able to make us wise unto salvation Are they profitable to all intents and purposes of the spirit that is to teach to reprove to correct to instruct Is the end of all this Oeconomy to make a Christian man yea a Christian Bishop perfect Can he by this dispensation be throughly furnished unto all good works and that by faith in Jesus Christ If so then this is the true principle the Apostolical way the way of God the way of salvation And if Scriptures the books written by the finger of God and the pen of Apostles can do all this then they are something more than Inke varied into divers figures unsensed characters and I know not what other reviling Epithets I. S. is pleased to cast upon them Yea but all this is nothing unless we know that Scriptures are the word of God that they were written by the Apostles and of this the Scriptures cannot be a witness in their own behalf And therefore oral tradition must supply that and consequently is the only first and self-evident principle To this I answer that it matters not by what means it be conveyed to us that the Scriptures are the Word of God Oral tradition is an excellent means but it is not that alone by which it is conveyed For if by oral tradition he means the testimony of the Catholick Church it is the best external ministery of conveyance of this being a matter of fact and of so great concernment To which the testimony of our adversaries Jews and Heathens adds no small moment and the tradition is also conveyed to us by very many writings But when it is thus conveyed and that the Church does believe them to be the Word of God then it is that I inquire whether the Scriptures cannot be a witness to us of it 's own design fulness and perfection Certainly no principle is more evident than this none more sure and none before it Whatever God hath said is true and in Scripture God did speak and speak this and therefore this to us is a first at least an evident principle Yea but if this proposition that the Scriptures are the Word of God is conveyed to us by oral tradition this must needs be the best and only principle for if it be trusted for the whole why not for every particular This Argument concludes thus This is the gate of the House therefore this is all the house Every man enters this way and therefore this is the Hall and the Cellar the Pantry and Dining room the Bedchambers and the Cocklofts But besides the ridiculousness of the argument there is a particular reason why the argument cannot conclude The reason in brief is this because it is much easier for any man to carry a letter than to tell the particular errand It is easier to tell one thing than to tell ten thousand to deliver one thing out of our hand than a multitude out of our mouths one matter of fact than very many propositions as it is easier to convey in writing all Tullies works than to say by heart with truth and exactness any one of his Orations That the Bible was written by inspired men God setting his seal to their doctrine confirming by miracles what they first preached and then wrote in a book this is a matter of fact and is no otherwise to be prov'd unless God should proceed extraordinarily and by miracle but by the testimony of wise men who saw it with their eyes and heard it with their ears and felt it with their hands This was done at first then only consign'd then witnessed and thence delivered And with how great success and with the blessing of how mighty a providence appears it in this because although as S. Luke tells us many did undertake to write Gospels or the declaration of the things so surely believ'd amongst Christians and we find in S. Clement of Alex. Origen S. Irenaeus Athanasius Chrysostom and S. Hierom mention made of many Gospels as that of the Hebrews the Egyptians Nazarenes Ebionites the Gospel of James Philip Bartholomew Thomas and divers more yet but four only were transmitted and consigned to the Church because these four only were written by these whose names they bear and these men had the testimony of God and a spirit of truth and the promise of Christ that the spirit should bring all things to their minds and he did so Now of this we could have no other testimony but of those who were present who stop'd the first issue of the false Gospels and the sound of the other four went forth into all the world according to that of Origen Ecclesia cum quatuor tantum Evangelii libros habet per universum mundum Evangeliis redundat heresies cum multa habeant unum non habent Those which heretics made are all lost or slighted those which the spirit of God did write by the hands of men divinely inspired these abide and shall abide for ever Now then this matter of fact how should we know but by being told it by credible persons who could know and never gave cause of suspicion that they should deceive us Now if I. S. will be pleas'd to call this Oral tradition he may but that which was deliver'd by this Oral tradition was not only preach'd at first but transmitted to us by many writings besides the Scriptures both of friends and enemies But suppose it were not yet this book of Scriptures might be consigned by Oral tradition from the Apostles and Apostolic men and yet tradition become of little or no use after this consignation and delivery For this was all the work which of necessity was to be done by it and indeed this was all that it could do well 1. This was all which was necessary to be done by Oral tradition because the wisdom of the divine spirit having resolved to write all the doctrine of salvation in a book and having done it well and sufficiently in order to his own gracious purposes for who dares so much as suspect the contrary there was now no need that Oral tradition should be kept up with the joynture of infallibility since the first infallibility of the Apostles was so sufficiently witnessed that it convinced the whole world of Christians and therefore was enough to consign the Divinity and perfection of this book for ever For it was in this as in the doctrine it self contain'd in the Scriptures God confirmed it by signs following that is by signs proving that the Apostles spake the minde of God the things which they speak were prov'd and believ'd for ever but then the signs went away and left a permanent and eternal event So it is in the infallible tradition delivered by the Apostles and Apostolic age concerning the Scriptures being the word of God what they said was confirm'd by all that testimony by which they obtained belief in the Church to their persons and doctrines but when they had once deliver'd this there needed no
have been puzzled to unriddle the words of transubstantiation and hyperdulia and infallibility and doctrines ex Cathedra and fere de fide and next to heresie and temerarious and ordo ad spiritualia and S. Peters chair and supremacy in spirituals and implicit faith and very many more prophane or unhallowed novelties of speech which have made Christianity quite another thing than it is in it self or then it was represented by the Apostles and Apostolic men at first as the plain way of salvation to all succeeding ages of the Church for ever But be it as it will for he will neither approve of Scripture language nor is he pleased that I use any handsome expressions for that is charged upon me as part of my fault only to countenance all this he is pleased to say that all these are but division upon no grounds and therefore to grounds and first principles I must be brought and by this way he is sure to blow up my errors from the foundation that 's his expression being a Metaphor I suppose taken from the Gunpowder treason in which indeed going upon Popish grounds they intended to blow up something or other that was very considerable from it's very foundations To perform this effect I. S. hath eight several mines all which I hope to discover without Guido Faux his Lanthorn The First Way HIS first Way is That I have not one first or self evident principle to begin with on which I build the Dissuasive but he hath that is he says he hath for he hath reproved that oral tradition on which he and his Church relies is such a principle He thought it may be he had reason then to say so but the Scene is altered and until he hath sufficiently confuted his adversaries who have proved his self evident principle to be an evident and pitiful piece of Sophistry his boasting is very vain However though he hath failed in his undertaking yet I must acquit my self as well as I can I shall therefore tell him that the truth fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of faith and manners is the principle that I and all Protestants rely upon And although this be not a first and self-evident principle yet it is resolved into these that are 1. Whatsoever God hath said is true 2. Whatsoever God hath done is good 3. Whatsoever God intends to bring to pass he hath appointed means sufficient to that end Now since God hath appointed the Scriptures to instruct us and make us wise unto salvation and to make the man of God perfect certain it is that this means must needs be sufficient to effect that end Now that God did do this to this end to them that believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God is as evident as any first principle And let these Scriptures be weighed together and see what they do amount to John 5. 39. Search the Scriptures for therein ye think to have eternal life The Jews thought so that is they confessed and acknowledged it to be so and if they had been deceived in their thought besides that it is very probable Christ would have reprov'd it so it is very certain he would not have bidden them to have used that means to that end And if Christ himself and the Apostles did convince the Jews out of the Scriptures of the old Testament proving that Jesus was the Christ if Christ himself and the Apostles proved the resurrection and the passion and the supreme Kingdom of Christ out of the Scriptures if the Apostle proved him to be the Messias and that be ought to suffer and to rise again the third day by no other precedent topic and that upon these things Christian religion relied as upon it's intire foundation and on the other side the Jewish Doctors had brought in many things by tradition to which our Blessed Saviour gave no countenance but reproved many of them and made it plain that tradition was not the first and self evident principle to rely upon in religion but a way by which they had corrupted the Commandment of God It will follow from hence that the Scriptures are the way that Christ and his Apostles walked in and that oral tradition was not But then to this add what more concerns the N. T. when S. Luke wrote his Gospel in the preface he tells us That many had taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst us Christians and that he having perfect understanding of all things viz. which Christ did and taught from the very first did write this Gospel that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things in which he had been instructed Now here if we believe S. Luke was no want of any thing he was fully instructed in all things and he chose to write that book that by that book Theophilus might know the truth yea the certainty of all things Now if we be Christians and believe S. Luke to be divinely inspired this is not indeed a first but an evident principle that a book of Scripture can make a man certain and instructed in the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ. To the same purpose is that of S. John These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20. 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name The end is salvation by Jesus Christ the means of effecting this was this writing the Gospel by S. John and therefore it is a sure principle for Christians to rely upon the word of God written by men divinely inspired such as Christians believe and confess S. Luke and S. John to be Hear S. Luke again Acts 1. The former treatise have I made O Theophilus of all that Jesus began both to do and teach untill the day he was taken up No man then can deny but all Christs doctrine and life was fully set down by these Evangelists and Apostles whether it were to any purpose or no let I. S. consider and I shall consider with him in the sequel But first let us hear what S. Paul saith in an Epistle written as it is probable not long before his death but certainly after three of the Gospels and divers of the Epistles were written and consequently related to the Scriptures of the old and new Testament Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of 2 Tim. 5. 14. knowing of whom thou hast learned them And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Now I demand Does I. S. believe these words to be true Are the Scriptures
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
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
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
together that indeed they are inke varied in divers figures and unsensed characters they are nothing else For 1. It is false that all reason for so he must mean if he would speak to any purpose is fetch'd from the natures of things some rely upon Concessions and presuppositions only some upon the state of exterior affairs and introduced Oeconomies or accidental mesnage of things some upon presumptions and some even upon the weaknesses of men upon contingencies and some which pretend to be reasons rely upon false grounds and such are I. S. his demonstrations But suppose they did as indeed the best reasons do what then Why then the best nature that is I suppose he means the humane unalterable abstracting from disease and madness is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition This proposition hath in it something that is false and something that is to no purpose That which is false is that the nature of man unless he be mad or diseas'd in his brain is Unalterable As if men could not be chang'd by interest or ambition pride or prejudice by weakness and false Apostles mistake or negligence And by any of these a man that naturally hath faculties to understand and capacity of learning and speaking truth may be so changed that he is very alterable from good to bad from wise to foolish from the knowledge of the truth to believe a lie and be transported by illusions of the Devil Every man naturally loves knowledge that 's his nature and it is the best nature but yet it is so alterable that some men who from the principles of this best nature are willing to learn and they are ever learning yet they are so altered that they never come to the knowledge of truth But supposing that this best nature is the ground of the humane part of tradition yet it is not the ground of the humane part of tradition as it is unalterable but as it hath a defectible understanding and a free and a changeable will and innumerable weaknesses for these are so in this best nature that it can never be without them And therefore because this ground may be slippery there will be no sure footing here Especially since it is but the ground of the humane part of tradition for which cause it can be no more ground of truth in religion than the Roman story than Plutarch or Livy is of infallible indefectible truth in history and therefore I. S. does very wisely add to this the incomparable strengths of the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost But these alone can be sufficient if they could be proved to be given infallibly absolutely and without the altering condition of our making right use of them without grieving the Holy Spirit of which because there is no promise and no experience it is no wild Conceit to think tradition may be uncertain and yet our discourses in Religion by other principles be certain enough But now I perceive that I. S. is no such implacable man for all the seeming fierceness of his persuasion in his new mode of Oral tradition but that in time he may be reduc'd to the old way of this Church and ground as he does mainly here her infallibility not upon new demonstrations taken from the nature of things but upon the continual assistances and helpes of the only infallible spirit of God That indeed is a way possible if it were to be had but this new way hath neither sense nor reason And therefore in this place he wisely puts the greatest stress upon the other I should have proceeded a little further if I could have understood what I. S. means by any piece of nature built on Tradition and if he had not here put in the phrase of a wild Conceit I should have wanted a name for it but because it is no other I shall now let it alone and dig into the other mines and see if they be more dangerous than these Bugbears The third Way THe third Way I must needs say is a fine one He offers to prove my Dissuasive to be no Dissuasive no nor can it be a Dissuasive And why because to Dissuade is to unfix the understanding from what it held before which includes to make it hold or assent that what it held before certain is false or at least uncertain And here before I proceed further it is fit we acknowledge that we owe to I. S. the notice of these two mysteries 1. What is meant by Dissuading and that it is making a man to change his opinion an unfixing of his mind And the second That this unfixing the minde makes the minde to shake or to be chang'd to be uncertain or to think the proposition fit to be held we being thus instructed in these grounds of some new design'd demonstration may the surer proceed For wisely he adds a conjecture that surely by my Dissuasive from Popery I intend to oblige men to assent to the contrary I do believe indeed I did but my first aim was to dissuade that is to unfixe them and afterwards to establish them in the contrary Well! thus far we are agreed but for all this The thing I intend cannot be done by me I cannot dissuade because I have no peculiar method of my own but I use those means which others use to prove errors by and if the way I take be common to truth and error It is good for nothing error shall pretend to it as well as truth I must have a particularity of method above what is in others Now this is strange that I should be so severely dealt with why is more requir'd of me than of others I take the same way that the writers of books of controversie us'd to take I quote Scriptures and Fathers and Histories and instances and I use reason as well as I can I finde that Bellarmine and Baronius Card. Perron and Gregory de Valentia Stapleton and Hart Champian and Reynolds use the same Dull way as I do and yet they hope to persuade and Dissuade according to the subject matter and why my penny should not be as good silver as theirs I know not but I hope I shall know by and by why the true reason why I cannot Dissuade and that I miscall my book a Dissuasive is because the method which I take is common to those discourses which have in them power to satisfie the understanding and those who have no such power But herein is a wonderful thing my book cannot dissuade because I take a way which is taken in discourses which can satisfie the understanding For if some discourses proceeding my way can satisfie the Understanding as I. S. here confesses then it is to be hop'd so may mine at least there is nothing in my method to hinder it but it may yea but this method is also us'd in Discourses which have no such power well and what then Is not therefore my method as good a method as can be
made for me I know not certainly that any thing I say against your religion is true Page 258. c. All the men that tell us that Cardinal Chigi is now Pope are fallible they may be deceiv'd and they may deceive and yet I suppose Mr. White though he also be fallible is sufficiently certain he is so and if he did make any doubt if he would sail to Italy he would be infallibly assur'd of it by the Executioners of the Popes Censures who yet are as fallible as any the officers of Montfalcon But I. S. however says I ought to confess that I ought not to dissuade from any thing in case neither the Fathers nor my self be infallible in any saying or proof of theirs For the infallibility of the Fathers I shall have a more convenient time to consider it under his eighth way But now I am to consider his reason for this pretty saying which he says he evinces thus Since to be infallible in none hic nunc taking in the whole complexion of assisting circumstances is the same as to be hic nunc fallible in all or each and if they be fallible or may be deceiv'd in each they can be sure of none it follows that who professes the Fathers and himself though using all the means he can to secure him from error fallible in each must if he will speak out like an honest man confess he is sure of none This is the evident demonstration and indeed there are in it some things evidently demonstrative The first is That to be infallible in none is the same as to be fallible in all Indeed I must needs say that he says true and learnedly and it being a self evident Principle he might according to his custome have afforded demonstrations enough for this but I shall take it upon his own word at this time and allow him the honour of first communicating this secret to the ignorant world that he that is not infallible is fallible Another deep note we have here his words laid plain without their Parentheses can best declare the mystery If they be infallible or may be deceiv'd in each they can be sure of none it follows that they that profess they are fallible in each must confess they are sure of none If I. S. always write thus subtilly no man will ever be able to resist him For indeed this is a demonstration and therefore we hope it may be aeternae veritatis for it relies upon this first and self evident principle idem per idem semper facit idem Now having well learned these two deep notes out of the school and deep discourses of I. S. let us see what the man would be at for himself and though we find it in his Parentheses only yet they could not be left out and sense be intire without them When he talkes of being infallible if the notion be applied to his Church then he means an infallibility antecedent absolute unconditionate such as will not permit the Church ever to err And because he thinks such an infallibility to be necessary for the setling the doubting mindes of men he affirms roundly if infallibility be denied then no man can be sure of any thing But then when he comes to consider the particulars and cannot but see a man may be certain of some things though he have not that antecedent infallibility that quality and permanent grace yet because he will not have his Dear notion lost that infallibility and certainty live and dye together he hath now secretly put in a changeling in the place of the first and hath excogitated an infallibility consequent conditionate circumstantiate which he calls hic nunc taking in the whole complexion of assisting circumstances Now because the first is denied by us to be in any man or company of men and he perceives that to be uncertain in every thing will not be consequent to the want of this first sort he secretly slides into the second and makes his consequent to rely upon this deceitfully And if the argument be put into intelligible terms it runs thus If when a whole complexion of assisting circumstances are present that is a proposition truly represented apt to be understood necessary to be learned and attended to by a person desirous to learn when it is taught by sufficient authority or prov'd by evidence or confirm'd by reason when a man hath his eyes and his wits about him and is sincerely desirous of truth and to that purpose himself considers and he confers with others and prays to God and the thing it self is also plain and easie then if a man can be deceiv'd he is sure of nothing And this is infallibility hic nunc But this is not that which he and his parties contend to be seated in his Church for such a one as this we allow to her if she does her duty if she prays to God if she consider as well as she can and be no way transported with interest or partiality then in such propositions which God hath adopted into the Christian faith and which are plain and intended to be known and believ'd by all there is no question but she is infallible that is she is secur'd from error in such things But then every man also hath a part of this infallibility Some things are of their own nature so plain that a man is infallible in them as a man may infallibly know that two and two make four And a Christian may be infallibly sure that the Scriptures say that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that there shall be a resurrection from the dead and that they who do the works of the flesh shall not inherit the kingdom of God And as fallible as I or any Protestant is yet we cannot be deceived in this if it be made a question whether fornication be a thing forbidden in the New Testament we are certain and infallibly so that in that book it is written flee fornication An infallibility hic nunc if that will serve I. S. his turn we have it for him and he cannot say that we Protestants affirm that we are fallible when we do our duty and when all the assisting circumstances which God hath made sufficient and necessary are present we are as certain as infallibility it self that among the ten Commandements one is Thou shalt not worship any graven Images and another Thou shalt not commit adultery and so concerning all the plain sayings in Scripture we are certain that they carry their meaning on their forehead and we cannot be deceiv'd unless we please not to make use of all the complexion of assisting circumstances And this certainty or circumstantiate infallibility we derive from self evident principles such as this God is never wanting to them that do the best they can and this In matters which God requires of us Deus neminem deserit nisi prius deserentem if we fail not in what
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
heretic or his tenet as heresy But this is so notoriously false as nothing is more and it is infinitely confuted by all the Catalogues and books of the fathers reckoning the heresies where they are pleased to call all opinions they like not by the names of heresy Haeres 90. Philastrius writes against them as heretics and puts them in his black Catalogue who expounds that of making man in the image and likeness of God spoken of in Genesis to signifie the reasonable soul and not rather the Grace of the Holy Spirit He also accounts them heretics who rejected the LXX and followed the translation of Aquila which in the Ancient Church was in great reputation Some there were who said that God hardned the heart of Pharaoh Haeres 77. and these he calls heretics and yet this heresy is the very words of Scripture Haeres 71. and some are reckon'd heretics for saying that the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha was before Noahs flood But more consider able is that heresy Haeres 74. which affirm'd that Christ descended into hell and there preach'd to the detained that they who would confess him might be sav'd Now if Philastrius or any other writer of heretics were in this case infallible what shall become of many of the Orthodox fathers who taught this now condemned doctrine So did Clemens Alexandrinus Anastasius Sinaita S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Ambrose and divers others of the most eminent fathers and S. Austin affirm'd that Christ did save some but whether all the damned then or no he could not resolve Euodius who ask'd the question * Vide Jacob. Vsser primat Hibern cap. de limbo PP That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all upon any account was unanimously taught by S. Hilary and S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose and Theophylact * Vide Erasmum in declarat ad Censuras Facult Thed Paris p. 52. edit Froben A. D. 1532 no not cum exigitur jus-jurandum aut cum urget necessitas and that it is crimen Gehenna dignum a damnable sin Whether that was the doctrine of the Church of Rome in those days I say not but if it were why is the Church of Rome of a contrary judgement now If it were not then a consenting testimony of many fathers even of the greatest ranke is no irrefragable argument of the truth or Catholic tradition and from so great an union of such an authority it was not very hard to imagine that the opinion might have become Catholic from a lesser spring greater streams have issued but it is more than probable that there was no Catholic oral tradition concerning this main and concerning article and I am sure I. S. will think that all these fathers were not only fallible but deceiv'd actually in this point By these few instances we may plainly see what little of infallibility there is in the fathers writings when they write against heretics or heresies or against any article and how then shall we know that the fathers are at all or in any case infallible I know not from any thing more that is said by I. S. But this I know that many chief men of his side do speak so slightly and undervalue the fathers so pertly that I fear it will appear that the Protestants have better opinion of them and make better use of the Fathers than themselves Praefat. in Pentateuch What think we of the saying of Cardinal Cajetan If you chance to meet with any new exposition which is agreeable to the Text c. although perhaps it differ from that which is given by the whole current of the Holy Doctors I desire the Readers that they would not too hastily reject it And again Let no man therefore reject a new exposition of any passage of Scripture under pretence that it is contrary to what the Ancient Doctors gave In Epiph. p. 244. What think we of those words of Petavius There are many things by the most Holy Fathers scattered especially S. Chrysostom in his Homilies which if you would accommodate to the rule of exact truth they will seem to be void of good sense P. 110. And again there is cause why the authority of certain Fathers should be objected for they can say nothing but what they have learned from S. Luke neither is there any reason why we should rather interpret S. Luke by them than those things which they say by S. Luke And Maldonate does expresly reject the exposition which all the Authors In Matth. 16. 18. which he had read except S. Hilary give of those words of Christ The gates of hell shall not prevail against it De sacr tom orig continentiâ apud Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 15. vide etiam hist. Conc. Trident l. 7. Michael Nedina accuses S. Hierom as being of the Aerian heresy in the Qu. of Episcopacy and he proceeds further to accuse S. Ambrose S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact of the same heresy And Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto expresly affirms that he had rather believe one single Pope In Epist. ad Rom. c. 14. than a thousand Augustines Hierom's or Gregories I shall not need any further to instance how the Council of Trent hath decreed many things against the general doctrines of the fathers as in the placing images in Churches the denying of the Eucharist to Infants the not including the Blessed Virgin Mary in the general evil of Mankind in the imputation of Adams sin denying the Chalice to the Laity and Priests not officiating the beatification and Divine vision of Saints before the day of judgment If it were not notorious and sometimes confessed that these things are contrary to the sense of a troop of fathers there might be some excuse made for them who give them good words and yet reject their authorities so freely that it sometimes seems to pass into scorn But now it appears to be to little purpose Sess. 4. that the Council of Trent enjoyns her Clergy that they offer not to expound Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers for though this amounts not to the height of I. S. his saying it is their avowed and constant doctrine that they are infallible but ad coercenda petulantia ingenia the contrary is done and avowed every day And as the fathers prov'd themselves fallible both as such in writing against heretics and in testifying concerning the Churches doctrine in their age so in the interpretations of Scripture in which although there be no Universal consent of Fathers in any interpretation of Scripture concerning which questions mov'd so the best and most common consent that is men of great note recede from it with the greater boldness by how much they hope to raise to themselves the greater reputation for wit and learning Sess. 11. And therefore although in the sixth General Council the Origenists were condemned for bringing
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
sufficient testimony and confession of enemies and of all men that were fit to bear witness that these Books were written by such men who by miracle were prov'd to be Divini homines Men endued with God's Spirit and trusted with his Message and when it was thus far proved by God it became the immediate sole Ministery of intire Salvation and the whole Repository of the Divine will and when things were come thus far if it inquir'd whether the Scriptures were a sufficient institution to salvation we need no other we can have no better testimony than it self concerning it self And to this purpose I have already brought from it sufficient affirmation of the point in Question in the preceding answer to I. S. his first Way in his fourth Appendix 3. It is possible that the Scriptures should contain in them all things necessary to salvation God could cause such a Book to be written And he did so to the Jews he caused his whole Law to be written he engraved in Stones he commanded the authentick Copy to be kept in the Ark and this was the great security of the conveying it and Tradition was not relied upon it was not trusted with any law of Faith or Manners Now since this was once done and therefore is always possible to be done why it should not be done now there is no pretence of reason but very much for it For 1. Why should the Book of S. Matthew be called the Gospel of Jesus Christ and this is also the very Title of S. Mark 's Book and S. Luke affirms the design of his Book is to declare the certainty of the things then believed and in which his Friend was instucted which we cannot but suppose to be the whole Doctrine of salvation 2. What end could there be in writing these Books but to preserve the memory of Christ's History and Doctrine 3. Especially if we consider that many things which were not absolutely necessary to salvation were set down and therefore to omit any thing that is necessary must needs be an Unreasonable and Unprofitable way of writing 4. There yet never was any Catholick Father that did affirm in terms or in full and equivalent sense that the Scriptures are defective in the recording any thing necessary to salvation but Unanimously they taught the contrary as I shall shew by and by 5. The enemies of Christian Religion oppos'd themselves against the Doctrine contained in the Scriptures and suppos'd by that means to conclude against Christianity and they knew no other repository of it and estimated no other 6. The persecutors of Christianity intending to destroy Christianity hop'd to prevail by causing the Bibles to be burnt which had been a foolish and unlikely design if that had not been the Ark that kept the Records of the whole Christian Law 7. That the revealed will of God the Law of Christ was not written in his life-time but preached only by word of mouth is plain and reasonable because all was not finished and the salvation of man was not perfected till the Resurrection Ascension and Descent of the Holy Ghost nor was it done presently But then it is to be observed that there was a Spirit of infallible Record put into the Apostles sufficient for it's publication and continuance But before the death of the Apostles that is before this Spirit of infallibility was to depart all was written that was intended because no thing else could infallibly convey the Doctrine Now this being the case of every Doctrine as much as of any and the case of the whole rather than of any part of it it must follow that it was highly agreeable to the Divine wisdom and the very end of this Oeconomy that all should be written and for no other reason could the Evangelists and Apostles write so many Books 4. But of the sufficiency of Scripture we may be convinc'd by the very nature of the thing For the Sermons of Salvation being preach'd to all to the learned and unlearned it must be a common Concern and therefore fitted to all capacities and consequently made easie for easie learners Now this design is plainly signified to us in Scripture by the abbreviatures the Symbols and Catalogues of Credenda which are short and plain and easie and to which salvation is promis'd Now if he that believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God 1 John 5. 10. hath eternal life John 17. 3. that is so far as the value and acceptability of believing does extend this Faith shall prevail unto salvation it follows that this being the affirmation of Scripture and declar'd to be a competent foundation of Faith the Scripture that contains much more even the whole Oeconomy of salvation by Jesus Christ cannot want any necessary thing when the absolute necessities are so narrow Christ the Son of God is the great adaequate object of saving Faith John 17. 3. to know God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ this is eternal life Now this is the great design of the Gospel and is reveal'd largely in the Scriptures so that there is no adaequate object of Faith but what is there 2. As to the Attributes of God and of Christ that is all that is known of them and to be known is set down in Scripture That God is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him that he is the fountain of wisdom justice holiness power that his providence is over all and mercy unto all And concerning Christ all the attributes and qualifications by which he is capable and fitted to do the work of redemption for us and to become our Lord and the great King of Heaven and Earth able to destroy all his Enemies eternally and to reward his servants with a glorious and indefectible Kingdom all this is declar'd in Scripture So that concerning the full object of Faith manifested in the whole design of the Gospel the Scriptures are full and whatever is to be believed of the attributes belonging to this prime and full object all that also is in Scripture fully declar'd And all the acts of Faith the antecedents the formal and the consequent acts of faith are there expresly commanded viz. to know God to believe in his name and word to believe in his Son and to obey his Son by the consequent acts of Faith all this is set down in Scripture in which not only we are commanded to keep the Commandments but we are told which they are There we are taught to honour and fear to love and obey God and his Holy Son to fear and reverence him to adore and invocate him to crave his aid and to give him thanks not to trust in or call upon any thing that hath no Divine Empire over us or Divine Excellence in it self It is so particular in recounting all the parts of Duty that it descends specially to enumerate the duties of Kings and subjects Bishops and people Parents and children Masters and servants to
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
Book or Chapter of it should be detected to be imposture But there were two cases in which tradition was then us'd The one was when the Scriptures had not been written or communicated as among divers nations of the Barbarians The other was when they disputed with persons who receiv'd not all the Scriptures as did the Carpocratians of whom * Lib. 1. c. 1. c. 24. Irenaeus speaks In these cases tradition was urg'd that because they did not agree about the authority of one instrument they should be admitted to trial upon the other For as Antonius Marinarius said truly and wisely The Fathers served themselves of this topick onely in case of necessity never thinking to make use of it in competition against holy Scripture But then it is to be observ'd that in both these cases the use of tradition is not at all pertinent to the Question now in hand For first the Question was not then as now it is between personn who equally account of Scriptures as the word of God and to whom the Scriptures have been from many generations consign'd For they that had receiv'd Scriptures at the first relied upon them they that had not were to use tradition and the topick of succession to prove their doctrine to have come from the Apostles that is they were fain to call Witnesses when they could not produce a Will in writing But secondly in other cases the old hereticks had the same Question as we have now S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 24. For besides the Scripture they said that Jesus in mystery spake to his disciples and Apostles some things in secret and apart S. August tract 97. in Johan because they were worthy And so Christ said I have many things to say but ye cannot hear them now For this place of Scripture was to this purpose urg'd by the most foolish hereticks Just thus do the Doctors of the Church of Rome at this day De verb. Dei non script lib. 4. ca. 11. Sect. His notatis So Bellarmine They preach'd not to the people all things but those which were necessary to them or profitable but other things they deliver'd apart to the more perfect Here then is the popish ground of their traditions they cannot deny but necessary and profitable things were deliver'd in publick and to all but some secret things were reserv'd for the secret ones For the Scriptures are as the Credential Letters to an Embassadour but traditions are as the private Instructions This was the pretence of the old Hereticks and is of the modern Papists who while they say the same thing pretend for it also the same authority saying that Traditions also are to be receiv'd Pag. 16. because they are recommended in Scripture Of this I shall hereafter give account In the mean time Concerning this I remember that a great man of the Roman party falls foul upon Castellio Salmeron tom 15. in 2 Tim. 3. disp 4. p. â—07 for saying The Apostle had some more secret doctrine which he did not commit to writing but deliver'd it to some more perfect persons and that the word of God was not sufficient for deciding controversies of religion however it be expounded but that a more perfect revelation is to be expected Upon which he hath these words Intolerabile est ut Paulus quam accepit reconditiorem doctrinam non scripto consignaverit fuisset enim alioqui infidelis depositi Minister And it was most reasonable which Antonius Marinarius a Frier Carmelite did say If some things were deliver'd in secret it was under secret because the Apostles might as well have publish'd it as their disciples but if it was deliver'd as a secret and consequently to be kept as secret how came the successors of the Apostles to publish this secret to break open the seal and reveal the forbidden secret And secondly If the secret tradition which certainly was not necessary to all be made publick how shall we know which traditions are necessary and which are not Certain it is the secret tradition could not of it self be necessary and therefore if it becomes so by being made publick it is that which the Apostles intended not for they would have it secret And therefore it follows that now no man can tell that any of their traditions was intended as necessary because the onely way by which we could know which was and which was not necessary viz. the making the one publick and keeping the other private is now destroyed since they are all alike common All that which was delivered to all and in publick was by the providence of God ministring apt occasions and by the Spirit of God inspiring the Apostles and Evangelists with a will to do it set down in writing that they might remain upon record for ever to all generations of the Church So S. Peter promis'd to the Jews of the dispersion that he would do some thing to put them in remembrance of the things he had taught them and he was as good as his word and imployed S. Mark to write the Gospel others also of the Apostles took the same care and all were directed by God and particular occurrences were concentred in the general design and counsel of God Lib. 3. c. 1. So S. Irenaeus The Gospel which the Apostles preach'd afterwards by the will of God they deliver'd to us in the Scriptures It was a Tradition still but now the word signified in its primitive and natural sense not in the modern and Ecclesiastical But Irenaeus speaks of the Gospel Tract 49. in Johan that is the whole Gospel of God not all the particulars that Jesus spake and did S. Augustin lib. 1. c. 35. de consensu Evangel but What ever Christ would have us to read of his words and works he commanded them to write as if it were by his own hands And therefore Electa sunt quae scriberentur quaè saluti credentium sufficere videbantur There was a choice made of such things as were to be written It was not therefore done by chance and contingency as many of the Roman Doctors in disparagement of the Scriptures sufficiency do object but the things were chosen saith S. Austin it was according to the will of God said S. Irenaeus and the choice was very good all that suffic'd to the salvation of believers according to the words of S. John These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Joh. 20. 30 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name And indeed there cannot be any probable cause inducing any wise man to believe that the Apostles should pretend to write the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that they should insert many things more then necessary and yet omit any thing that was and yet still call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus calls the Epistles of S. Paul Lib. 2. hist. c. 34. A summary of what he plainly
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
who having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes will yet swallow the hook deserve to live upon air and fancy and to chew deceit But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world for it is discover'd of some things that are called Apostolical tradition that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one man Some I say have been so discover'd Papias was the Author of the Millenary opinion which prevailed for about three whole ages and that so Universally that Justin Martyr said it was believ'd by all that were perfectly Orthodox and yet it recurres to him onely as the fountain of the Tradition But of this I shall say no more because this instance hath been by others examin'd and clear'd The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteem'd a Tradition Apostolical but it can derive no higher then S. Austin In serm de Assumptione whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of But the Tradition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon deriv'd onely from S. John Salmeron tract 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg and the Asâ—atick Bishops but the other from S. Peter and S. Paul prevail'd though it had no greater authority But the Communicating of Infants prevail'd for many ages in the West S. Hierom. dial adv Lucifer and to this day in the East and went for an Apostolical Tradition but the fortune of it is chang'd and it now passes for an errour and S. Hierom said It was an Apostolical Tradition that a Priest should never baptize without Chrism but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own But besides this there was in the beginning of Christianity some Apocryphal books of these Origen gave great caution Tract 26. in Matth. and because the falsity of these every good man could not discover therefore he charges them that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books but from the Canonical Scriptures as I have already quoted him but these were very busie in reporting traditions The book of Hermes seduc'd S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief that the Apopostles preach'd to them that died Infidels and then rais'd them to life and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul make him believe that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy and the Gospel of Nicodemus so far as yet appears was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross at every motion of the body and led Tertullian and S. Basil and in consequence the Churches of succeeding ages into the practise of it A little thing will draw on a willing mind and nothing is so credulous as piety and timerous Religion and nothing was more fearful to displease God and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians and every thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail and how many such pretences might enter in at this wide door every man can easily observe Add to this that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholick Church to prove a Tradition which way if it were sufficient then it is certain that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteem'd tradition would be found not to be such because as appears in divers instances above reckon'd they admitted many traditions which the present Church rejects 2. If this were the way then truth were as variable as time and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimony but still the present were to carry it that is every age were to believe themselves and no body else And the reason of these things is this because some things have in some ages been universally receiv'd in others universally rejected I instance in the state of Saints departed which once was the opinion of some whole ages and now we know in what ages it is esteemed an error 3. The Communicating Infants before instanc'd in was the practise of the Church for 600 years together Maldonat in 6. Joh. 53. videetiam Espéncaeuâ— de adorat Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Now all that while there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice or at least none known for if there had these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine But if there were no tradition against it at that time there is none now And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men that were against it only in a negative way it can be pretended that is if there was no doctrine or practice or report ever to the contrary then they that have a mind to it may suppose or hope it was Apostolical or at least they cannot be sure that it was not But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christendom because in them there is Father against Son and Son against Father Greeks against Latin and their minds differ as far as East and West and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions that there was never any thing said to the contrary but if there was then the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholick and Apostolick 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure record of Tradition Apostolical then it is because the present Church is infallible but for that there is neither Scripture nor Tradition or if there were for its infallibility in matter of faith yet there is none for its infallibility in matter of fact and such is the Tradition concerning which the Question only is Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle and transmitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches Antiquissimum quodque verissimum We know the fountains were pure and the current by how much the nearer it is to the spring it is the less likely to be corrupted And therefore it is a beginning at the wrong end to say The present Church believes this therefore so did the primitive but let it be shewed that the primitive did believe this for else it is Out-facing of an Opponent as if he ought to be aasham'd to question whether you have done well or no. For if that question may be ask'd it must be submitted to trial and it must be answer'd and the holding the opinion will not justifie the holding it that must be done by something else therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compar'd together and it will be an ill excuse if a servant who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord and tells him Thus it was deliver'd to me for thus you see
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
no man but by him that hath ignorance for his excuse and then also the ignorance ought rather to be modestly confess'd E. W. page 17. He is false and faulty through this whole Section faulty in telling us of a clancular Commission given by the King of Spain to the Inquisitors c. without directing us to either Book or Index where to find it This Commission is in Junius his Edition of the Indices Expurgatorii and of this Book the author of a Letter to a friend did make use as appears in his 6. page under n. 16. than a fault charg'd upon him who knowing it did affirm it But the Commission is printed both in Dutch and Latine together with the Expurgatory Indices of Belgium and Madrid at Henovia or Henault by Guilielmus Antonius 1611. in which the King affirms that he caus'd the Belgick Index to be printed by his own chief Printer at his own charge Non quidem evulgandum distrahendúmque sed distribuendum solis Cognitoribus c. And a little after giving faculty to the Prelates to choose one or more Assistants he addes Itque ipsi privatim nullisque consciis apud se Indicem Expurgatorium habebunt quem eundem neque aliis communicabunt neque ejus exemplum ulli dabunt c. This then is soon at an end 2. But Junius that publish'd the Indices seems to say that they did not purge the works of the Fathers To this the Answer that Junius himself makes is sufficient for he instances in their purgation of Bertram who yet was elder than Haymo Theophylact Oecumenius and almost two hundred years before S. Bernard and yet they openly profess'd to use him as they please and when Bertram had said visibilitèr they commanded he should be read invisibilitèr which is a pretty little change and very meet to Bertram's sense surely But Bellarmine is also in this particular a witness beyond exception lib. 4. De verb◠Dei cap. 11. for when he had recited an objection out of S. Chrysostom Sect. Sext◠profert proving that in the times of heresie there is no way of finding truth but by the Scripture having nothing else to answer he says The book was either written or interpolated by an Arian Et propterea totus hic locus tanquam ab Arianis insertus è quibusdam codicibus nuper emendatis sublatus est But the thing is plain also in the Indices themselves for in the Spanish Index by the Command of Gaspar Quiroga Archbishop of Toledo and in that also of Sandoval the purge hath pass'd upon the Bibliotheca sanctorum Patrum collected by Binius where not onely the Gloss upon S. Gregory of Neocaesarea but the works of S. Anthony the Abbot Pag. 282. Edit S. Melito Mark the Hermit Dorotheus and divers others Hanov. 1611. are purg'd and that the Reader may be satisfied in the manner and design of the proceeding the doctrines or saying to be blotted out are these We have learn'd to worship and venerate that nature onely that is Vncreated dele solummodò said the good Fathers of the purges Prudence and Life and Piety make the Priest A wicked mind cannot be justified He that keeps not the Commandments does not believe rightly Onely the Holy Trinity is properly incorporeal A spiritual prayer helps not an unclean mind These are all doctrines very dangerous and heretical and therefore though the Fathers teach them yet deleantur let them pass through the fire and leave their dross behind them But I desire the Reader to observe that when in the Sandoval Edition of the Index and order was taken for the purging the Bibliotheca Patrum in the Edition of it at Colein the Sandoval Canon was not observ'd and the reason given for it was this Lest the hereticks may have occasion given them to insult which they could not do unless they had taken their adversaries in their tampering But they are gone yet one step further in this particular for in the latter Editions of the Bibliotheca Edit Paris 1610. they do not adde the title of Sanctorum to them but Patrum onely and Ecclesiasticorum Scriptorum according to the order of the Sandoval Expurgatory Index printed at Madrid 1612. and of the Quirogian Index printed there 1583. So that as they are forc'd secretly to imply that they are not so right for their Catholick cause as they would have them so they are resolved whatsoever is not so shall not pass with them for Holy And in this diminution and dishonour of the memory of these Antient Fathers S. Clement of Alexandria his good name hath suffered shipwrack for in * Index Expurg Saniov p. 83. Clemente Alexandrino in duplici titulo operis dele titulum Divi for now it happens in some measure to them that have in honour the memory of such men that seem'd to speak any thing against the errors of the Roman Church as it did to Arulenus Ruslicus praising of Paetus Thrasea and to Herennius Senecio commending Helvidius Priscus Capitale fuit said Tacitus and this is notorious in their Tables their new-fashion'd diptychs where men of honourable name and great worth are called damnati Authores and their very name commanded to be put out and some Periphrasis set down for them 2. But that I may give one pregnant instance of their purging the Fathers I desire him that is curious and would be satisfied in this thing to see the Edition of S. Austin at Venice and in the inscription of his Works he shall find this Confession In quo praeter locorum multorum restitutionem secundum collationem veterum Exemplarium curavimus removeri illa omnia quae fidelium mentes haereticâ pravitate possent inficere aut à Catholicâ Orthodoxâ fide deviare And in the Quirogian Index which hath these words Sunt autem ferè omnia quae offendunt in Prologis Marginalibus Annotationibus we may easily see that not the Prologues and Annotations alone are guilty but even S. Austin's text But beyond conjecture the thing is in it self evident But the Fathers words are expunged in one place and consequently condemn'd in every place which is that I intended in the citation of those words by Junius and which were also set down in the first part of this Dissuasive But both in the text and Index of S. Cyril of Alexandria In Esai lib. 1. c. 51. in fin these words are and yet commanded to be blotted Habitat Jesus per fidem in cordibus nostris Ephes. 3. 17. Which very words are not in S. Cyril only but in S. Paul too and by S. Cyril quoted with a sicut scriptum est And again Index Quirog p. 74. Deleantur ex textu illa verba Fidei autem gratiam cum his qui valdè inquinati sunt tum etiam paulum morbo affectis satis ad emendationem valituram esse fidem dicens Fides sola justificat are commanded to be blotted and
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
prosperously and needed not to have been interrupted For if these quotations be true as is pretended and as now appears there is nothing by my Adversaries said in defence of Indulgences no pretence of an argument in justification of them the whole matter is so foul and yet so notorious that the novelty of it is plainly acknowleged by their most learned men and but faintly denied by the bolder people that care not what they say So that I shall account the main point of Indulgences to be for ought yet appears to the contrary gain'd against the Church of Rome But there is another appendant Question that happens in by the by nothing to the main inquiry but a particular instance of the usual ways of earning Indulgences viz. by going in pilgrimages which very particularly I affirmed to be reproved by the Ancient Fathers and particularly by S. Gregory Nyssen in a book or Epistle of his written wholly on this subject so I said and so Possevine calls it librum contra peregrinationes the book against Pilgrimages The Epistle is large and learned and greatly dissuasive of Christians from going in Pilgrimage to Jerusalem Dominus profectionem in Hierosylma inter recte facta quae eo viz. ad regni coelorum haereditatem consequendam dirigant non enumeravit ubi beatitudinem annunciat tale studium talemque operam non est complexus And again spiritualem noxam affricat accuratum vitae genus insistentibus Non est ista tanto digna studio imo est vitanda summo opere And if this was directed principally to such persons who had chosen to live a solitary and private life yet that was because such strict and religious persons where those whose false shew of piety he did in that instance reprove but he reproves it by such arguments all the way as concern all Christians but especially women and answers to an objection made against himself for going which he says he did by command and public charge and for the service of the Arabian Churches and that he might confer with the Bishops of Palestine This Epistle of S. Gregory Nyssen de adeuntibus Hierosolymam was printed at Paris in Greek by Guilielmus Morellus and again published in Greek and Latin with a double version by Peter du Moulin and is acknowledged by Baronius to be legitimate Tom. 4. ad A. D. 386. num 39. and therefore there is no denying the truth of the quotation the Author of the letter had better to have rub'd his forehead hard and to have answered as Possevine did Ab haereticis prodiit liber sub nomine Gregorii Nysseni Lib. 3. de cultu SS cap. 8. Sect. Ad Magdeburgenses and Bellarmine being pinch'd with it says Forte non est Nysseni nec scitur quis ille verteâ—â—t in sermonem latinum forte etiam non invenitur Graece All which is refuted by their own parties That S. Chrysostom was of the same judgement 1 Homil. in Philom appears plainly in these few words Namque ad impetrandum nostris secleribus veniam non pecunias impendere nec aliud aliquid hujusmodi facere sola sufficit bonae voluntatis integritas A. L. p. 9. n. 23. Non opus est in longinqua peregrinando transire nec ad remotissimas ire nationes c. S. Chrysostom according to the sense of the other Fathers teaches a Religion and Repentance wholly reducing us to a good life a service perfectly consisting in the works of a good conscience And in the exclusion of other external things he reckons this of Pilgrimages For how travelling into Forain Countries for pardon of our crimes differs from Pilgrimages I have not been yet taught The last I mention'd is S. Bernard A. L. ibid. p. 9. num 24. his words are these It is not necessary for thee to pass over Sea to penetrate the clouds to go beyond the Alps there is I say no great journey proposed to you meet God within your self for the word is nigh unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart c. So the Author of the letter acknowledges S. Bernard to have said in the place quoted yea but says this objector Non oportet ô homo maria transfretare non penetrare nubes non transalpinare necesse est Non grandis inquam tibi ostenditur via usque temet-ipsum occurrere Deo tuo I might as well have quoted Moses Deut. 13. 14. Well what if I had quoted Moses had it been ever the worse But though I did not yet S. Bernard quoted Moses and that it seems troubled this Gentleman But S. Bernards words are indeed agreeable to the words of Moses but not all out the same For Moses made no prohibition of going to Rome which I suppose S. Bernard meant by transalpinare There remains in A. L. yet one cavil but it is a question of diligence and not to the point in hand The authority of S. Austin I mark'd under the title of his Sermon de Martyribus Ibid. num 25. But the Gentleman to shew his Learning tells us plainly that there is but one in S. Austins works with that title to wit his 117. Sermon de diversis and in that there is not the least word to any such purpose All this latter part may be true but the first is a great mistake for if the Gentleman please to look in the Paris Edition of S. Austin 1571. tom 10. pag. 277. he shall find the words I have quoted And whereas he talkes of 117. Sermons de diversis and of one only Sermon de martyribus I do a little wonder at him to talk so confidently whereas in the Edition I speak of and which I followed there are but 49. Sermons and 17. under the title de diversis and yet there are six Sermons that bear the title de Martyribus but they are to be found under the title de Sanctis so that the Gentleman look'd in the wrong place for his quotation and if he had not mistaken himself he could have had no colour for an objection But for the satisfaction of the Reader the words are these in his 3. Sermon de Martyribus diversis Non dixit vade in orientem quaere justitiam naviga usque ad occidentem ut accipias indulgentiam Dimitte inimico tuo dimittetur tibi indulge indulgetur tibi da dabitur tibi nihil a te extra te quaerit Ad teipsum ad conscientiam tuam te Deus diriget In te enim posuit quod requirit But now let it be considered that all those charges which are laid against the Church of Rome and her greatest Doctors respectively in the matter of Indulgences are found to be true and if so let the world judge whether that doctrine and those practices be tolerable in a Christian Church But that the Reader may not be put off with a mere defence of four quotations I shall add this that I might have instanc'd
Annue nobis Domine animae famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio it came to be chang'd into Annue nobis Domine ut intercessione famuli tui Leonis haec profit oblatio Pope Innocent answered him that who chang'd it or when he knew not but he knew how that is he knew the reason of it because the authority of the Holy Scripture said he does injury to a Martyr that prays for a Martyr the same thing is to be done for the like reason concerning all other Saints The good man had heard the saying somewhere but being little us'd to the Bible he thought it might be there because it was a pretty saying However though this change was made in the mass-Mass-books and prayer for the soul of S. Leo was chang'd into a prayer to S. Leo * Vide Missal Roman Paris 1529. and the Doctors went about to defend it as well as they could Cap. cum Marthae Extrav de celebrat Missarum in Gloslâ yet because they did it so pitifully they had reason to be asham'd of it and in the Missal reformed by order of the Council of Trent it is put out again and the prayer for S. Leo put in again * Missale Rom. in decreto Concil Trid. restit in festo S. Leonis That by these offices of holy atonement viz. the celebration of the Holy Sacrament a blessed reward may accompany him and the gifts of thy grace may be obtain'd for us Another argument was us'd in the Dissuasive against the Roman doctrine of Purgatory viz. How is Purgatory a Primitive and Catholick doctrine when generally the Greek and many of the Latin Fathers taught that the souls departed in some exterior place expect the day of judgment but that no soul enters into the supreme heaven or the place of Eternal bliss till the day of judgment but at that day say many of them all must pass through the universal fire To these purposes respectively the words of very many Fathers are brought by Sixtus Senensis to all which being so evident and apparent the Gentlemen that write against the Dissuasive are pleas'd not to say one word Letter to a friend pag. 12. but have left the whole fabric of the Roman Purgatory to shift for it self against the battery of so great authorities only one of them striving to find some fault says that the Dissuader quotes Sixtus Senensis as saying That Pope John the 22. not only taught and declar'd the doctrine that before the day of judgment the souls of men are kept in certain receptacles but commanded it to be held by all as saith Adrian in 4. Sent. when Sixtus Senensis saith not so of Pope John c. but only reports the opinion of others To which I answer that I did not quote Senensis as saying any such thing of his own authority For besides that in the body of the discourse there is no mention at all of John 22. in the margent also it is only said of Sixtus Enumerat S. Jacobum Apostolum Johannem Pontif. Rom. but I add of my own afterwards that Pope John not only taught and declar'd that sentence And these are the words of Senensis concerning P. John 22. and P. Adrian but commanded it to be held by all men as saith Adrian Now although in his narrative of it Adrian begins with novissime fertur it is reported yet Senensis himself when he had said Pope John is said to have decreed this he himself adds that Ocham and Pope Adrian are witnesses of this decree 2. Adrian is so far a witness of it that he gives the reason of the same even because the University of Paris refus'd to give promotion to them who denied or did refuse to promise for ever to cleave to that opinion 3. Ocham is so fierce a witness of it that he wrote against Pope John the 22. for the opinion 4. Though Senensis be not willing to have it believed yet all that he can say against it is that apud probatos scriptores non est Undequaque certum 5. Yet he brings not one testimony out of antiquity against this charge against Pope John only he says that Pope Benedict XI affirms that John being prevented by death could not finish the decree 6. But this thing was not done in a corner the acts of the University of Paris and their fierce adhering to the decree were too notorious 7. And after all this it matters not whether it be so or no when it is confessed that so many Ancient Fathers expresly teach the doctrine contrary to the Roman as it is this day and yet the Roman Doctors are not what they say insomuch that S. Bernard having fully and frequently taught That no souls go to Heaven till they all go neither the Saints without the common people nor the spirit without the flesh that there are three states of souls one in the tabernacles viz. of our bodies a second in atriis or outward Courts and a third in the house of God Alphonsus à Castro admonishes that this sentence is damn'd and Sixtus Senensis adds these words which thing also I do not deny yet I suppose he ought to be excus'd ob ingentem numerum illustrium Ecclesiae patrum for the great number of the illustrious Fathers of the Church Annot. 345. who before by their testimony did seem to give authority to this opinion But that the present doctrine of the Roman Purgatory is but a new article of faith is therefore certain because it was no article of faith in S. Austins time for he doubted of it And to this purpose I quoted in the margent two places of S. Austin Enchirid. cap. 68 69. The words I shall now produce because they will answer for themselves In the 68. chapter of his Manual to Laurentius he takes from the Church of Rome their best armour in which they trusted 1 Cor. 3. and expounds the words of S. Paul he shall be saved yet so as by fire to mean only the loss of such pleasant things as most delighted them in this world And in the beginning of the next chapter he adds Tale aliquid etiam post hanc vitam fieri incredibile non est utrum ita sit quâ—ri potest That such a thing may also be done after this life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be inquir'd aut inveniri aut latere and either be found or lie hid Now what is that which thus may or may not be found out This that some faithful by how much more or less they lov'd perishing goods by so much sooner or later they shall be sav'd by a certain Purgatory fire This is it which S. Austin says is not incredible only it may be inquir'd whether it be so or no. And if these be not the words of doubting it is not incredible such a thing may be it may be inquir'd after it may be found to
many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in its self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in heaven it is spoken without common wit or sense for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same-one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body In Ps. 33. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins minde we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholic doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECTION IV. Of the half Communion WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people this was a great and a public yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it
affair because S. Paul said that the Ministers of Christ are dispensers of the mysteries of God as was learnedly urg'd in the Council of Trent in the doctrine about this question SECTION V. Of the Scriptures and Service in an unknown Tongue THe Question being still upon the novelty of the Roman doctrines and Practices I am to make it good that the present article and practice of Rome is contrary to the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church E. W. p. 45. and A. L. p. 25 To this purpose I alledged S. Basil in his Sermon or book de variis scripturae locis But say my adversaries there is no such book Well! was there such a man as S. Basil If so we are well enough and let these Gentlemen be pleas'd to look into his works printed at Paris 1547. by Carola Guillard and in the 130. page he shall see this Book Sermon Recordemini quaeâ— ex his spiritualibus sermonibus qui lecti sunt medicinae Reminiscamini earum quae sunt in psalmis monitionum proverbialia praecepta historiae pulchritudinem examplaque investigate His addite Apostolica mandata In omnibus verò tanquam coronida perfectionemque verba evangelica conjungite ut ex omnibus utilitatem capientes ad id demum convertatis revertamini ad quod quisque jucundè est affectus ad quod obeundum gratiam à spiritu sancto accepit or Homily in aliquot scripturae locis at the beginning of which he hath an exhortation in the words placed in the Margent there we shall find the lost Sheep The beginning of it is an exhortation to the people congregated to get profit and edification by the Scriptures read at morning prayer the Monitions in the Psalms the precepts of the Proverbs Search ye the beauty of the history and the examples and add to these the precepts of the Apostles But in all things joyn the words of the Gospel as the Crown and perfection that receiving profit from them all ye may at length turn to that to which every one is sweetly affected and for the doing of which he hath received the grace of the Holy Spirit Now this difficulty being over all that remains for my own justification is that I make it appear that S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose S. Austin Aquinas and Lyra do respectively exhort to the study of the Scriptures exhorting even the Laity to do so and testifie the custom of the Ancient Church in praying in a known tongue and commending this as most useful and condemning the contrary as being useless and without edification I shall in order set down the doctrine they deliver in their own words and then the impertinent cavils of the adversaries will of themselves come to nothing S. Chrysostom commenting upon S. Pauls words concerning preaching and praying for edification 35. Homil. in 1 Cor. 14. chap. and so as to be understood coming to those words of S. Paul If I pray with my tongue my spirit prayeth but my mind is without fruit you see saith he how a little extolling prayer he shews that he who is such a one viz. as the Apostle there describes is not only unprofitable to others but also to himself since his minde is without fruit Now if a man praying what he understands not does not cannot profit himself how can he that stands by who understands no more be profited by that which does him that speaks no good For God understands though he does not and yet he that so prays reaps no benefit to himself and therefore neither can any man that understands no more The affirmation is plain and the reason cogent To the same purpose are the words of S. Chrysostom which A. L. himself quotes out of him If one speaks in only the Persian tongue Pag. 25. or some other strange tongue but knows not what he saith certainly he will be a barbarian even to himself and not to another only because he knows not the force of the words This is no more than what S. Paul said before him but they all say that he who hears and understands not whether it be the speaker or the scholar In 1 Cor. 14. is but a Barbarian Thus also S. Ambrose in his Commentary upon the words of S. Paul The Apostle says Vtilius dicit Apostolus paucis verbis in apertionâ— sermonis loqui quod omnes intelligant quam prolxam orationem habere in obscuro Imperitus enim audiens quod non intelligit nescit finem erationis non respondet Amen id est verum ut confirmetur benedictio Et in haec verba Nam tu quidem bene gratias agis De eo dicit qui cognita sibi loquitur quia scit quid dicit sed alius non aedificatur si utique ad Ecclesiam aedificandam convenitis ea debent dici quae intelligant audientes Nam quid prodest ut lingua loquatur quam solus scit ut qui audit nihil proficiat Ideò tacere debet in Ecclesiâ ut ii loquantur qui prosunt audientibus It is better to speak a few words that are open or understood that all may understand than to have a long oration in obscurity That 's his sense for reading and preaching Now for prayer he adds The unskilful man hearing what he understands not knows not when the prayer ends and answers not Amen that is so be it or it is true that the blessing may be established and a little after If ye meet together to edifie the Church those things ought to be said which the hearers may understand For what profit is it to speak with a tongue when he that hears is not profited Therefore he ought to hold his peace in the Church that they who can profit the hearers may speak * S. August in 2. Comment in ps 18. Deprecati Dominum ut ab occultis nostris mundet nos ab alienis parcat servis suis quid hoc sit intelligere debemus ut humanâ ratiâ—ne non quasi avium voce cantemus Nam Meruli Psittaci Corvi Picae hujusmodi volucres saepe ab hominibus docentur sonare quod nesciunt Scienter autem cantare non avi sed homini Divinâ voluntate concessum est Et paulo post Nos autem qui in Ecclesiâ divina eloquia cantare didicimus simul etiam instare debemus esse quod scriptum est Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem proinde charissimi quod consonâ vocâ— cantavimus sereno etiam corde nosse ac videre debemus S. Austin compares singing in the Church without understanding to the chattering of Parrots and Magpies Crows and Jackdawes But to sing with understanding is by the will of God given to man And we who sing the Divine praises in the Church must remember that it is written Blessed is the people that understands singing of praises Therefore most beloved what with a joyn'd voice we have sung we must
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
These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God he so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sense that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. pag. 57. E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls Pag. 57. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for adoration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repair'd upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod eolitur adoratur in parietibus deping atur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council
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
images in rich apparel and by pretending to make them nod their head to twinkle the eyes and even to speak the world is too much satisfied Some such things as these and the superstitious talkings and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony that a worthy Gentleman who is now with God and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom and were afraid that their Saint could not help them when her image was away Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry by countenancing and justifying and imposing such acts which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz C. 14. who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent C. 41. apud Bellarmin lib. 2. de imag S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propositio The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches it is evident in Ecclesiastical story that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat and Bertualdus Archbishop of Dover and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester the Virgin Mary appearing to him and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross and the image of Christ Beda tells and from him Baronius and Binius affirms that before this vision of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not and there is no record no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin and it further appears to be so A. D. circitâ—r 792. because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man Master of Charles the Great when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the worship of images wrote an Epistle against it ex authoritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings Annal. part 1. saith Hovedon SECTION VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father or the Holy Trinity the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer That the Fathers intended by their sayings to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father or the Holy Ghost or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared To this I reply 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world A man cannot well understand an Essence and hath no Idea of it in his mind much less can a Painters Pensil do it And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence Vide Plutarch de Iside Osir. This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise can make use of 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd is to picture him in no form at all for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this that God the Father never appear'd in his person for as S. Paul affirms he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see He always appeared by Angels or by fire or by storm and tempest by a cloud or by a still voice he spake by his Prophets and at last by his Son but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes one body with three heads and as an old man with a great beard and a Popes Crown upon his head and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head And therefore they worship the images of God the Father the Holy Trinity figures which as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses themselves have made which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum sâ—mulachrum rei non existentis for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity as they most impiously represent And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically they may of it make an image to God they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out For as Durandus * In 3. sent dist 9. q. 2. n. 15. well observes If any one shall say that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms that therefore they may be represented by images we must say to this that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person but a representation of that form or shape alone Therefore there is no reverence due to it as there is none due to those forms by themselves Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons but to represent those effects which those Divine persons did effect And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so Rom. 1. 23. They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted and his testimonies from Antiquity answered Pag. 60. Why most clearly E. W. saith that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Well! what is this principle The words are these and S. Austin points at the same Quisnam est qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis figurae