer in 11. Cor. 10. disp 17. pag. 138. Olim ex pane uno sua cuique particula frangi consueverat that which we in our Church do was the custom of the Church out of a great loaf to give particles to every communicant by which the Communication of Christs body to all the members is better represented Durand ration Divin offic l. 4. c. 53. and that Durandus affirming the same thing says that the Grecians continue it to this day besides this I say the Author of the Roman order says Cassander took it very ill Cassand liturg c. 27. Sect. Et cum mensa that the loaves of bread offered in certain Churches for the use of the sacrifice should be brought from the form of true bread to so slight and slender a form which he calls Minutias nummulariarum oblatarum scraps of little penies or pieces of money and not worthy to be called bread being such which no Nation ever used at their meals for bread But this is one of the innovations which they have introduc'd into the religious Rites of Christianity and it is little noted they having so many greater changes to answer for But it seems this Section was too hot for them they loved not much to meddle with it and therefore I shall add no more fuel to their displeasure but desire the Reader who would fully understand what is fit to be said in this Question Lib. 2. Chap. 3. Rule 9. to read it in a book of mine which I called Ductor dubitantium or the Cases of Conscience only I must needs observe that it is an unspeakable comfort to all Protestants when so manifestly they have Christ on their side in this Question against the Church of Rome To which I only add that for above 700. years after Christ it was esteemed sacriledge in the Church of Rome to abstain from the Cup and that in the ordo Romanus the Communion is always describ'd with the Cup how it is since and how it comes to be so is too plain But it seems the Church hath power to dispense in this
understand and discern with a serene heart To the same purpose are the words of Lyra and * Tho. Aquin. in 1 Cor. 14. Ille qui intelligit reficitur quantum ad intellectum quantum ad affectum sed mens ejus qui non intelligit est sine fructu refectionis And again quantum ad fructum devotionis spiritualis privatur qui non atendit ad ea quae orat seu non intelligit Lyra. Caeterum hic consequenter idem ostendit in oratione publicâ quia si populus intelligat orationem seu benedictionem facerdnis mâ—lius reducitur in Deum devotius Amen And again propter quod in Ecclesiâ primitivâ benedictiones coeterae omnia lege communia * fiebant in vulgari * For of common things that is things in public the Dissâ—asive speaks Common prayers common preachings Common Eucharists and thanksgivings common blessings All these and all other public and common things being us'd in the vulgar tongue in the Primitive Communia and omnia are equivalent but Communia is Lyra ' s word Aquinas which I shall not trouble the Reader withall here but have set them down in the Margent that the strange confidence of these Romanists out-facing notorious and evident words may be made if possible yet more conspicuous In pursuance of this doctrine of S. Paul and the Fathers the Primitive Christians in their several ages and Countries were careful that the Bible should be translated into all languages where Christianity was planted That the Bibles were in Greek is notorious and that they were us'd among the people S. Chrysostom homil 1. in Joh. 8. is witness that it was so or that it ought to be so For he exhorts Vacemus ergo scripturis dilectissimi c. Let us set time apart to be conversant in the Scripture at least in the Gospels let us frequently handle them to imprint them in our minds which because the Jews neglected they were commanded to have their books in their hands but let us not have them in our hands but in our houses and in our hearts by which words we may easily understand that all the Churches of the Greek communion had the Bible in their vulgar tongue and were called upon to use them as Christians ought to do that is to imprint them in their hearts Homil. 1. in 8. Johan Videat lector s. Basil. in Ascert in 278. resp in regul brevior Cassidore and speaking of S. John and his Gospel he says that the Syrians Indians Persians and Ethiopians and infinite other nations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they grew wise by translating his S. Johns doctrines into their several languages De doctrin Christianâ lib. 2. c. 5. Ex quo factum est ut etiam scriptura divina quâ tantis morbis humanarum voluntatum subvenitur ab unâ linguâ profecta quae opportunè potuit per â—rbem terrarum disseminari per varias interpretum linguas longè latéque diffusainnotesceret gentibus ad salutem Theodoret. lib. 5. de curand Graec. affect Nos autem verbis Apostolicae propheticaeque doctrinae inexhaustum robur manifestè ostendimus Vniversa enim facies terrae quantacunque soly subiicitur ejusmodi verborum plena jam est Hebraei verò libri non modo in Graecum idioma conversi sunt sed in Romanam quoque linguam Egyptiam Persicam Indicam Armenicamque Scythicam atque adeò Sauromaticam semelque ut dicam in linguas omnes quibus ad hunc diem nationes utuntur But it is more that S. Austin says The divine Scripture by which help is supplied to so great diseases proceeded from one language which opportunely might be carried over the whole world that being by the various tongues of interpreters scattered far and wide it might be made known to the Nations for their salvation And Theodoret speaks yet more plainly we have manifestly shown to you the inexhausted strength of the Apostolic and prophetic doctrine for the Universal face of the earth whatsoever is under the sun is now full of those words For the Hebrew books are not only translated into the Greek idiom but into the Roman tongue the Egyptian Persian Indian Armenian Scythian Sauromatic languages and that I may speak once for all into all tongues which at this day the Nations use By these authorities of these Fathers we may plainly see how different the Roman doctrine and practice is from the sentiment and usages of the Primitive Church and with what false confidence the Roman adversaries deny so evident truth having no other way to make their doctrine seem tolerable but by out-facing the known sayings of so many excellent persons and especially of S. Paul who could not speak his minde in apt and intelligible words if he did not in his Epistle to the Corinthians exhort the Church to pray * Quamvis per se bonum sit ut officia divina celebrentur eâ linguâ quam plebs intelligat id enim per se confert ad aedificationem ut bene probat hic locus Estius in 1. ep Corin. cap. 14. and prophecy so as to be understood by the Catechumens and by all the people that is to do otherwise than they do in the Roman Church Christianity is a simple wise intelligible and easie Religion and yet if a man will resolve against any proposition he may wrangle himself into a puzzle and make himself not to understand it so though it be never so plain what is plainer than the testimony of their own Cajetan that it were more for the edification of the Church that the prayers were in the vulgar tongue Respon ad artic pacis magis fore ad aedificationem Ecclesiae ut preces vulgari linguâ conciperentur Ex hâc doctrinâ Pauli habetur quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas quae audiente populo dicuntur dici linguâ communi Clericis populo quam dici latina Idem in 1 Cor. 14. He says no more than S. Paul says and he could not speak it plainer And indeed no man of sense can deny it unless he affirms at the same time that it is better to speak what we understand not than what we do or that it were better to serve God without that noble faculty than with it that is that the way of a Parrot and a Jackdaw were better than the way of a man and that in the service of God the Priests and the people are to differ as a man and a bird But besides all this was not Latin it self when it was first us'd in Divine service the common tongue and generally understood by many Nations and very many Colonies and if it was then the use of the Church to pray with the understanding why shall it not be so now however that it was so then and is not so now demonstrates that the Church of Rome hath in this material point greatly innovated Let but the Roman Pontifical be
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
add the concurrent words of the prudent and learned Cassander * Consult de imagin simulachris Quantum autem veteres initio Ecclesiae ab omni veneratione imaginum abhorruerunt declarat unus Origines adversus Celsum but of this I shall have occasion to speak yet once more And so at last all the quotations are found to be exact and this Gentleman to be greatly mistaken From the premisses I infer if in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images certainly it is unimaginable they should worship them and the argument is the stronger if we understand their opinion rightly for neither the second Commandment nor yet the Ancient Fathers in their Commentaries on them did absolutely prohibit all making of images but all that was made for religious worship and in order to adoration according as it is expressed in him who among the Jews collected the negative precepts which Arias Montanus translated into Latin Lib. 4. de generat regeneratione Adam the second of which is signum cultus causa ne facito the third simulachrum Divinum nullo pacto conflato the fourth signa religiosa nulla ex materia facito The authorities of these Fathers being rescued from slander and prov'd very pungent and material I am concerned in the next place to take notice of some authorities which my adversaries urge from antiquity E. W. pag. 49. to prove that in the Primitive Church they did worship images Concerning their general Council viz. the second Nicene I have already made account in the preceding periods The great S. Basil is with great solemnity brought into the Circus and made to speak for images as apertly plainly and confidently as Bellarmine or the Council of Trent it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His words are these I admit the holy Apostles and Prophets and Martyrs and in my prayer made to God call upon them that by their intercession God may be propitious unto me Whereupon I honour and adore the characters of their images and especially those things being delivered from the holy Apostles and not prohibited but are manifested or seen in all our Churches Now I confess these words are home enough and do their business at the first sight and if they prove right S. Basil is on their side and therefore E. W. with great noise and preface insults and calls them Unanswerable The words he says are found in S. Basils 205. Epistle ad Julianum I presently consulted S. Basils works such as I had with me in the Country of the Paris Edition by Guillard 1547. and there I found that S. Basil had not 205. Epistles in all the number of all written by him and to him being but 180. of which that to Julianus is one viz. Epistle 166. and in that there is not one word to any such purpose as is here pretended I was then put to a melius inquirendum Bellarmine though both he and Lindan and Harding cry up this authority as irrefragable quotes this authority not upon his own credit Appendix ad Tract de cultu imaginum in prooem ante Cap. 1. in Cap. 4. but as taking it from the report of a book published 1596 called Synodus Parisiensis which Bellarmine calls Unworthy to see the light From hence arises this great noise and the fountain being confessedly corrupt what wholsome thing can be expected thence But in all the first and voluminous disputations of Bellarmine upon this Question he made no use of this authority he never saw any such thing in S. Basils works or it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted it But the words are in no ancient Edition of S. Basil nor in any Manuscript that is known in the world 2. Iohn Damascen and Germanus Bishop of C. P. who wrote for the worship of images and are the most learned of all the Greeks that were abus'd in this Question yet they never urg'd this authority of S. Basil which would have been more to their purpose than all that they said beside 3. The first mention of this is in an Epistle of Pope Adrian to the Emperors in the seventh Synod and that makes the business more suspicious that when the Greek writers knew nothing of it a Latin Bishop a stranger not very well skill'd in Antiquity should find this out which no man ever saw before him nor since in any Copy of S. Basils works But in the second Nicene Council such forgeries as these were many and notorious S. Gregory the Great is there quoted as Author of an Epistle de veneratione imaginum when it is notorious it was writ by Gregory III. and there were many Basils and any one of that name would serve to give countenance to the error of the second Nicene Synod but in S. Basil the Great there is not one word like it And therefore they who set forth S. Basils works at Paris 1618. who either could not or ought not to have been ignorant of so vile a cheat were infinitely to blame to publish this as the issue of the right S. Basil without any mark of difference or note of inquiry There is also another saying of S. Basil of which the Roman writers make much and the words are by Damascen imputed to the Great S. Basil Imaginis honor exemplum transit which indeed S. Basil speaks only of the statues of the Emperors and of that civil honour which by consent and custom of the world did pass to the Emperor and he accepted it so but this is no argument for religious images put up to the honour of God he says not the honour of any such images passes to God for God hath declar'd against it as will appear in the following periods and therefore from hence the Church of Rome can have no argument no fair pretence and yet upon this very account and the too much complying with the Heathen rites and manners and the secular customs of the Empire the veneration of images came into Churches But suppose it be admitted to be true yet although this may do some countenance to Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventures way of worshipping the image and the sampler with the same worship yet this can never be urg'd by all those more moderate Papists who make the worship to an image of a lower kind For if it be not the same worship then they that worship images worship God and his Saints by the image not as they deserve but give to them no more than the image it self deserves let them take which part they please so that they will but publickly own it But let this be as it will and let it be granted true that the honour done to the image can pass to the sampler yet this is but an arbitrary thing and a King may esteem it so if he please but if the King forbids any image to be made of him and counts it a dishonour to him then I hope it is and that 's
now adays done at Rome S. Irenaeus made an outcry and reckoned them in the black Catalogue of heretics not for joyning Christs image with that of Homer and Aristotle Pythagoras and Plato but even for crowning Christs image with flowers and coronets as they also did those of the Philosophers for though this may be innocent yet the other was a thing not known in the religion of any that were called Christians till Simon and Carpocrates began to teach the world 2. We find the wisest and the most sober of the Heathens speaking against the use of images in their religious rites So Varro when he had said that the old Romans had for 170. years worshipped the Gods without picture or image adds quod si adhuc mansissent castius Dii observarentur and gives this reason for it qui primi simulachra Deorum populis posuerunt civitatibus suis metum dempsisse errorem addidisse The making images of the Gods took away fear from men and brought in error Prudenter existimavit Deos facile posse in simulachrorum stoliditate contemni which place S. Austin quoting commends and explicates it saying he wisely thought that the Gods might easily be despised in the blockishness of images The same also was observed by Plutarch Plut. in Numâ and he gives this reason nefas putantes augustiora exprimere humilioribus neque aliter aspirari ad Deum quam mente posse They accounted it impiety to express the Great Beings with low matter and they believed there was no aspiring up to God but by the mind This is a Philosophy which the Church of Rome need not be ashamed to learn 3. It was so known a thing that Christians did abominate the use of images in religion and in their Churches that Adrian the Emperor was supposed to build Temples to Christ Aelius Lamprid in Alexandro Severo edit Salmat p. 120. and to account him as God because he commanded that Churches without images should be made in all Cities as is related by Lampridius 4. In all the disputations of the Jews against the Christians of the Primitive Church although they were impatient of having any image and had detested all use of them especially ever since their return from Babylon and still retained the hatred of them even after the dissolution of their Temple even unto superstition says Bellarmine De imag c. 7. Sect. Ad primum yet they never objected against Christians their having images in their Churches much less their worshipping them And let it be considered that in all that long disputation between Iustin Martyr and Tryphon the Iew in which the subtle Iew moves every stone lays all the load he can at the Christians door makes all objections raises all the envy gives all the matter of reproach he can against the Christians yet he opens not his mouth against them concerning images The like is to be observed in Tertullians book against the Iews no mention of images for there was no such thing amongst the Christians they hated them as the Iews did but it is not imaginable they would have omitted so great a cause of quarrel On the other side when in length of time images were brought into Churches the Iews forbore not to upbraid the Christians with it There was a dialogue written a little before the time of the seventh Synod in which a Iew is brought in saying to the Christians I have believed all ye say and I do believe in the crucified Jesus Christ that he is the son of the living God Synod 7. Act. 5. Scandalizor autem in vos Christiani quia imagines adoratis I am offended at you Christians that ye worship images for the Scripture forbids us every where to make any similitude or graven image And it is very observable that in the first and best part of the Talmud of Babylon called the Misna published about the end of the second Century the Christians are not blam'd about images which shews they gave no occasion but in the third part of the Talmud about the 10. and 11. age after Christ the Christians are sufficiently upbraided and reproached in this matter In the Gemara which was finished about the end of the fifth Century I find that learned men say the Iews call'd the Christian Church the house of Idolatry which though it may be expounded in relation to images which about that time began in some Churches to be placed and honoured yet I rather incline to believe that they meant it of our worshipping Jesus for the true God and the true Messias for at this day they call all Christians Idolaters even those that have none and can endure no images in their Religion or their Churches But now since these periods it is plain that the case is altered and when the learned Christians of the Roman communion write against the Jews they are forced to make apologies for the scandal they give to the Iews in their worshipping of images as is to be seen besides Leontius Neopolitanus of Cyprus his apology which he published for the Christians against the Iews in Ludovicus Carretus his Epistle in Sepher Amana and Fabianus Fioghus his Catechetical Dialogues But I suppose this case is very plain and is a great conviction of the innovation in this matter made by the Church of Rome 5. The matter of worshipping images looks so ill so like Idolatry so like the forbidden practices of the Heathens that it was infinitely reasonable that if it were the practice and doctrine of the Primitive Church the Primitive Priests and Bishops should at least have considered and stated the question how far and in what sense it was lawful and with what intention and in what degrees and with what caution and distinctions this might lawfully be done particularly when they preach'd and wrote Commentaries and explications upon the Decalogue especially since there was at least so great a semblance of opposition and contradiction between the commandment and any such practice God forbidding any image similitude to be made of himself or any thing else in Heaven or in Earth or in the Sea and that with such threatnings and interminations of his severe judgments against them that did make them for worship and this thing being so constantly objected by all those many that opposed their admission and veneration it is certainly very strange that none of the Fathers should take notice of any difficulty in this affair They objected the Commandment against the Heathens for doing it and yet that they should make no account or take notice how their worshipping Saints and God himself by images should differ from the Heathen superstition that was the same thing to look upon This indeed is very Unlikely But so it is Iustin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus speak plainly enough of this matter and speak plain down-right words against making and worshipping images and so careless they were of any future chance or the present concern of
Alexander honour you should picture him like a Bear tearing and trampling every thing or to exalt Caesar you should hang upon a table the pictures of a Fox and a Cock and a Lion and write under it This is Cajus Julius Caesar. But I am ashamed of these prodigious follies But at last why should it be esteemed madness and impiety to picture the nature of God which is invisible and not also be as great a madness to picture any shape of him which no man ever saw But he that is invested with a thick cloud and encircled with an inaccessible glory and never drew aside the Curtains to be seen under any representment will not suffer himself to be expos'd to vulgar eyes by phantastical shapes and ridiculous forms But it may be the Church of Rome does not use any such impious practice much less own so mad a doctrine for one of my adversaries says that the picturing the forms or appearances of God is all that some in their Church allow that is some do and some do not So that it may be only a private opinion of some Doctors and then I am to blame to charge Popery with it Lib 2. de reliq imagin S. To this I answer that Bellarmine indeed says S. cap 8. Sect. Non esse tam certum in Ecclesia an sint faciendae imagines Dei sive Trinitatis Ego dico tria quam Christi Sanctorum It is not so certain viz. as to be an article of faith But yet besides that Bellarmine allows it and cites Cajetan Catharinus Payva Sanders and Thomas Waldensis for it this is a practice and doctrine brought in by an unproved custom of the Church Constat quod haec consuetudo depingendi Angelos Deum modo sub specie Columbae modo sub Figura Trinitatis sit ubique inter Catholicos recepta The picturing Angels and God sometimes under the shape of a Dove and sometimes under the figure of the Trinity is every where received among the Catholicks Pujol de adorat disp 3. said a great Man amongst them Sect. 4. And to what purpose they do this we are told by Cajetan speaking of images of God the Father Son and Holy Ghost saying In 3. part Tom. q. 25. a. 3. Haec non solum pinguntur ut ostendantur sicut cherubim olim in Templo sed ut adorentur They are painted that they may be worshipped ut frequens usus Ecclesiae testatur This is witnessed by the frequent use of the Church So that this is received every where among the Catholicks and these images are worshipped and of this there is an Ecclesiastical custom and I add In their mass-Mass-book lately printed these pictures are not infrequently seen So that now it is necessary to shew that this besides the impiety of it is against the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church and is an innovation in religion a propriety of the Roman doctrine and of infinite danger and unsufferable impiety To some of these purposes the Dissuasive alledged Tertullian Pag. 28. Eusebius and S. Hierom but A. L. says these Fathers have nothing to this purpose This is now to be tried These men were only nam'd in the Dissuasive Their words are these which follow 1. For Tertullian De coronâ milit A man would think it could not be necessary to prove that Tertullian thought it unlawful to picture God the Father when he thought the whole art of painting and making images to be unlawful as I have already proved But however let us see He is very curious that nothing should be us'd by Christians or in the service of God which is us'd on or by or towards idols and because they did paint and picture their idols cast or carve them therefore nothing of that kind ought to be in rebus Dei as Tertullian's phrase is But the summ of his discourse is this The Heathens use to picture their false Gods that indeed befits them De Cor. Milit. Johannes Filioli inquit Custodite vos ab idolis non jam ab idololatria quasi ab officio sed ab idolis id est ab ipsâ effigie eorum Indignum enim est ut imago Divini imagoidoli mortui fiat Si enim verbo nudo conditio polluitur ut Apostolus docet si quis dixerit idolothytum est non contigeris multo magis cum habitu ritu apparatu c. Quid enim tam dignum Deo quà m quod indignum idolo but therefore is unfit for God and therefore we are to flee not only from idolatry but from idols in which affair a word does change the case and that which before it was said to appertain to idols was lawful by that very word was made Unlawful and therefore much more by a shape or figure and therefore flee from the shape of them for it is an Unworthy thing that the image of the living God should be made the image of an idol or a dead thing For the idols of the Heathens are silver and gold and have eyes without sight and noses without smell and hands without feeling So far Tertullian argues And what can more plainly give his sense and meaning in this Article If the very image of an idol be Unlawful much more is it unlawful to make an image or idol of the living God or represent him by the image of a dead man But this argument is further and more plainly set down by Athanasius whose book against the Gentiles is spent in reproving the images of God real or imaginary insomuch that he affirms that the Gentiles dishonour even their false Gods by making images of them and that they might better have pass'd for Gods if they had not represented them by visible images And therefore that the religion of making images of their Gods Nam si ut dicitis literarum instar Dei praesentiam signant atque adeò acsi Deum significantia Divinis dignae censentur honoribus cerrè qui ea sculpâ—it eisque effigiem dedit multo magis hos promerebatur honores Et paulò post Quocircae hujusmodi religio Deorumque fictio non pietatis esse sed iniquitatis invectio Veritatis via ad eum qui veruâ— Deus est diriget Ad eum verò â—ognoscendum exactissimè intelligendum nullius extrà nos positae rei opem necessariam haebemus Quod si quis interrogat quanam ista sit Vâ—iuscujusque animam esse dixerim atque insitam illam intelligentiam per ipsam enim solam Deus inspiciet intelligi potest Orat. contr â—entiles is not piety but impious For to know God we need no outward thing the way of truth will direct us to him And if any man ask which is that way viz. to know God I shall say it is the soul of a man and that understanding which is planted in us for by that alone God can be seen and Understood The same Father does