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
the sixth Commandment Thou shalt not kill For the performing the duty which relates to this precept according to the extent which the Doctrine of our Saviour gives it requires an innocent calm and meek temper and behaviour towards all men so as not to admit any causless anger nor any passionate and contumelious expressions Mat. 5.21 22. But to all this this sin is directly opposite And besides this we may further discover how much this command is transgressed by rash censures and calumnies if we either consider the effects they produce or the cause from whence they proceed 10. The effects of reproach Calumny is cruel are frequently of different kinds If we reflect upon the more immediate result thereof the Sword of the tongue oft wounds deep and keen words pierce even to the inward part of man and his very heart The sence of which made (f) Naz. Ep. 191. Nazianzen perswade them who reproach others to lay down their arms their slings and spears even their tongues by which they do mischief to one another and are applauded and these are more ready at hand than other weapons And there is indeed so much of cruelty and real hurt in calumny and reproach that our Saviour accounts this a way of persecution and observes that thereby the Prophets were persecuted for righteousness sake Mat. 5.10 11 12. 11. But when evil speaking is directed against Governours Contumelious expressions against Governours oft beget tumults and blood-shed it too often becomes the parent of violence cruelty and inhumanity by giving birth to tumults and Seditions They who reflect upon the last Age may discern how by this method we became engaged in such a bloody Civil War as cut off and destroyed many thousands of men Thus as S. James observes Chap. 3.6 The tongue defiles the whole body and sets on fire the course of nature It puts mens heads and hearts upon contriving and acting fierce and furious enterprises it makes their hands forward and their feet swift to shed blood and if not timely prevented it kindleth those heats which bring all things into a flame And I heartily wish it were an hard and difficult task to find out instances to verifie the complaints of Lipsius concerning calumny He declares (g) Lipsius in Orat. de Calumnia Doletis haerere in Reip. visceribus discordiarum tela calumnia injecit ardere tot annos facem bellorum civilium calumnia accendit c. that it divides intimate friends and sets them at distance Are any grieved to see feuds and discords and weapons of death stick fast in the bowels of the Common-wealth it is calumny darted them thither and fixed them there Do any reflect with sadness upon the flames of Civil Wars continuing to burn for so many years it is calumny that kindled them And as he goes on this is that which sets Princes and people at distance from each other and engageth one man against another And indeed almost all the tumults Seditions and Rebellions which have been so destructive and pernicious to the World have had their original from hence 12. How he that hates his Brother is a murderer And if we reflect on the cause from whence evil speaking and reproaching doth arise this is a want of love as I above noted and a prevalency of ill will and hatred But S. John assures us 1 Joh. 3.15 he that hateth his Brother is a murderer And in truth though there may be several reasons which may restrain him from any such acts of violence as to commit murder yet he harbours much of the same inward temper with an open murderer For he that hates his Brother so far as concerns his Brother himself and unless he thinks he may make use of him to serve some other ends wisheth him out of the way and would chuse and be pleased to have him out of the world And this is that very same wicked temper of mind which spirits a murderer Wherefore this sin which so defiles the heart and stains the World with blood is a sin of a scarlet dye 13. Fourthly This sin offends against those precepts which forbid bearing false witness slandering and speaking evil all which enjoin the right government of the tongue in what it speaks of others (h) Phil. de Decal p. 768. Philo observes that under the ninth Commandment is included 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. It ordinarily transgresseth the bounds of truth not to calumniate or defame which is to be extended not only to matters of publick justice but even to rules of private conversation But a reproachful tongue both offends against charity and is generally further guilty of not making conscience to keep to the strict rules of truth And as Tertullian speaks in refelling the slanders spread abroad among the Pagans against the Christians report and fame thus raised and divulged is (i) Tertul. Apol. c. 7. plurimùm mendax quae nè tunc quidem quando aliquid veri affert sine mendacii vitio est detrahens adjiciens demutans de veritate for the most part false and is not even then when it contains somewhat of truth free from the fault of lying taking something from or adding to or making some alteration concerning the truth And this sin of lying deserves to be accounted the more hateful and evil and to be abhorred as abominable because it is part of the character of the wicked one that he is a lyar from the beginning and a deceiver whereas it is one of the excellent titles of our Saviour that he is the faithful witness and also he is the Amen and the truth And this sin hath much of the Diabolical nature and practice in it the evil one doing much mischief by false suggestions 14. Fifthly 5. It offendeth against justice Reproaching others is a great violation of Justice He that speaketh evil of dignities is ranked among the unjust by S. Peter 2 Pet. 2.9 10. And calumny in general is very injurious both to the person reproached and to those also to whom such reproaches are uttered To wrong a man in his reputation and good name is an injury in several respects much worse than the wronging him in his goods and possessions and hath been so esteemed amongst men Partly on this account it was the (k) Saâ—â— c. â—â— n. 1. general determination of the Jewish Rabbins that though actions of trespass or violence against the estates of men might be heard and punished by their lesser consistory of three yet matters of slander and defamation came not under their cognisance but were to be determined by a greater Consistory of twenty three being things of an higher nature which required a more weighty consideration and sometimes a capital punishment 15. For a mans reputation hath a more immediate respect to his person and the true worth of the man than his possessions have and to have his good name impaired deprives him of a great part of
the place which God chuseth under the New Testament What is urged by Innocentius the Third hath no infallible evidence as he chose Jerusalem under a great part of the Old Testament and that all that is in the Book of Deuteronomy continues established under the Gospel And it may be wondered that such a thing should be affirmed if it were not to impose on others when the Book of Deuteronomy contains many things concerning the Aaronical Sacrifices and other Jewish Feasts and in that is that particular permission of divorce which our Saviour will not allow of under the Gospel Deut. 24.1 Mat. 19.8 9. and a repetition of many Mosaical Laws whence it was called by the Greek Translators Deuteronomy 11. In the same Epistle as a proof of this plenary and supreme power seated in the Pope he produceth what S. Paul writeth to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 6.3 and tells us that Paul that he might expound the plenitude of power writing to the Corinthians saith Nescitis quoniam Angelos judicabitis quanto magis secularia Know ye not that ye shall judge Angels how much more the things of this life or things secular But what the Apostle wrote in that Epistle to the Corinthians bid directly concern the Church of Corinth And therefore if he had discoursed of a plenitude of power or the highest universal Authority over all the parts of the World or the Church as he did not it would appear from this place to be as much if not more fixed in S. Paul and the Church of Corinth as any where else and it must needs be hard to prove that S. Paul in these words declared a plenitude of power in the Bishop of Rome both over Corinth and all the World when he said Know ye not that we shall judge c. 12. What light the two great Luminaries give to the Popes power But that proof which passeth all the rest which is urged in the same decretal Epistle is from Gods making two great Luminaries the greater to rule the day and the lesser to rule the night from whence it is there inferred that the power of the Bishop of Rome is as much above all Secular power as the Sun is above the Moon And it may be also hence collected that the Imperial power is derived from the Papal as was declared hence by (b) v. Addit ad Pâ—de Marc. de Couc S. sâ—â—p l. 2. c. 3. Boniface the Eighth Now from hence it may appear that a pretended testimony from the first Chapter of Genesis may be as effectual though it be nothing to the purpose as if it had been taken out of the Book of Deuteronomy And this is such a wonderful Argument that so far as the strength of it will reach it will not only prove the highest power of the Bishop of Rome to be ordained of God before the coming uf Christ and even before any promise made concerning the Messias and before the fall of man but that this was established before Adam was created and was one of the principal things done in the framing and making of the World And therefore if this authority be rightly applied it is indeed an early testimony of the greatest antiquity of this power in the Church of Rome and deriveth its original much higher than most men have been aware of and it confutes the great mistake of those Novelists who pretend it to be founded in any eminency of authority conveyed unto S. Peter when it was so clearly ingraved upon the brightness of the Sun beams but not to be seen by mens eyes in the first springing forth of their light 13. Such things as these are so trifling and frivolous that they deserve not any serious consideration or answer And it can scarce be imagined that they who laid down these testimonies as a foundation to support the Papal power could have any other design than to delude and impose upon the great ignorance of the World And if it be a wicked and abominable thing for any private man to forge an evidence for an Estate or to counterfeit the Kings broad Seal to serve his interest it is far worse to design to deal falsly in that which hath respect to the authority of the sacred Majesty of God and to the greatest rights of men and the publick interest and peace of the World And I think no men ever spake more wildly about these things than the Popes themselves have done the extravagancy of their pleas bearing an equal proportion to that of their claims 14. Thirdly I observe Observ 3. The high Papal power was unknown to the ancient Roman Bishops that the pretence of this high Papal power which for some hundred years hath been of ill consequence to Christian Kingdoms hath this manifest mark of an encroachment usurpation and innovation in that the more ancient Bishops of Rome never knew any thing thereof but did profess and own their subjection to Emperours and their Authority The testimonies of divers of them have been to this purpose produced by Protestant Writers And it may be sufficient here to note that I have (c) Christ loyalty B. 1. ch 5. Sect. 3. To Leo the Great in another place shewed that Leo the Great submissively owned his subjection to the Imperial Authority and that with respect to the external administration of matters Ecclesiastical And it is manifest from the Writings of Gregory the Great that he both submissively behaved himself towards Mauritius the Emperour as a subject towards his Sovereign Lord and that he thought he ought so to do When Mauritius declared his desire that there might be a good accord between S. Gregory and John Patriarch of Constantinople (d) Gr. Ep. l. 4. Ep. 76. Gregory writes to Mauritius giving him the title of Dominus noster à Deo constitutus his Lord whom God had constituted and owns himself to be his Servant and such language is very frequent in his Epistles and lets the Emperour know that in that matter in which the cause of God was also concerned he would do what on his part could be done To Gregory the Great Dominorum jussionibus obedientiam praebens yielding obedience to the commands of his Lord and in this case he saith Serenissimis jussionibus obedientiam praebeo Which words shew sufficiently that he claimed not any Sovereignty over the Emperour but acknowledged his owing subjection to him And when Mauritius had made a Law that no person in any publick Secular Office should be received into Ecclesiastical Orders and that no Souldiers might be admitted into Monasteries Gregory writes a Letter to the Emperour concerning this Law expressing his good liking and approbation of the former part but with much (e) Gr. Ep. l. a. Ep. 100. earnestness declaring his dislike of the latter part as being contrary to God and Religion And in the close of that Epistle he acquaints the Emperour that in subjection to his commands he had
dividing principle and practice can be justified before Christ himself For if Christ will say to them who neglect to express kindness and respect to the rest of his members In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me Matt. 25.45 May not they fear lest they hear the same who rashly and unjustly cast contempt reproach and disrespect upon that Church which he owneth as his and disown and reject its Communion 15. But this which they call gathering of Churches by taking to themselves those who either were or ought to have been under other Guides and Governours of the Church in a different but more justifiable way and order is indeed a making divisions in a setled Church and separations from it And this practce of division and separation is so greatly displeasing to the Holy Spirit of God that there are many earnest and vehement expressions in the Holy Scriptures against it To which purpose the Apostle beseecheth the Romans to mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 even them who by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple Against such separations the ancient and Primitive Christians were very zealous as I have noted in (u) Libert Eccles B. 1. C. 1. Sect. 3. another place and so are also the generality of the Protestant Writers 16. Such a way of separation which in the phrase and language of the ancient Christians was expressed by a Presbyter contemning his own Bishop and having a separate Congregation and erecting another Altar or different Communion as to Sacramental administrations was severely censured in those early times of Christianity In that most ancient (x) Can. Ap. 31. collection of Canons such a Presbyter and as many of the Clergy as joined with him were sentenced to be deposed and the Laity to be Excommunicated after admonition The Code of Canons of the Universal Church further determine concerning a Presbyter or Deacon who shall thus separate (y) Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. c. 85. that his deposition shall be without any way of return to his former honour and dignity in the Church and that if he persist in disturbing the Church he should be reduced by the Secular Power as being seditious And the African Code in this case declare (z) Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 10 11. that such a Presbyter should be ejected from his place and that he should be anathematized and the inflicting this double punishment which was not usual in the Church for a single crime shews of how heinous a nature this offence was then accounted when the Primitive rules of discipline were received 17. Amongst such Protestant Writers as are most in esteem with our Dissenters Calvin asserts it to be certain (a) Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.9 that this stone is continually moved by the Devil that he might break the Unity of the Church and he purposely opposeth and smartly condemneth (b) Inst l. 4. c. 1. in Ps 26.5 all separation from a true Church where the Holy Sacraments are duly administred and the true rule of Religion is imbraced The (c) Synops pur Theol. Disp 40. n. 37 41 42. Leyden Professors account the erecting separate Assemblies in the breach of Communion by them who hold the foundation of the Faith and agree with the Church therein upon occasion of external indifferent Rites or particular miscarriages in manners to be properly Schismatical and that this is one of the works of the flesh and renders a Society impure and that it is not lawful to hold Communion with such a Schismatical Church to which purpose they urge many Texts of Scripture And Zanchy treating largely hereof doth (d) Zanch. Miscel de Eccles c. 7. particularly undertake to maintain that though there be some diversity of Doctrine but in things not fundamental though different ways of Rites and Ceremonies though there be vices in Ministers or corruptions in people or want of due care in rejecting offenders from the Communion he that shall separate from a true Church upon these pretences shall not saith he escape the wrath of God and ira Dei manet super illum the wrath of God abides upon that person 18. How far such separations from our Church are made use of by the Romanists to serve their interest might be shewed of many of their Authors But I shall content my self here to observe what was noted by one of our own (e) Camd. Annal. Eliz. an 1583. learned Historians Mr. Camden concerning the time of Queen Elizabeth That when in her Reign some of the Ministry in dislike of the Liturgy Order and Government of the Church templa adire recusarent plane schisma facerent did refuse to come to our publick Worship and manifestly made a Schism this was done Pontificiis plaudentibus multosque insuas partes pertrahentibus quasi nulla esset in Ecclesia Anglicana Vnitas the Papists rejoicing at it and drawing away many to their party as if there were no Vnity in the Church of England 19. I shall now examine their particular Covenant whereby they ingage themselves to walk together as constant members of that particular Society or Congregation to which they join themselves Now this Covenant in a way of separation is no other but a bond of division and was to that purpose invented by the Brownists And that it was their practice is (f) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 41 42 43 44. acknowledged by the Churches in New England Against which such things as these may be justly alledged 1. That this contradicts another of their avowed Positions That nothing not instituted of Christ ought to be received or submitted to as terms of Communion with a Church and some of them more largely declare that (g) Answer to 32. Qu. qu. â—8 particular Churches have no power to make Laws for themselves or their members but to observe the Laws of Christ and if any Church presume further they go beyond their Commission and it would be sin to be subject to such Laws But such a particular contract with a single Congregation especially a separating one was never any part of Christs Institution But because this other opinion of theirs is also erroneous it is of greater concernment to observe that this way of Covenanting is opposite to the Institution of Christ in that by division and separation it breaks the Unity of the Christian Church which Christ hath established to be one Church and one Body But the dividing the Church into several Independent Societies which is contrary to what the Institution of Christ appointeth is so much designed by this Covenant that some of themselves tell us (h) ibid. Answ to Qu. 8. without this kind of Covenanting we know not how it would be avoided but all Churches would be confounded into one Now this is as much as to say that Christ and his Apostles
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
detection of his falshood that they are not agreeable to Tradition and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori § 1 2. HE propounds How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any and tells us he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse But he saith the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless for if they had not faulted the Rule but only pretended men had failed it they might have deluded the World with some colour that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly but if they fault the Rule they judge Tradition ever stood our friend and would overthrow them else they had no more efficacious way to ruine us than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times when they pretend we fell might be easily discovered To answer this its requisite first to understand the meaning Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever I conceive signifies thus much whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation in the same way as they were thence delivered and also whether they have effectually performed this And if this could be proved Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith The proof of this is highly necessary when he hath to do with Protestants because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition because they know it such as cannot be probably expected to be long held to nor can ever be demonstrated or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists relie on we delude not but with truth and evidence assure the World that we desert them only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness it is not necessary for us to know or declare since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors partly by the writing of Fathers who shew what Doctrine they received and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles Now when we give evidence that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose and some Renouncers may be manifested yet since neither Protestants nor Papists can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations and whatever may be known by History upon the Principles of this Discourser must not be believed especially since this is neither the only way nor the best way to shew Primitive Doctrines disowned I may well conclude that the proposal it self is both needless and unreasonable Will this Authour assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers was a Tradition truly derived from Noah unless the person or persons can be named to him who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses until the Authours of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out or could not our Saviour and his Apostles condemn such Traditions unless they first declared the Authors of them Doth he think it would be reason or madness if a temperate man in a sick state should say to his Physician I am sure I was in health and have indeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in and therefore until I can have evidence given me what time and by what act my Distemper began I will not be perswaded but that I am still in health Or if an house that was once firm and strong now is cracked or decaied or burnt down can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned and by what means and when it was set on fire and by whom And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down or in its ashes think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decaied or burnt if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these in purchasing such houses and therefore I have the more reason to suspect that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times by which he interprets himself to mean times which had a vicinity to the Apostles as if Protestants did indeed grant that Popery as it now is was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles whereas this Discourser cannot but know that Protestants do generally assert that though some corruptions might creep into the Church soon after the Apostles daies yet in the chief points of Controversie between Protestants and Papists we do assert that for the first six hundred Years the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions and in many things very long after and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original § 3 4 5. He tells us That such is Gods goodness that the Rule of Faith hath that in it which obligeth the generality not to desert it That Tradition is actually indefectible he undertakes to demonstrate à priori from proper Causes and à posteriori from a now-a-daies experienced effect His grounds for the former are these First the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled in the hearts of great multitudes in several parts of the World Secondly this Doctrine was by all those believed to be the way to Heaven and the deserting it the way to damnation whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable ingaged them to adhere to it Thirdly hopes and fears strongly applied are causes of actual will Lastly this was feasible the things were knowable and within their power Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition I now come to examine these four grounds Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly setled in multitudes and very great numbers that is so much of the Christian Doctrine as was requisite for them to know or all the great and most necessary Christian truths but that all matters of Faith or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles was firmly fetled in all the faithful can never