Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
given also (b) B. 2. ch 1. Sec. 1. n. 4 c. sufficient evidence and the same hath been done at large by others The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter who concerning the Kingdoms of the World and the glory of them said Luk. 4.5 6. All this is delivered unto me and to whomsoever I will I give it and it hath also a parallel title which bears it self up upon confident usurpation vain boasting and false pretences Yet they who are thorough Papists must acknowledge this 4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal but besides the Censure they generally undergo from their own party they are put to hard shifts when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions with the publickly received Constitutions of that Church For instance sake I shall take notice of the Council of (c) Concil Lateran c. de haeset Laterane concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea as for any other thing which declares that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholicks if he neglect to purge his Country of Hereticks Here it is first pretended Of the Câ—uncil at the Lateran that this was not declared by that General Council but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up and that there were no Constitutions or Canons made in that Council And yet in the Decretalia of Gregory the Ninth who was Pope about twelve years after that Council this very Constitution is inserted into the (d) Decret l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommunicamus Canon Law as being established by Innocentius in a General Council And from the Authority of that Council Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church And what goes under the name of this Council is acknowledged to have the Authority of a General Council both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent as hath been observed by the (e) Of Popery p. 48-51 Bishop of Lincoln 5. But it is further said by them that the Canon of Lateran concerneth (f) Shel l dons Reasons for Allegiance p. 41. not Sovereign Princes but only some feudatory Lords in Italy and some parts of the Empire And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted by the last clause of that Constitution eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them they note that there is an (g) Constit Fredericâ— n. 7 Imperial Law established by Frederick the Second much to the same purpose with this Canon to make void the rights of such Lords as purge not their Lands from Hereticks and that therein this clause is annexed that this same Law shall be observed against them who have-no Chief Lords But say they it cannot be supposed that the Emperour would enact a Law which might make void his own Imperial Dignity and forfeit his Empire Now in this Constitution of Frederick there is no express mention of any right of disposing Dominions devolving it self upon the Bishop of Rome but it may be considered how much this Emperours interest and that of the Church and See of Rome were at this time linked together For his possession of the Empire much depended on the Popes authority for (h) Mar. Polon in Oth. p. 394 395. Ursperg p. 326 327. Ave. tâ—â— Ann. Boio 〈◊〉 p. 519. Innocent the Third having excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperour some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick to advance him to the Empire and the Pope closeth with this design and encourageth both him and them And therefore this clause concerning the advancing the interest of the Church and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion of what force or validity soever it be both tended to assert Fredericks own right and jointly to gratifie the Romish See And this Law was confirmed by him in compliance with the Pope (i) Constit Fred. in Praef. on that very day in which he received his Imperial Diadem from Honorius the Third who succeeded Innocentius And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius and ratified (k) ibid. in fin by him with a severe Curse against them who should act any thing against it and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth and seems to be framed by the Popes order from this clause in the Preface Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat voluntate 6. And yet if this were true that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing only Emperours and Kings must be submissive to the Pope of such Principalities which belong to inferiour and dependent Lords this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Princes to be derived from them and to depend upon them And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies contains such things concerning Emperours and Kings as when occasion serves may be made use of to infer subjection and dependance Thus we are told (l) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Emperour must implore the favour of the Apostolical See and offer himself ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Romanae Ecclesiae praestanda to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome and must humbly desire Unction Consecration and the Imperial Diadem And the Pope after examination of the Election and considering the fitness of the Person doth grant him his grace and favour and doth eum nominare denunciare assumere declarare Regem Romanorum Nominate authoritatively pronounce receive and declare him to be King of the Romans and to be fit and sufficient to receive the Imperial Dignity And in this manner it is there said that divers Emperours have addressed themselves to the Pope some of which are there particularly named And if any King shall come to Rome (m) l. 1. Sect. â—3 c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there he is to carry the Popes train and to pour out water for his hands and to carry up the first Dish to his Table and serve the first Cup in other Collations which things with others mentioned in the same Book carry in them fair appearances of doing homage And some of the Romish Bishops which have somewhat more than others complemented Secular Authority in some of their notions have yet in their practice acted as much against them as any others So did Innocent the Third who acknowledged (n) Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervenegabilâ—m Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit that a King is to own no Superiour in temporals and therefore speaking of his own Authority besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church
attend thereupon and partake thereof but in their devout communicating in these duties of Religion 19. But the chief thing objected is that by the use of the Scriptures many are led into errors and vain opinions and the danger of heresie by the Scriptures being translated is insisted on by (a) de Div. Script quavis lingua non legendis Ledesima and other Writers of the Papists and they take care to provide against this miscarriage To this I answer 1. The plea of avoiding error is ill made in this case by them who keep all of their communion who read not the Scriptures blindfold under so many and great errors The Objection from the abuse of the Scriptures by some men to promote Heresies considered 2. The Scriptures are indeed very proper to lead men into that truth which they unjustly call heresie in that as an excellent rule they discover to diligent pious and unpiejudiced enquirers what is straight and what is crooked And Ledesima the Jesuit acknowledgeth that when the Protestants took counsel for the translating the Scriptures and the dispersing them abroad this was a most apt and fit means to promote their interest (b) ibid. c. 1. de sacrorum librorum versione consilio ad eam rem appositissimo omnibus promulganda inter ipsos haereticos agitari est coeptum Now it is some honour to the Protestant cause that the Scriptures do so much favour them that the having them made known to all men is so apt a means to promote their interest And when for this cause the Romanists design to keep them secret the politickness of this contrivance may be some advantage to their cause as to Us interest amongst men but it is withal a great disparagement to it with respect to its truth and goodness 20. Thirdly If some men do miscarry by their vanity in wresting the Scriptures to serve their errors this is no just reason to prohibit the general use of a thing so excellent If some men eat to surfet themselves or use their understandings to abett error and to cheat others by over-reaching them or shall yield their eyes to behold vanity their ears to be pleased with lewd discourse or their wills to chuse evil must the greater part of men be forbidden to eat to consider or to chuse any thing at all and must their eyes be blindfolded and their ears stopped lest they should abuse them to evil And the like might be urged concerning the use of mens hands tongues and almost of all natural and acquired perfections and also of the profession of Christianity and the means of grace And since the right knowledge of God and Religion are things of so great excellency and high benefit there is the less reason why the best means to obtain them should be rejected because they may possibly be abused 21. Fourthly The Scriptures read with piety and humility are excellently fitted to improve those who read them in wisdom and goodness And the goodness and purity which they recommend and the eternal interests they propose and the authority of God they bring along with them have a great influence through the grace of God there tendred to work these humble and pious dispositions And therefore though some men may err and miscarry and be bad by abusing them it is far more probable that they should do amiss who either want or neglect the diligent and frequent use of such an excellent help (c) Praef. in Epist ad Rom. S. Chrysostome observes that a vast multitude of evils proceed from the ignorance of the Scriptures and amongst others he mentions the pest of Heresie and a bad life And S. Austin while he was speaking of the excellency of the holy Scriptures and the great benefit of the use of them saith (d) de Tempore Serm. 112. saepius caecus offendit quam videns the blind man or he who wants the advantage of seeing by the light more frequently stumbles than he who can see 22. Fifthly The wisdom of God hath thought fit to place man in such a condition in this world even under the Covenant of grace that he is not out of all capacity of offending in any case or circumstances They had a great priviledge who heard the words of the Gospel from the mouth of the holy Jesus himself or his Apostles but this great blessing might be ill used by bad men who were far from being benefitted thereby if they were perverse and obstinate And they who enjoyed these great advantages if they were not careful and diligent to make a good improvement of them were the more highly guilty and under the more heavy condemnation And so all ministerial helps and even various and frequent influences and aids of divine grace may be abused by ill disposed men and so may be also the Holy Scriptures by man who is a creature indued with liberty and choice And it hath pleased God thus to order the state of man in the world that the performance of his duty by the Divine assistance may be an act of his care and choice Hereby his obedience becomes a vertue and himself capable of reward or punishment in the performing or neglecting it But there are no means or motives which men do enjoy which more usefully conduce to the promoting goodness holiness and piety than the holy Scriptures do And there is no more reason to reject the use of them from any persons because they may by some be wrested and used amiss than there is to condemn the use of any other excellent means of piety for the like reason and to disapprove of the circumstances under which God hath placed man under the Gospel 23. Amongst the Papists Vulgar Translations have been very sparing But besides what respects the rule above mentioned in the Index of Books prohibited the Church of Rome hath used another way of debarring the people from the use of the Holy Scriptures in being very sparing of having any allowed translation into vulgar languages composed by men of their own Communion They take care that even (e) Breviar Rom. passim such lessons as are read out of any part of Scripture in their publick Service may not be read in the Common or Vulgar tongue of the Country This Bellarmine acknowledgeth and asserteth to be prohibited (f) Bell. de Verb. Dei l. 2. c. 15. Prohibetur ne in publico communi usu Ecclesiae Scripturae legantur vel canantur vulgaribus linguis And in this he referreth to the (g) Conc. Trid. Sess 22. c. 8. Council of Trent which declares that it is not fit ut Missa vulgari passim lingua celebraretur And the word Missa here as very frequently is not confined solely to that which is peculiar to the Eucharist but it takes in the whole publick Service To this purpose (h) De Eucharist l. 5. c. 1. Bellarmine observes Missa accipitur pro tota celebratione divini officii in quo
here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may
what this Authour calls his deep consideration as it hath no rational foundation so it hath not the advantage to be one of his own Church Traditions and shews there may be something delivered for truth which was not so received And of the same nature are almost all his Arguments against Scriptures being the Rule of Faith § 3. He further adds That the material causes to conserve these Characters are lyable to innumerable contingencies but mans mind by its immateriality is in part freed from Physical mutability and here we may with reason hope for an unalterableness and an unerrableness if there be a due proposal which must necessarily effect the sense These words are more monstrous than rational it is as much as in plain English to tell his Reader that having an immaterial soul he can never forget any thing that he either saw or heard distinctly and that when he hath read a Book observingly all the words and letters may be more exactly known from him by the impressions upon his mind than by viewing the Printed or Written Copy it self And yet all this will not serve his turn unless it be supposed that these immaterial souls must alwaies continue in the World or that what was by them received must thence necessarily in the same manner be continued on others Who sees not that this is as much against common sense as if he had said That because man hath an immaterial soul he may flie up to the Sun and Moon and fixed Stars at his pleasure Was Man of the nature of Angels without his gross Body its beyond the skill of this Authour to prove that nothing could be forgotten or blotted out of his mind that is once known especially considering that he is a sinner and even the Writers of his own Church do conceive that sinning Angels lost much knowledge by their sin But man is a Creature of another mold and letters and words and things are preserved in his memory by material impressions and every man knows they may be forgiven yea this Authour in this Book oft forgets and contradicts himself Do not all mankind appear sufficiently convinced that words or characters are more surely preserved in paper or writing than in mens memories in that what they would have faithfully kept they commit to writing and enter it upon Record Had the Jews been of this Authours opinion they would not have desired Ezra to have read the Law of Moses out of a Book Neh. 8.1 but to have spoken it out of the impressions of his own mind yet he would have been a more safe deliverer of Moses than the Church of Rome can shew for other Scripture Yea it is plain and self-evident that the Church of Rome agree with the rest of mankind to acknowledge writing upon some material subject a more sure way of preservation of things than the minds of men for they write the Acts of their Councils and Statutes of their Societies and yet these things are as much or more spoken of amongst them as the Scriptures are and so more like to be preserved in their immaterial minds yea they write or print their Creed Prayers Lessons and their whole Liturgy and have them read in their Churches when by this Authors Argument the best way to have these things preserved intire is to have them uttered from the memories of the Priests and others in the Church and not to mind the Writing or Printing at all as not being in it self certain The Roman Church know that mens minds are slippery and apt to forget something in their Liturgy if it were not written and that others would take the boldness to alter it and vary from it if they had no written Rule and shall writing be the best preservative for all other things and not for the words of the Scriptures and the truths therein contained I remember Salmeron tho' a Jesuit hath among the rest of his prolegemena one which is Proleg 25. Why the Scriptures were written and he declares as every one who designs to speak truth would do that it was that thence men may most surely know truth whereas the memories of men are very slippery and uncertain and S. Austin assigns a like cause of the Original of Letters de Doctr. Christiana lib. 2. c. 4. Nor can I imagine for what end the Church of Rome prints Copies of the Bible if they did not think that by those printed Copies the Scriptures might be known and preserved And as if it was not sufficient absurdity without any colour of solid reason to contradict the experience of all civiliz'd Nations he at once opposeth even the wisdom of God himself also who commanded the King of Israel to write him a Copy of the Law in a Book and read therein all the daies of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God Deut. 17.19 20. Yea he commands Moses to write for a memorial in a Book Exod. 17.14 Yea Isaiah is commanded Isai 30.8 Write it before them in a Table and note it in a Book that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever And though God himself declares this the way of keeping the memorial of things this Authour rejects this way and closeth with the uncertain way of mans frail memory § 4. He tells us That as there are some simple vulgar actions unmistakeable yet there are compound actions as the transcribing of a whole Book consisting of myriads of words single letters and stopps and the several actions over each of these are so short and cursory that humane diligence cannot attend to every of them Yet he grants that this may be done with care enough if there be diligent Examiners This Objection speaks against the common sense of every one who can write for it tells him that no man can possibly keep to the sense or words he intends in writing a Letter or such like though he hath a Copy before him For he who can write a page with due care may by the continuance of the same diligence write a sheet and if he want nothing else but what concerns his writing he may with the same care write a Book What extraordinary art hath this Discourser that he could write his Book intelligibly and the Printers print it so can none do the like He cannot be ignorant that these things may be done by common diligence and all men who understand writing acknowledge that Deeds and all Records may be exemplified and faithfully transcribed if there be had due care about it That there hath been such care about Scripture I shall shew in answer to his next Paragraph And I suppose he is not so self-conceited as to think that other men may not use as much care in writing Letters or Words as himself doth or can But if this little Argument of many little actions not being capable of due attention was considerable it would concern this Authour to find a way how the Papists may
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
he saith In other Regions upon the inspection into some certain causes temporalem jurisdictionem casualiter exercemus we casually exercise temporal jurisdiction And yet this is he who declared that Canon above mentioned in the Council of Lateran and practised the power of deposing in Germany and in other places even in England against King John 7. Papal claims have been mischievous Concerning this claim of Papal Soveraignty and the deposing power I shall observe three things First That it hath been very mischievous to the Christian World and hath been the cause of many Wars and intestine broils especially in Germany and Italy and hence hath proceeded very much blood-shed and very many rebellions When (o) Mar. Pol. in Hen. p. 358. Gregory the Seventh and then (p) Ursperg ad an 1102. Vrbane the Second and Paschalis the Second had undertaken to excommunicate Henry the Fourth the Emperour and to depose him and declare against his Subjects paying him any allegeance first Rodolphus of Saxony was set up against him who perished in his undertaking after which Henry the Fifth his own Son engages in that (q) Uâ—sp p. 257 261. Parricidale bellum as Vrspergensis calls it to fight against his own Father and Soveraign And in the time of divers succeeding Emperours there were frequent deposings and thereupon Civil Wars and almost continual broils hence arose the long remaining high animosities and fierce contests in Italy and some adjacent parts of the Empire between the faction of the Guelphs who adhered to the Pope and the Gibelines who closed with the Emperour In this period of time for many ages sometimes the Emperour and sometimes the Pope were taken Prisoners or forced to escape by flight and reduced to great extremities and the Countries in the mean time were miserably harrassed which were the Seat of these Wars And in these foreign Princes were frequently engaged some on the one side and some on the other even so far as sometimes to take in both the English and French The particulars of these things or the effects of the like proceedings in some other Kingdoms would be too large to be here inserted And besides these things divers secret Conspiracies of Subjects against the lives of their Princes have been the effect of these Romish Principles in contradiction to that honour and reverence which Christianity requireth to be given to them Nor have such evil attempts been made only upon the lives of Protestant Princes but of such also who have adhered to the Romish profession both before and since the Reformation 8. But I shall here take notice that even those persons who were set up in prosecuting this deposing power the promoters of them have smarted by them where it did take effect as very often even before the Reformation it was of no force besides other troubles they were engaged in they oft fell themselves under the like Sentence of the Bishop of Rome and sometimes into great calamities thereby Here I might instance in those two I lately mentioned The Emperour Henry the Fifth who rose up against his Father against whom the Bishop of Rome had declared his Sentence of deposition did prevail against him and took him Prisoner but behaved himself very unworthily towards him and kept him in Prison till he died and Reigned after him But he himself fell under the sentence of Paschalis the Second and was involved in War thereby but he overcame the Pope and took him prisoner But he died Childless having no Issue to succeed him in the Empire which was then Hereditary (r) M. Pol. p. 367 368. and this was by many in that age accounted Gods just judgement upon him who had acted so unchristianly and undutifully against his Father And after his death the Empire came to the Saxon line 9. But I shall particularly take notice of Frederick the Second who was substituted Emperour in the place of Otho who was deposed He made many Laws in favour of the Church and encreased its wealth and revenue and was (Å¿) Avent l. 7. p. 525 535. Nic. de Cusa as Historians relate concerning him an excellent most wise and flourishing Prince Yet he was both excommunicated and (t) M. Pol. in Honor. in Fred. deposed by Honorius who had Crowned him And this Sentence was again renewed by Gregory the Ninth who succeeded Honorius in three several Bulls of deposition (u) Avent P. 537 538. In the first of these in the courtship of Rome he declared the Emperour to be a Beast and in the last of them to be an Heretick but whatever great words were used (*) Chron. Ursperg p. 337. Vrspergensis who was an Abbot at that very time declared that it was pro frivolis causis falsis upon trifling and untrue grounds and occasions And against this Frederick did Innocent the Fourth erect the Banner of the Cross as against the Turk and denounce the Sentence of deposition in the Council of Lions to the astonishing terror of them who heard it Amidst these Circumstances his own Son Henry whom he had designed his Successor and had declared him so rose up in rebellion against his Father and being condemned of parricide by (x) Avent p. 533. the Sentence of seventy Princes was imprisoned and not long after died in Sicily And when Frederick had encountred with various difficulties after his flight into (y) M. Pol. p. 399. in Fred. Apulia he there died in distress and misery And this was the kind requital he met with for his affection to the Pope and interesting himself in his quarrel against the preceding Emperour 10. Secondly I observe that the pretended pleas for this Papal power are very vain Many of these and the most considerable I have examined (z) Christ Loyalty B. 1. ch 6. B. 2. ch 1. Sect. 1. Observ 2. The vain pleas for Papal power otherwhere But here I shall take notice of some things urged by Innocent the Third in a decretal Epistle which hath been confirmed by Gregory the Ninth and other Romish Bishops since And it is strange to see how extravagantly impertinent these proofs are For an evidence of the Popes chief decisive power in the highest matters of right he reserreth to Deut. 17.8 9 10 11 12. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement thou shalt get thee to the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judge And thou shalt do according to the Sentence which they of that place shall shew thee And then he tells us (a) 3. Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13. quia Deuteronomium lex secunda interpretetur that because the word Deuteronomy signifieth a Second Law it is thence proved that what is there determined must be observed in the time of the New Testament and the Apostolical See is the place which God chùseth Now the proof is much alike that Rome is