all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
remaining miracle and intail of infallibility in the Church to go on in the delivery of this for by that time that all the Apostles were dead and the infallible spirit was departed the Scriptures of the Gospels were believed in all the world and then it was not ordinarily possible ever any more to detract faith from that book and then for the transmitting this book to after ages the Divine providence needed no other course but the ordinaary ways of man that is right reason common faithfulness the interest of souls believing a good thing which there was and could be no cause to disbelieve and an Uniuersal consent of all men that were any ways concern'd for it or against it and this not only preach'd upon the house tops but set down also in very many writings This actually was the way of transmitting this book and the authority of it to after ages respectively These things are of themselves evident yet because I. S. still demands we should set down some first and self evident principle on which to found the whole procedure I shall once more satisfie him And this is a first and self evident principle whatsoever can be spoken can be written and if it he plain spoken it may be as plain written I hope I need not go about to demonstrate this for it is of it self evident that God can write all that he is pleased to speak and all good scribes can set down in writing whatsoever another tells them and in his very words too if he please he can as well transcribe a word spoken as a word written And upon this principle it is that the Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be as easily understood after they are written in a book as when they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians and the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ his doctrines the doctrines of faith as plain as they did speak them at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which they were written which is the salvation of our souls And what necessity now can there be that there should be a perpetual miracle still current in the Church and a spirit of infallibility descendant to remember the Church of all those things which are at once set down in a book the truth and authority of which was at first prov'd by infallible testimony the memory and certainty of which is preserved amongst Christians by many unquestionable records and testimonies of several natures 2. As there was no necessity that an infallible Oral tradition should do any more but consign the books of Scripture so it could not do any more without a continual miracle That there was no continued miracle is sufficiently prov'd by proving it was not necessary it should for that also is another first and self-evident principle that the All wise God does not do any thing much less such things as miracles to no purpose and for no need But now if there be not a continued miracle then Oral tradition was not fit to be trusted in relating the particulars of the Christian Religion For if in a succession of Bishops and Priests from S. Peter down to P. Alexander the seventh it is impossible for any man to be assured that there was no nullity in the ordinations but insensibly there might intervene something to make a breach in the long line which must in that case be made up as well as they can by tying a knot on it It will be infinitely more hard to suppose but that in the series and successive talkings of the Christian religion there must needs be infinite variety and many things told otherwise and somethings spoken with evil purposes by such as preach'd Christ out of envy and many odd things said and doctrines strangely represented by such as creep into houses and lead captive silly women It may be the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches did preach right doctrines for divers ages but yet in Jerusalem where fifteen Bishops in succession were circumcis'd who can tell how many things might be spoken in justification of that practice which might secretly undervalue the Apostolical doctrine And where was the Oral tradition then of this proposition If ye be circumcis'd Christ shall profit you nothing But however though the Bishops did preach all the doctrine of Christ yet these Sermons were told to them that were absent by others who it may be might mistake something and understand them to other senses than was intended And though infallibility of testifying might be given to the Church that is to the chief Rulers of it for I hope I. S. does not suppose it subjected in every single Christian man or woman yet when this testimony of theirs is carried abroad the reporters are not always infallible And let it be considered that even now since Christianity hath been transmitted so many ages and there are so many thousands that teach it yet how many hundreds of these thousands understand but very little of it and therefore tell it to others but pitifully and imperfectly so that if God in his Goodness had not preserv'd to us the surer word of the prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures Christianity would by this time have been a most strange thing litera scripta manet As to the Apostles while they lived it was so easie to have recourse that error durst not appear with an open face but the cure was at hand so have the Apostles when they took care to leave something left to the Churches to put them in minde of the precious doctrine they put a sure standard and fixt a rule in the Church to which all doubts might be brought to trial and against which all heresies might be dashed in pieces But we have liv'd to see the Apostolical Churches rent from one another and teaching contrary things and pretending contrary traditions and abounding in several senses and excommunicating one another and it is impossible for example that we should see the Greeks going any whither but to their own superiour and their own Churches to be taught Christian Religion and the Latins did always go to their own Patriarch and to their own Bishops and Churches and it is not likely it should be otherwise now than it hath been hitherto that is that they follow the religion that is taught them there and the tradition that is delivered by their immediate superiours Now there being so vast a difference not only in the Great Churches but in several ages and in several Dioceses and in single Priests every one understanding as he can and speaking as he please and remembring as he may and expressing it accordingly and the people also understanding it by halves and telling it to their Children sometimes ill sometimes not at all and seldom as they should and they who are taught neglecting it too grosely and attending to it very carelesly and forgeting it too quickly and which is worse yet men expounding it according to
present Inquiry The event and intendment of the premisses is this They who slighting the plain and perfect rule of Scripture rely upon the Church as an infallible guide of faith and judge of questions either by the Church mean the Congregation and Communion of Saints or the outward Church mingled of good and bad and this is intended either to mean a particular Church of one name or by it they understand the Catholick Church Now in what sense soever they depend upon the Church for decision of questions expecting an infallible determination and conduct the Church of Rome will find she relies upon a Reed of Egypt or at least a staff of wooll If by the Church they mean the Communion of Saints only though the persons of men be visible yet because their distinctive cognisance is invisible they can never see their guide and therefore they can never know whether they go right or wrong Lib. 3. de Eccl. milit cap 10. And the sad pressure of this argument Bellarmine saw well enough Sect. Ad hoc necesse est It is necessary saith he it should be infallibly certain to us which Assembly of men is the Church For since the Scriptures traditions and plainly all Doctrines depend on the testimony of the Church unless it be most sure which is the true Church all things will be wholly uncertain But it cannot appear to us which is the true Church if internal faith be required of every member or part of the Church Now how necessary true saving Faith or holiness is which Bellarmine calls internal faith I referr my self to the premisses It is not the Church unless the members of the Church be members of Christ living members for the Church is truly Christ's living body And yet if they by Church mean any thing else they cannot be assur'd of an infallible guide for all that are not the true servants of God have no promise of the abode of the Spirit of truth with them so that the true Church cannot be a publick Judge of questions to men because God only knows her numbers and her members and the Church in the other sense if she be made a Judge she is very likely to be deceiv'd her self and therefore cannot be relied upon by you for the promise of an infallible Spirit the Spirit of truth was never made to any but to the Communion of Saints 3. If by the Church you mean any particular Church which will you chuse since every such Church is esteemed fallible But if you mean the Catholick Church then if you mean her an abstracted separate Being from all particulars you pursue a cloud and fall in love with an Idea and a child of fancy but if by Catholick you mean all particular Churches is the world then though truth does infallibly dwell amongst them yet you can never go to school to them all to learn it in such questions which are curious and unnecessary and by which the salvation of Souls is not promoted and on which it does not rely not only because God never intended his Saints and servants should have an infallible Spirit so to no purpose but also because no man can hear what all the Christians of the world do say no man can go to them nor consult with them all nor ever come to the knowledge of their opinions and particular sentiments And therefore in this inquiry to talk of the Church in any of the present significations is to make use of a word that hath no meaning serving to the end of this great Inquiry The Church of Rome to provide for this necessity have thought of a way to find out such a Church as may salve this Phaenomenon and by Church they mean the Representation of a Church The Church representative is this infallible guide The Clergy they are the Church the teaching and the judging Church And of these we may better know what is truth in all our Questions for their lips are to preserve knowledge and they are to rule and feed the rest and the people must require the law from them and must follow their faith Heb. 13. 7. Indeed this was a good way once even in the days of the Apostles who were faithful stewards of the mysteries of God And the Apostolical men the first Bishops who did preach the Faith and liv'd accordingly these are to be remembred that is their lives to be transscribed their faith and perseverance in faith is to be imitated To this purpose is that of S. Irenaeus to be understood Tantae ostensiones cum sint Lib. 3. cap. 3. in principis non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere cum Apostoli quasi in repositorium dives plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia quae sint veritatis ubi omnis quicunque velit sumat ex eâ potum vitae Haec est enim vitae introitus Omnes autem reliqui fures sunt latrones propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos As long as the Apostles lived as long as those Bishops lived who being their Disciples did evidently and notoriously teach the doctrine of Christ and were of that communion so long they that is the Apostolical Churches were a sure way to follow because it was known and confess'd These Clergy-guides had an infallible Unerring spirit But as the Church hath decayed in Discipline and Charity hath waxen-cold and Faith is become interest and disputation this Counsel of the Apostle and these words of S. Irenaeus come off still the fainter But now here is a new question viz. Whether the Rulers of the Church be the Church that Church which is the pillar and ground of truth whether when they represent the diffusive Church the Promises of an indeficient faith and the perpetual abode of the Holy Spirit and his leading into all truth and teaching all things does in propriety belong to them For if they do not then we are yet to seek for an Infallible Judge a Church on which our Faith may relie with certainty and infallibility In answer to which I find that in Scripture the word Ecclesia or Church is taken in contradistinction from the Clergy but never that it is us'd to signifie them alone Act. 15. 22. Then it pleas'd the Apostles and the Elders with the whole Church to choose men of their own company c. And the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God Act. 20. 28. And Hilarius Diac. observes that the Apostle to the Church of Coloss sent by them a message to their Bishop In Col. 4. 16. Praepositum illorum per eos ipsos commonet ut sit sollicitus de salute ipsorum quia plebis solius scribitur epistola ideò non ad rectorem ipsorum destinata est sed ad Ecclesiam observing that the Bishop is the Ruler of the Church but his Flock is that which he intended onely to
signifie by the Church The Clergy in their publick capacity are not the Church but the Rulers of the Church Ecclesiastici but not Ecclesia they are denominatives of the Church Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in their personal capacity are but parts and members of the Church and are never in the New Testament call'd the Church indefinitely and this is so notorious and evident in Scripture that it is never pretended otherwise but in 18 of S. Matthew Dic Ecclesiae If thy Brother offend thee rebuke him and then before two or three and if he neglect them tell it unto the Church that is to the Rulers of the Church say the Roman Doctors But this cannot be directly so for Ecclesia or Church is the highest degree of the same ascent first in private to one of the Church surely for they had no society with any else especially in the matter of fraternal correption then in the company of some few of the Church still for not to heathens and at last of the whole Church that is of all the Brethren in your publick Assembly this is a natural Climax and it is made more then probable by the nature of the punishment of the incorrigible they become as Heathen because they have slighted the whole Church and therefore are not to be reckon'd as any part of the Church And then lastly this being an advice given to S. Peter and the other Apostles that they in this case should tell the Church by the Church must be meant something distinct from the Clergy who are not here commanded to tell themselves alone but the whole Congregation of Elders and Brethren that is of Clergy and people It is not to be denied but every National Church whereof the King is always understood to be the supreme Governour may change their form of Judicature in things I mean that are without that is such things which are not immediately by Christ intrusted to the sole conduct of the Bishops and Priests such as are the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments and the immediate cure of Souls Concerning other things S. Paul gave order to the Corinthians that in the cases of law and matters of secular division upon interest which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 6. 2 3 4. those who are least esteemed in the Church should be appointed to judge between them by way of reference But by the way this does not authorize the Rulers of Churches the Pastors and Bishops to intermeddle for they are most esteem'd that is the Principals in the Church but then this very thing proves that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the duty and right of judging is in the whole Church of the Saints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know ye not that the Saints shall judge the world that is the Church hath the power of judging and it is yet more plain because he calls upon the Church of Corinth to delegate this judicature this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this little this least Judgement though now it is esteemed the Greatest but little or great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do you appoint the Judges those that are least esteemed And for other things they may appoint greater Judges and put their power in execution by such ministeries which are better done by one or by a few persons than by a whole multitude who in the declension of piety would rather make Tumults than wise Judgements And upon this account though for a long time the people did interest themselves in publick Judicatures and even in elections of Bishops which were matters greater then any of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this S. Cyprian said was their due by Divine right Vide S. Cypr. ep 68. 32. 28. let him answer for the expression yet in these affairs the people were also conducted and so ought to be by their Clergy-guides who by their abilities to perswade and govern them were the fittest for the execution of that power But then that which I say is this that this word Ecclesia or Church signifying this Judicatory does not signifie the Clergy as distinct from their flocks and there is not any instance in the New Testament to any such purpose and yet that the Clergy may also reasonably but with a Metonymie be represented by the word Church is very true but this is onely by the change of words and their first significations They are the fittest to order and conduct the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole Ecclesiastical Judicature Vt omnis actus Ecclesiae per Praepositos gubernetur Epist. 27. it is S. Cyprian's expression That whatever act the Church intends to do it should be governed by their Rulers viz. by consent by preaching by exhortation by reason and experience and better knowledge of things but the people are to stand or fall at these Judicatories not because God hath given them the judgment of an infallible Spirit more than to the whole Church or Congregation but because they are fittest to do it and for many other great reasons And this appears without contradiction true because even the Decrees of General Councils bind not but as they are accepted by the several Churches in their respective Districts and Dioceses of which I am to give an account in the following Periods But if this thing were otherwise yet if by the Church they understand the Clergy only it must be all the Clergy that must be the judge of spiritual questions for no example is offered from the N. T. no instance can be produc'd that by Ecclesia is meant the Clergy and by Clergy is meant only a part of the Clergy these cannot in any sense be the Catholick Church and then if this sense were obtained by the Church of Rome no man were the better unless all the Bishops and Priests of the world were consulted in their Questions They therefore think it necessary to do as God did to Gideon's Army they will not make use of all but send away the multitude and retain the 10000 and yet because these are too many to overthrow the Midianites they Reduce them to 300. The Church must have a representative but this shall be of a select number a few but enough to make a Council A General Council is the Church Representative and it is pretended here they can set their foot and stand fast upon infallibity for all the promises made to the Church are crouded into the tenure and possession of a General Council Archidiac in cap. Praecipu 11. q. 3. and therefore Dic Ecclesiae is Tell it to the Council that 's the Church said a great Expositor of the Canon Law This indeed is said by very many of the Roman Doctors but not by all and therefore this will at first seem but a trembling foundation and themselves are doubtful in their confidences of it and there is an insuperable prejudice laid against it by the title of the first General Council that ever
Concilio Generali praesidens and the 3d. Council of Toledo in the 18th Chapter uses this mandatory form Praecipit haec sancta Vniversalis Synodus 3 But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style and that this title of Vniversal means but a Particular that is an Universal of that place though this be a hard expression because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place yet this may be pardon'd since it is like the Catholick Roman style that is the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church but after all this it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal or General Councils Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General and is reproved for it by Surius who for all the Pope's infallibility pretended to know more than the Pope would allow The last Lateran Council viz. the fifth is at Rome esteem'd a General Council In Germany and France it passes for none at all but a faction and pack of Cardinals 4. There are divers General Councils that though they were such yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world It ought not to be said that these are not General Councils because they were conventions of heretical persons for if a Council can consist of heretical persons as by this instance it appears it may then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC Bishops and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it but the faults that are found with it prove indeed that it is not to be accepted but then they prove two things more First That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches and therefore that all its authority depends on them and they do not depend upon it And secondly that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible that they are directly false schismatical and heretical And if when the Churches are divided in a question and the communion like the Question is in flux and reflux when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side and prevail by it but lose as much when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council for though I believe so yet others do not and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine then all that is to be considered in this affair is Whether they be General Councils Whether they say true or no is not now the question but is to be determin'd by this viz. whether are they General Councils or no for relying upon their authority for the truth if they be satisfied that they are General Councils that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed Now then if this be the question then since divers General Councils are reprobated the consequent is that although they be General Councils yet they may be reprov'd And if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determin'd for the truth but yours for errour for the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General A. D. 755. There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed A D. 786. aut 789. This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches and this was a General Council and yet 26 or as some say 31 years after this was condemned by another General Council viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped not long after about five years this General Council of Nice for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford and generally by the Western Churches Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty and without scruple And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd for if they be General and yet may without reason be condemn'd then they have no authority but if they be condemned with reason then they are not infallible The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last defin'd the Council to be above the Pope the Council of Florence and the fift Council in the Lateran have condemn'd this Council so far as to that article The Council of Basil all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope but therefore though in France it is accepted yet in Italy and Spain it is not But what is the meaning that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Francfort Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the General Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans receive six the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard not that they are infallible but that they have determin'd wisely and holily Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It
is as every one likes for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen are divided and some take-in others and reject some of these as I have shown 5. How can it be known which is a General Council and how many conditions are requir'd for the building such a great House The question is worth the asking not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the supreme Judge and final determiner of questions but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils A. D. 1409. deâ—â—oâ—cil Eccles. l. â— c. 8. The Council of Pisa Bellarmine says is neither approv'd nor reprov'd for Pope Alexander the 6th approv'd it because he acknowledg'd the Election of Alexander the 5th who was created Pope by that Council and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum an unlawful Conventicle But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a General hath condemn'd this Pisan with great interest and fancie and therefore it was both approv'd and reprov'd But it is fit that it be inquir'd How we shall know which or what is a General Council and which is not 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present we cannot find any certain Rule for that but be they many or few the parties interested will if they please call it a General Council And they will not dare not I suppose at Rome make a quarrel upon that point when in the sixth Session of Trent as some printed Catalogues * 1546. inform us they may remember there were but 38 persons in all at their first sitting down of which number some were not Bishops and at last there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all In the first Session were but three Archbishops and twenty three Bishops and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent In Nice were 318 Bishops in that of Chalcedon were 600 and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops and in that of Constance were 300 besides the other Fathers as they call them But this is but one thing of many though it will be very hard to think that all the power and energy the virtual faith and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-Countreys 6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pretences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils we shall find them to be such that by the like which can never be wanting to a witty person the authority of every one of them may be vilified and consequently they can be infallible security to no man's faith Charles the 7th of France and the French Church assembled at Bruges rejected the latter Sessions of the Council of Basil because they depriv'd P. Eugenius and created Felix the 5th and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholick Church But Bellarmine says that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil are invalid and null because certain Bishops fell off there and were faulty Now if this be a sufficient cause of nullity then if ever there be a schism or but a division of opinions the other party may deny the Authority of the Council and especially if any of them change their opinion and go to the prevailing side the other hath the same cause of complaint but this ought not at all to prevail till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present for if some fail if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority But because any thing is made use of for an excuse it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded but just when they serve mens turns The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Romanists because there was no Patriarch present but S. German though all the world knows the reason is because they decreed against images But if the other were a good Reason then it is necessary that all the old Patriarchs should be present and if this be true then the General Council of Ephesus is null because all the Patriarchs were not present at it and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarchs nether could it be Representative of the whole Church because at the same time there was another Council at Rome and which is worse to the Romanists than all that the Council of Trent upon this and a 1000 more is invalid because themselves reckon but three Patriarchs there present one was of Venice another of Aquileia and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem none of which were really any of the old Patriarchs whose Authority was so great in the Ancient Councils 7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil Eccles. cap. 15. since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called and who have decisive voices in Councils Sect. At athâ—licorum At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence and to subscribe and yet anciently not only the Emperours and their Embassadours did subscribe but lately at Florence Lateran and Trent Cardinals and Bishops Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe and in the Council of Basil Priests had decisive voices and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscribed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots not Bishops L â—b 2. de Concil act 6. and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms that sometimes Lay-men were admitted to Councils to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Questions Nay Gerson says that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers who though they believ'd it not yet supposing it such they determin'd what was the proper consequent of such Principles which the Christians consented in and he says Socrat. l. â— c 5. Eccles. hist. it was so in the Council of Nice as is left unto us upon record * And Eutropius a Pagan was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites and against these he gave sentence and in behalf of Origen Certain it is that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VI th that Lay-men might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgments without hindrance And this was no new matter for it was practis'd in all Nations in Germany France England and Spain it self as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo So that it is apparent that the Romanists though now they do not yet formerly
rescinded abrogated by contrary laws and desuetude by change of times and changes of opinion And in all that great body of laws registred in the decretum and the Decretals Clementins and Extravagants there is no signe or distinctive cognisance of one from another and yet some of them are regarded and very many are not When Pope Stephen decreed that those who were converted from heresie should not be re-baptiz'd Euseb. lib. 7. hist. 4. c. 3 4. lib. de unico baptis c. 14. and to that purpose wrote against S. Cyprian in the Question and declar'd it to be unlawful and threatned excommunication to them that did it as S. Austin tells S. Cyprian regarded it not but he and a Council of fourscore Bishops decreed it ought to be done and did so to their dying day Bellarmine admits all this to be true but says that Pope Stephen did not declare this tanquam de fide but that after this definition it was free to every one to think as they list nay Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 7. Sect. Et per hoc that though it was plain that S. Cyprian refus'd to obey the Pope's sentence yet non est omninò certum that he did sin mortally By all this he hath made it apparent that it cannot easily be known when a Pope does define a thing to be de fide or when it is a sin to disobey him or when it is necessary he should be obeyed Now then since in the Canon law there are so very many decrees and yet no mark of difference of right or wrong necessary or not necessary how shall we be able to know certainly in what state or condition the soul of every of the Pope's subjects is especially since without any cognisance or certain mark all the world are commanded under pain of damnation to obey the Pope In the Extravagant de Majoritate Obedientiâ are these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici Now when can it be thought that a Pope defines any article in Cathedra if these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus necessarium ad salutem be not sufficient to declare his intention Now if this be true that the Pope said this he said true or false If false how sad is the condition of the Romanists who are affrighted with the terrible threatnings of damnation for nothing And if it be true what became of the souls of S. Cyprian and the African Bishops Epist. S. Cyprian ad Pompeium who did not submit to the Bishop of Rome but call'd him proud ignorant and of a dark and wicked mind Seriò praecepit said Bellarmine he seriously commanded it but did not determine it as necessary and how in a Question of faith and so great Concern this distinction can be of any avail can never be known and can never be prov'd since they declare the Pope sufficiently to be of that faith against S. Cyprian and the Africans and that in pursuance of this his faith he proceeded so far and so violently But now the matter is grown infinitely worse For 1. the Popes of Rome have made innumerable decrees in the Decretum In l. Benè à Zenoâ—e c. de quadrien praescript Decretals Bulls Taxes Constitutions Clementines and Extravagants 2. They as Albericus de Rosate a Great Canonist affirms sometimes exalt their constitutions and sometimes abase them according to the times And yet 3. All of them are verified and impos'd under the same Sanction by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. c. 20. all I say which were ever made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons and the Liberties of the Church which are indeed the greater part of all after Gratians decree witness the Decretals of Gregory the 9 th Boniface the 8 th the Collectio diversarum Constitutionum literarum Romanorum Pontificum and the Decretal Epistles of the Roman Bishops in three Volumes besides the Ecloga Bullarum motuum propriorum All this is not onely an intolerable burden to the Christian Churches but a snare to consciences and no man can tell by all this that is before him whether he deserve love or hatred whether he be in the state of mortal sin of damnation or salvation But this is no new thing More than this was decreed in the Ancient Canon law it self Decret dist 19. c. Sic omnes C. Eniâ—vero Sic omnes Sanctiones Apostolicae sedis accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius Divinâ voce Petri firmatae And again Ab omnibus quicquid statuit quicquid ordinat perpetuò quidem infragibiliter observandum est All men must at all times with all submission observe all things whatsoever are decreed or ordain'd by the Roman Church Nay licèt vix ferendum although what that holy See imposes be as yet scarce tolerable yet let us bear it and with holy devotion suffer it says the Canon Ibid. In memoriam And that all this might indeed be an intolerable yoke the Canon Nulli fas est addes the Pope's curse and final threatnings Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis and every one that obeys not the Apostolical decrees is majoris excommunicationis dejectione abjiciendus The Canon is directed particularly against the Clergy And the gloss upon this Canon affirms that he who denies the Pope's power of making Canons viz. to oblige the Church is a heretick Now considering that the decree of Gratian is Concordantia discordantiarum a heap or bundle of Contrary opinions doctrines and rules and they agree no otherwise then a Hyaena and a Dog catch'd in the same snare or put into a bag and that the Decretals and Extravagants are in very great parts of them nothing but boxes of tyranny and errour usurpation and superstition onely that upon those boxes they write Ecclesia Catholica and that all these are commanded to be believ'd and observ'd respectively and all gainsayers to be cursed and excommunicated and that the twentieth part of them is not known to the Christian world and some are rejected and some never accepted and some slighted into desuetude and some thrown off as being a load too heavie and yet that there is no rule to discern these things it must follow that matters of faith determin'd and recorded in the Canon law and the laws of manners there established and the matter of salvation and damnation consequent to the observation or not observation of them must needs be infinitely uncertain and no man can from their grounds know what shall become of him There are so very many points of faith in the Church of Rome and so many Decrees of Councils which when they please make an Article of faith and so many are presumptuously by private Doctors affirm'd to be de fide which are not that considering that the common people are not taught to rely upon the plain
words of Scripture and the Apostles Creed for a sufficient rule of their faith but are threatned with damnation if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determin'd and yet they neither do nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest or Confessor it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing and be of any religion and trust to any Article as they shall choose and find to their purpose The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures they both not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith and so the most learned and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other and yet Master White who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours affirms that it is not the Catholick position That all its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent gives a very good account of it and makes it excellent sense Thus Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture saith the Council and wonder not for saith Master White all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture You may believe so if you please for the contrary is not a Catholick doctrine But if these two things do not agree better then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says the People know not that but as their Priest teaches them And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion yet that the Priests themselves do not know it or wilfully mis-report it and therefore that the people cannot tell it it is too evident in this instance and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves about many considerable Articles in their Catholick religion Vide Wadding of Immac oncept p. 282. p. 334. alibi Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena Now they not relying on the way of God fall into the hands of men who teach them according to the interest of their order or private fancy and expound their rules by measures of their own but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it and is not always as appears in the instance now set down faithful in relating of it but first consens himself by his subtilty and then others by his confidence and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way when God hath so plainly given them a better and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture and in the Apostolical Creed in which they can suffer no illusion and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believ'd IV. The next thing I observe is that they all talking of the Church as of a charm and sacred Amulet yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where or how infallibly to find this Church I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry by shewing that the Church is that body which they do not rely upon but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. cap. 17. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis eam Ecclesiam requiramus cap. 3. affirms that the Church is no whereto be found but in Praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus in the Scriptures only And he gives but one great note of it and that is adhering to the head Jesus Christ for the Church is Christ's body who by charity are united to one another and to Christ their Head and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation And he adds no other mark but that Christ's Church is not this or that viz. not of one denomination but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head Bellarm. de Eccles Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia not Jesus Christ but the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome and the Greek Church and indeed of all other Churches of the world is so far from being a sign to know the Church by that it is apparent they have no ground of their Faith but the great Question of Christendom and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves is their foundation And this is so much the more considerable because concerning very many Heads of their Church it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ but the basest of Criminals and Enemies of all godliness And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked they could not be certain that they were members of Christ or that they were not of their Father the Devil The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition and Judas fell from it by transgression But the uncertainties are yetgreater Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church because no man can be certain who is true Pope For the Pope if he be a Simoniac is ipso facto no Pope as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal which when he broke the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain who intended to accuse him of Simony but it broke the Pope's heart and so he escaped here and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent and yet not to be seen in it and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome he forbad the Archbishop of
Turris to go Hist. Concil Trid. lib. 7 ◠D. 156◠because he had been too free in declaring his opinion for the Jus Divinum of the Residence of Bishops he at the same time durst not trust the Bishop of Cesena for a more secret reason but it was known enough to many He was a familiar friend of the Cardinal of Naples whose Father the Count of Montebello had in his hand an Obligation which that Pope had given to the Cardinal for a sum of money for his Voice in the Election of him to the Papacy And all the world have been full of noises and Pasquils sober and grave Comical and Tragical accusations of the Simony of the Popes for divers ages together and since no man can certainly know that the Pope is not Simoniacal no man can safely rely on him as a true Pope or the true Pope for an infallible Judge 2. If the Pope be a Heretick he is ipso facto no Pope now that this is very possible Bellarmine supposes because he makes that one of the necessary cases in which a General Council is to be called as I have shewed above And this uncertainty is manifest in an instance that can never be wip'd off for when Liberius had subscrib'd Arianism and the condemnation of S. Athasius and the Roman Clergy had depriv'd Liberius of his Papacy S. Felix was made Pope and then either Liberius was no Pope or S. Felix was not and one was a Heretick or the other a Schismatick and then as it was hard to tell who was their Churches head so it was impossible that by adherence to either of them their subjects could be prov'd to be Catholicks 3. There have been many Schisms in the Church of Rome and many Anti-popes which were acknowledged for true and legitimate by several Churches and Kingdoms respectively and some that were chosen into the places of the depos'd even by Councils were a while after disown'd and others chosen which was a known case in the times of the Councils of Constance and Basil. And when a Council was sitting and it became a Question who had power to chuse the Council or the Cardinals What man could cast his hopes of Eternity upon the adherence to one the certainty of whose legitimation was determin'd by power and interest and could not by all the learning and wisdom of Christendom 4. There was one Pope who was made head of the Church before he was a Priest It was Constantine the second who certainly succeeded not in S. Peter's Privileges when he was not capable of his Chair and yet he was their head of the Church for a year but how adherence to the Pope should then be a note of the Church I desire to know from some of the Roman Lawyers for the Divines know it not I will not trouble this account with any questions about the Female-head of their Church I need not seek for matter I am press'd with too much and therefore I shall omit very many other considerations about the nullities and insufficiencies and impieties and irregularities of many Popes and consider their other notes of the Church to try if they can fix this inquiry upon any certainty Bellarmine reckons fifteen notes of the Church It is a mighty hue and cry after a thing that he pretends is visible to all the world 1. The very name Catholick is his first note he might as well have said the word Church is a note of the Church for he cannot be ignorant but that all Christians who esteem themselves members of the Church think and call themselves members of the Catholick Church and the Greeks give the same title to their Churches Nay all Conventions of Hereticks anciently did so and therefore I shall quit Bellarmine of this note by the words of Lactantius which himself * Bellarm. l. 4. de Notis Eccles. cap. 1. Lact. lib. 3. Divinar institut cap. ult also a little forgetting himself quotes Sed tamen singuli quique Haereticorum coetus se potissimum Christianos suam esse Catholicam Ecclesiam putant 2. Antiquity indeed is a note of the Church and Salmeron proves it to be so from the Example of Adam and Eve most learnedly But it is certain that God had a Church in Paradise is as good an argument for the Church of England and Ireland as for Rome for we derive from them as certainly as do the Italians and have as much of Adam's religion as they have But a Church might have been very ancient and yet become no Church and without separating from a greater Church The Church of the Jews is the great example and the Church of Rome unless she takes better heed may be another Rom. 11. 20 21. S. Paul hath plainly threatned it to the Church of Rome 3. Duration is made a note now this respects the time past or the time to come If the time past then the Church of Britain was Christian before Rome was and blessed be God are so at this day If Duration means the time to come for so Bellarmine says Denotis Eccles. lib. 4. cap. 6. Ecclesia dicitur Catholica non solùm quia semper fuit sed etiam quia semper erit so we have a rare note for us who are alive to discern the Church of Rome to be the Catholick Church and we may possibly come to know it by this sign many ages after we are dead because she will last always But this sign is not yet come to pass and when it shall come to pass it will prove our Church to be the Catholick Church as well as that of Rome and the Greek Church as well as both of us for these Churches at least some of them have begun sooner and for ought they or we know they all may so continue longer 4. Amplitude was no note of the Church when the world was Arian and is as little now because that a great part of Europe is Papal 5. Succession of Bishops is an excellent conservatory of Christian doctrine but it is as notorious in the Greek Church as in the Roman and therefore cannot signifie which is the true Church unless they be both true and then the Church of England can claim by this tenure as having since her being Christian a succession of Bishops never interrupted but as all others have been in persecution 6. Consent in doctrine with the Ancient Church may be a good sign or a bad as it happens but the Church of Rome hath not and never can prove the pure and prime Antiquity to be of her side 7. Vnion of members among themselves and with their head is very good if the members be united in truth for else it may be a Conspiracy and if by head be meant Jesus Christ and indeed this is the onely true sign of the Church but if by head be meant the Roman Pope it may be Ecclesia Malignantium and Antichrist may sit in the chair But the uncertainty
the word Internal every new thing shall pass for the word of God so it shall do also under the Roman pretence For not he that makes a Law but he that expounds the Law gives the final measures of Good or Evil. It follows from hence that nothing but the Scripture's sufficiencie can be a sufficient limit to the inundation of evils which may enter from these parties relying upon the same false Principle My Last argugument is from Tradition it self For 7. If we enquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely for their whole Religion we shall find they knew none else but the Scriptures Vbi Scriptum was their first inquiry Do the Prophets and the Apostles the Evangelists or the Epistles say so Read it there and then teach it else reject it they call upon their Charges in the words of Christ Search the Scriptures they affirm that the Scriptures are full that they are a perfect Rule that they contain all things necessary to salvation and from hence they confuted all Heresies This I shall clearly prove by abundant testimonies Of which though many of them have been already observ'd by very many learned persons yet because I have added others not so noted and have collected with diligence and care and have rescued them from Elusory answers I have therefore chosen to represent them together hoping they may be of more usefulness than trouble because I have here made a trial whether the Church of Rome be in good earnest or no when she pretends to follow Tradition or how it is that she expects a tradition shall be prov'd For this Doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency I now shall prove by a full tradition therefore if she believes Tradition let her acknowledge this tradition which is so fully prov'd and if this do not amount to a full probation then it is but reasonable to expect from them that they never obtrude upon us any thing for tradition or any tradition for necessary to be believed till they have proved it such by proofs more and more clear than this Essay concerning the sufficiency and perfection of the Divine Scriptures I begin with S. Irenaeus * Rectissimè quidem scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae lib. 2. cap. 47. We know that the Scriptures are perfect for they are spoken by the word of God and by his Spirit Therefore * Lib. 4. c. 66. Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum legite diligentius Prophetas invenietis Vniversam actionem omnem doctrinam Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis read diligently the Gospel given unto us by the Apostles and read diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and the whole doctrine and the whole passion of our Lord preached in them And indeed we have receiv'd the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those by whom the Gospel came to us which truly they then preached but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures which was to be the pillar and ground to our Faith These are the words of this Saint who was one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church a Greek by birth by his dignity and imployment a Bishop in France and so most likely to know the sense and rule of the Eastern and Western Churches Next to S. Irenaeus Strom. lib. 7. P. 757 edit Parâ—s 1629. we have the Doctrine of S. Clemens of Alexandria in these words He hath lost the being a man of God and of being faithful to the Lord who hath kicked against Tradition Ecclesiastical and hath turned to the opinions of humane Heresies What is this Tradition Ecclesiastical and where is it to be found That follows But he who returning out of Error obeys the Scriptures and hath permitted his life to truth he is of a Man in a manner made a God For the Lord is the principle of our Doctrine who by the Prophets and the Gospel and the blessed Apostles at sundry times and in divers manners leads us from the beginning to the end He that is faithful of himself is worthy of faith in the Voice and Scripture of the Lord which is usually exercis'd through the Lord to the benefit of men for this Scripture we use for the finding out of things this we use as the rule of judging But if it be not enough to speak our opinions absolutely but that we must prove what we say we expect no testimony that is given by men but by the voice of the Lord we prove the Question and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration or rather it is the only demonstration by which knowledge they who have tasted of the Scriptures alone are faithful Afterwards he tells how the Scriptures are a perfect demonstration of the Faith Perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves we speak or perswade demonstratively of the Faith Although even they that go after Heresies do dare to use the Scriptures of the Prophets But first they use not all neither them that are perfect nor as the whole body and contexture of the Prophecy does dictate but choosing out those things which are spoken ambiguously they draw them to their own opinion Then he tells how we shall best use and understand the Scriptures Let every one consider what is agreeable to the Almighty Lord God and what becomes him and in that let him confirm every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures And he adds that It is the guise of Hereticks when they are overcome by shewing that they oppose Scriptures Yet still they chuse to follow that which to them seems evident rather than that which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophets and by the Gospel and what is prov'd and confirm'd by the testimony of the Apostles and at last concludes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 755. they become impious because they believe not the Scriptures and a little before this he asks the Hereticks Will they deny or will they grant there is any demonstration I suppose they will all grant there is except those who also deny that there are senses But if there be any demonstration it is necessary to descend to Questions and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Scriptures themselves to learn demonstratively how the Heresies are fallen and on the contrary how the most perfect knowledge is in the truth and the ancient Church But again they that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untill they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves And after this adds his advice to Christians To wax old in the Scriptures and thence to seek for demonstrations These things he spoke not only by way of
did mean so But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightned what is to be done with them S. Austin says Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16. that in such places let every one abound in his own sense and expound as well as he can quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure and there is no other viz. so apt and certain And after all this I deny not but there are many other external helps God hath set Bishops and Priests Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can and it is to be suppos'd they can do it best but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now describ'd out of the Fathers and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us he will very much oblige the world by declaring it and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes But because no man and no company of men hath yet expounded all hard places with certaintie and without error it is an intolerable vanitie to pretend to a power of doing that which no charitie hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church and the glory of God and the rest of inquiring Souls I end this tedious discourse with the words of S. Austin De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. Nolo humanis documentis sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari If you enquire where or which is the Church from humane teachings you can never find her she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles 1 Pet. 4. 1. Therefore if any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God SECTION III. Of Traditions TRadition is any way of delivering a thing or word to another and so every doctrine of Christianity is by Tradition 1 Thes. 2. 15. I have deliver'd unto you saith S. Paul that Christ died for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Jude the faith deliver'd is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the traditions that is the doctrines ye were taught And S. * Lib. 3. c. 4. Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup and said it was his bloud and to believe in one God and in Christ who was born of a Virgin was the old tradition that is the thing deliver'd not at first written which the Barbarians kept diligently But Tradition signified either Preaching or Writing as it hapned When it signified Preaching it was only the first way of communicating the Religion of Jesus Christ and untill the Scriptures were written and consign'd by the full testimony of the Apostles and Apostolical Churches respectively they in the Questions of Religion usually appeal'd to the tradition or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apostles first preach'd and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches who without variety or change had still remembred and kept the same doctrine which at first was deliver'd by the Apostles So Irenaeus If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us Ibid. must not we viz. in this case have followed the order of tradition which they deliver'd to them to whom they intrusted the Church to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent And that which was true then is also true now for if the Apostles had never written at all we must have followed tradition unless God had provided for us some better thing But it is observable that Irenaeus says That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture But since God hath supplied not only the principal Churches with the Scriptures but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans call'd Barbarous now to run to Tradition is to make use of a staff or a wooden Leg when we have a good Leg of our own The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear evident recent remembred talk'd of by all Christians in all their meetings publick and private and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endeavour'd to remember them was not easie and if there had been a mistake there was an Apostle living or one of their immediate Disciples to set all things right And therefore untill the Apostles were all dead Hegâ—sip apud Eccles. liâ— 38. c. 32. Grec 26. Latin there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians but what was instantly determin'd or suppress'd and the Heresies that were did creep and sting clancularly but made no great show But when the Apostles were all dead then that Apostasie foretold began to appear and Heresies of which the Church was warned began to arise But it is greatly to be remark'd There was then no Heresie that pretended any foundation from Scripture Acts 20. 29. 30. but from tradition many 1 Tim. 4. 1. c. for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle 2 Tim 3. â— c. 4. 3. that even good men were willing to believe any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach 2 Thes. 2. 3. and too many were forward to say 2 Pet. 2. â— c. they heard them teach what they never taught 1 Joh. 2. 18. 19. and the pretence was very easie to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles Jude 4. v. c. and now that they were dead it was so difficult to confute them that the Hereticks found it an easie game to play to say They heard it deliver'd by an Apostle Many did so and some were at first believed and yet were afterwards discovered some were cried down at first and some expir'd of themselves and some were violently thrust away But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custome were of a true and Apostolical original and how many were not so it will be impossible to find now only because we are sure there was some false dealing in this matter and we know there might be much more than we have discover'd we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith any more than we could do upon Scripture if one
Covenant in which they can receive the gift of eternal life which I take to be the proper reasons why the Church baptizes Infants all these are wholly deriv'd to us from Scripture-grounds But then as to that Reason upon which the Church of Rome baptizes Infants even because it is necessary and because without it children shall not see God it is certain there is no Universal or prime Tradition for that S. Austin was the hard Father of that doctrine And if we take the whole doctrine and practice together without distinction that it was the custom so to do in some Churches and at sometimes is without all question but that there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do relies but upon two witnesses Origen and S. Austin and the latter having receiv'd it from the former it relies wholly upon his single testimony which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical * Secundum Ecelesiae observantiam a◠in Levit. c. 12. 13. Hom. 8. quem locum citat Perron haec autem verba non aiunt ab Apostolis hanc manasse observantiam Lib. de baptis cap. 18. He is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives In S. August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. saying that anciently none were baptiz'd but persons of ripe age which words I suppose are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the most part But although the tradition be uncertain weak little and contingent yet the Church of God when ever she did it and she might do it at any time did do it upon Scripture-grounds And it was but weakly said by Cardinal Perron Replique à la response du Roy Jaques p. 701. that There is no place of Scripture by which we can evidently and necessarily convince the Anabaptists For 1. If that were true yet it is more certain that by Tradition they will never be perswaded not only because there is no sufficient and full tradition but because they reject the Topick 2. Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and certain in the Article for it is an easie thing to say something to every thing but if that be enough against the argument then no Heretick can be convinc'd by Scripture and there is in Scripure no pregnant testimony for any point of faith for in all questions all Hereticks prattle something And therefore it is not a wise procedure to say The adversaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture and by Scripture cannot be convinc'd and therefore chuse some other way of probation For when that is done will they be convinc'd and cannot the Cardinal satisfie himself by Scripture though the Heretick will not confess himself confuted The Papists say They answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture but though they say so to eternal ages yet in the world nothing is plainer than that they only say so and that for all that confident and enforc'd saying the Scriptures are still apparently against them 3. If the Anabaptists speak probably and reasonably in their answers then it will rather follow that the point is not necessary than that it must be prov'd necessary by some other Topick 4. All people that believe Baptism of Infants necessary think that they sufficiently prove it from Scripture and Bellarmine though he also urges this point as an argument for Traditions yet upon wiser thoughts he proves it and not Unsuccessfully by three arguments from Scripture 3. Like to this is the pretence of the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks It is Cardinal Perron's own instance and the first of the four he alledges for the necessity of Tradition This he holds for a doctrine Orthodox and Apostolick and yet says he there is no word of it in Scripture Concerning this I think the issue will be short If there be nothing of it in Scripture it is certain there was no Apostolical tradition for it For S. Cyprian and all his Collegues were of an opinion contrary to that of the Roman Church in this Article Epist. ad Pompeium and when they oppos'd against S. Cyprian a Tradition he knew of no such thing and bad them prove their tradition from Scripture 2. S. Austin who was something warm in this point yet confesses the Apostles commanded nothing in it but then he does almost begus to believe it came from them Consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est si cut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis benè praecepta traduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur which in plain meaning is this We find a Custome in the Church and we know not whence it comes and it is so in this as in many other things and therefore let us think the best and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles But it seems himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this Question Contra Donatist l. 4. c. 14. c. 17. 24. Whether is more pernitious not to be baptiz'd or to be re-baptiz'd is hard to judge nevertheless having recourse to the standard of our Lord where the monuments of this are not estimated by humane sense but by Divine authority I find concerning each of them the Sentence of our Lord to wit in the Scriptures But 3. The Question it self is not a thing necessary for S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Cappadocia and Galatia and almost two parts of the known world whose sentiment was differing from others yet liv'd and dyed in the Communion of those Churches who believ'd the contrary doctrin and so it might have been still if things were estimated but according to their intrinsick value Lib. 1. de Baptist cap. 18. And since as S. Austin says they might safely differ in judgment before the determination of this Question in a Council it follows evidently that there was no clear tradition against them or if there were that was not esteem'd a good Catholick or convincing argument For as it is not imaginable so great and wise a part of the Catholick Church should be ignorant of any famous Apostolical tradition especially when they were call'd upon to attend to it and were urg'd and press'd by it so it is also very certain there was none such in S. Cyprian's time because the sixth general Council approv'd of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage Can. 2. because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundùm traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est 4. It had been best if the Question had never been mov'd and
the next best had been to have suppress'd and forgotten it instantly for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists and it could have no determination but the mere nature of the thing it self all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptize in water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and this was an admission to Christianity not to any sect of it and if this had been consider'd wisely so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form there could be no more in it And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose so far was it from being an Article of Faith 4. The next pretence is that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is an Article of our Faith and yet no where told in Scripture and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith To this some very excellent persons have oppos'd this Consideration that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words show that the Controversie it self is trifling or mistaken But though I wish them agreed yet when I consider that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Florence they never understood one another to purposes of peace I am apt to believe that those who would reconcile them shew their piety more than the truth of the thing and that the Greeks and Latins differ'd intirely in this point But then that on the Latin side there should be a tradition Apostolical can upon no other account be pretended but that they could not prove it by Scripture or shew any Ecclesiastical law or authority for it Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine not only from Scripture but also from immemorial tradition that is that they have not innovated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them and on the other side that the Latins have contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus superadded the clause of Filióque to the Constantinopolitan-Creed and that by authority of a little Convention of Bishops at Gentilly neer to Paris without the consent of the Catholick Church and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron Contr. le Râ—y Jaques p. 709. not only the Scripture favours the Greeks but Reason also because it is unimaginable that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind and although the three Persons created the world yet that production was from the Divine essence which is but one principle but the opinion of the Latius is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from two Persons as Persons and therefore from two principles it will be very hard to suppose that because all this is against them therefore it is certain that they had this from Apostolical tradition The more natural consequence is that their proposition is either mistaken or uncertain or not an article of Faith which is rather to be hop'd lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels or perverse Hereticks or else that it can be deriv'd from Scripture which last is indeed the most probable and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins who examin'd things by reason and not by prejudice But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this Titius was accus'd to have deserted his station in the Battel and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna He answers I must either have received Orders from the General or else you must suppose me to be a Coward or a Traytor for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline Well what if you be suppos'd to be a Coward or Traytor what hurt is in that supposition But must I conclude that you had Order from the General for fear I should think you did it on your own head or that you are a Traytor That 's the case Either this proposition is deriv'd to us by Apostolical tradition or we have nothing else to say for our selves well Nempe hoc Ithacus velit The Greeks allow the argument and will say thus You had nothing to say for your selves unless we grant that to you which is the Question and which you can never prove viz. that there is for this Article an Apostolical tradition but because both sides pretend that let us try this thing by Scripture And indeed that 's the only way And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted and turned upon himself For he saying It is not in Scripture therefore it is a tradition of the Church it is as good an argument It is not deliver'd to us by universal Tradition therefore either it is not at all or it is deriv'd to us from Scripture and upon the account of this for my part I do believe it 5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron is the observation of the Lord's Day but this is matter of discipline and external rite and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith or essentially necessary doctrine the consideration is differnt from the rest And it is soon at an end but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Circumcision into Baptism and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical or Lord's-day He might as well have added They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ the Law into the Gospel the Covenant of works into the Covenant of faith Ceremonies into substances and rituals into spiritualities And we need no further inquiry into this Question but to consider Perron ibid. 710. what the Cardinal says that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law Now I demand Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture for the abolishing of the law of Ceremonies If there be then the law of the Sabbath is abolished It is part of the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ nail'd to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory the Church is at liberty but that there should be a time sanctified or set apart for the proper service of God I hope is also very clear from Scripture and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the presidents of religion and then it will follow from Scripture that the Apostles or their Successors or whoever did appoint the Sunday-festival had not onely great reason but full authority to appoint that day and that this was done early and continued constantly for the same reason and by an equal authority is no question But as to the Sabbath S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law and particularly name 's the Sabbath-days Colos. 2. 16. saying They all were a shadow of things
devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith is like removing the ancient Land-mark you cannot tell by the mark in what Countrey you are in whether in your own or in the Enemies And in the world nothing is more unnecessary For if that faith be sufficient if in that faith the Church went to Heaven if in that she preserv'd unity and begat Children to Christ and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ and kept her self pure from Heresie and unbroken by Schism whatsoever is added to it is either contain'd in the Article virtually or it is not If not then it is no part of the Faith and by the laws of Faith there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it But if it be then he that believes the Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand that wrote the Original for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it from an infallible Spirit but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is an Unerring Logician for which because God hath given me no command and himself can give me no security if I can defend my self from that man's pride God will defend me from Damnation But let us see a little further with what constancy That and The following Ages of the Church did adhere to the Apostles Creed as the sufficient and perfect Rule of Faith There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium in eâ volumus religione versari quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum virum Apostolicae sanctitatis hoc est ut secundum Apostolicam disciplinam Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem sub pari majestate sub piâ Trinitate credamus Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere divina primùm vindictâ pòst etiam motu animi nostri quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione plectendos Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive to prove that in the early Ages of the Church the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church The Letter to a friend p. 4. and that upon easier terms men might then be Catholick It was replied by some one of the Opponents That by this law was not meant that all who believ'd the Trinity were Catholicks absolutely but only as to those points and the Reason given is this Because after this law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head But this thing was spoken without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made that was the Rule of Catholicism as appears by the words of the law and if afterward it became alter'd and the Bishops became too opinionative or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards It might as well have been said the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zuinglians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio says the law But for the true understanding of this Imperial law we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity was not set down there as a single Article but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed the three parts of which have for their heads The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity And this appears by the relation the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome and to the Creed of Damasus which may be seen in Saint Hierom who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate in the second Tome of his Works in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated that what relates to the Trinity and Unity spoken of in the Imperial Law or Rule of Catholicks and Christians is set down in it's full purpose and design And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed he is taught to summe it up in this manner First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God This is the Summary of the Creed and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete and integrating the Christian Faith but as a breviary of that Faith to which in the same place it is made to relate just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter and the Creed of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria Concerning which he that says much says no more and he that says little says no less for the Faith is the same as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks it follows that the Roman Church Catholick signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church S. Ambrose says Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed all Faith lies in that as the Child in the Mother's Womb and he compares it to a Key because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd that the light of Christ might come upon us and the hidden sins of conscience are opened that the manifest works of righteousness may shine This Key is to be shown to our Brethren that by this as Scholars of S. Peter they may shut the gates of Hell and open the doors of Heaven He also calls it The Seal of our Heart and the Sacrament of our Warfare S. Hierom speaking of it Epist. ad Pammach contra â—rro es Johan Hierosolymit Exp siâ— Symbol c. 2 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9. says The Symbol of our Faith and Hope which was deliver'd by the Apostles is not written in Paper and Ink but in the fleshy tables of our hearts After the confession of the Trinity and Vnity of the Church the whole or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh Which words are intimated and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil.
The Question is made What is meant by it They that have a mind to it understand it easily enough it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh or he that was to come For whereas the Jews were the Inclosure and peculiar people of God at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more but the Gentiles being called and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world it was no more the Church of the Jews but Ecclesia totius mundi the Church of the Universe the Universal or Catholick Church of Jews and Gentiles of all people and all Languages Now this great and glorious mystery we confess in this Article that is we confess that God hath given to his Son the Heathen for an Inheritance and the utmost parts of the world for a possession that God is no respecter of persons Acts 10. 35. but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him This is the plain sense of the Article and renders the Article also highly considerable and represents it as Fundamental and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles and is not only easie and intelligible but greatly for Edification Now then let us see how the Church of Rome by her Head and Members expound or declare this Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church so it is in the Apostles Creed I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church so the Nicene Creed Here is no difference and no Commentary but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catholick Church as if it had been said I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world and not limited to the Jewish pale and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner she hath explain'd it so clearly that no wise man can believe it she hath declar'd the Article so as to make it a new one and made an addition to it that destroys the principal Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem Magistram agnosco I acknowledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches And at the end of this declaration of the Creed it is added as at the end of the Athanasian This is the true Catholick faith without which no man can be saved And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks secular or Religious Now let it be considered Whether this Declaration be not a new Article and not onely so but a destruction to the old 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholick or Universal Church The Pope limits it and calls it the Catholick Roman Church that by all he means some and the Vniversal means but particular But besides this 2. It is certain this must be a piece of a new Creed since it is plain the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church than as every other Church which was then or should be after And why Roman should be put in and not the Ephesine the Caesarean or the Hierosolymitan it is not to be imagined 3. This must needs be a new Article because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being I believe the holy Catholick Church was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed as equal and of the extent with the Catholick is not onely a false but a malicious addition For they having perpetually in their mouths That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation and now against the truth simplicity interest and design of the Apostolical Creed having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion and that is the far biggest part of the Catholick Church 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholick in the Creed when it is confess'd among * Driedo de dogmat Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3. themselves that it is not of faith that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman and * Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum Bellarmine proves this because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it and then if ever they be separated and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople then the Creed must be chang'd again and it must run thus I believe the holy Catholick and Apostolick Constantinopolitan Church 6. There is in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed a manifest untruth decreed enjoyn'd profess'd and commanded to be sworn to and that is that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches For the Law went forth out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem Apud Baron AD. 382. n 15. and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril said Vide etiam S. Basil tom 2. ep 30. Greg. Theol. We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem which is the Mother of all other Churches The like is said of the Church of Cesarea with an exception onely of Jerusalem quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum fuit ab initio nune quoque est nominatur quam Christiana respublica velut centrum suum circulus undique observat How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider In the mean time it is impossible that it should be true that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother but for another pretty reason which Bellarmine hath invented Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches Lib. 1. de Rom. and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio yet this seems not to be true but in that sense because Peter was Bishop of Rome he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops by himself or by others Otherwise since
are apt to be earnest in their perswasion and over-act the proposition and from being true as he supposes he will think it profitable and if you warm him either with confidence or opposition he quickly tells you It is necessary and as he loves those that think as he does so he is ready to hate them that do not and then secretly from wishing evil to him he is apt to believe evil will come to him and that it is just it should and by this time the Opinion is troublesome and puts other men upon their guard against it and then while passion reigns and reason is modest and patient and talks not loud like a storm Victory is more regarded than Truth and men call God into the party and his judgments are us'd for arguments and the threatnings of the Scripture are snatched up in haste and men throw arrows fire-brands and death and by this time all the world is in an uproar All this and a thousand things more the English Protestants considering deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it and believes the Apostles Creed and is of the Religion of the four first General Councils they hope well of all that live well they receive into their bosome all true believers of what Church soever and for them that erre they instruct them and then leave them to their liberty to stand or fall before their own Master It was a famous saying of Stephen the Great King of Poland that God had reserved to himself three things 1. To make something out of nothing 2. To know future things and all that shall be hereafter 3. To have the rule over Consciences It is this last we say the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade 1. By imposing Articles as necessary to salvation which God never made so Where hath God said That it is necessary to salvation that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop Extrav de Majorit obedien Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae Creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici But the Church of Rome says it and by that at one blow cuts off from Heaven all the other Churches of the world Greek Armenian Ethiopian Russian Protestants which is an Act so contrary to charity to the hope and piety of Christians so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ so disparaging to the justice to the wisdom and the goodness of God as any thing which can be said Where hath it been said That it shall be a part of Christian Faith To believe that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate Infants yet they did it without any opinion of necesty And yet the Church of Rome hath determin'd it in one of her General Councils Sess. 1. cap. 4 as a thing Sine Controversiâ Credendum to be believ'd without doubt or dispute It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent for that 's a secret and that this is a part of their Religion I suppose will not be denied when a General Council hath determin'd it to be a truth without controversie and to be held accordingly Where hath God said that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot conferre true Orders nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ and yet Super totam materiam the Church of Rome is so implacably angry and imperious with the Churches of the Protestants that if any English Priest turn to them they re-ordain him which yet themselves call sacrilegious in case his former Ordination was valid as it is impossible to prove it was not there being neither in Scripture nor Catholick tradition any Laws Order or Rule touching our case in this particular Where hath God said that Penance is a Sacrament or that without confession to a Priest no man can be sav'd If Christ did not institute it how can it be necessary and if he did institute it yet the Church of Rome ought not to say it is therefore necessary for with them an Institution is not a Command though Christ be the Institutor and if Institution be equal to a Commandment how then comes the Sacrament not to be administred in both kinds when it is confessed that in both kinds it was instituted 2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles that few of the Laity know the half of them and yet imposes them all under the same necessity and if in any one of them a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith and had as good be an Infidel for the Churche's Authority being the formal object of Faith that is the only reason why any Article is to be believ'd the reason is the same in all things else and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says than all she says and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven as any Christian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions which with her are esteem'd de fide Now if it be considered that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of mankind as the doctrine of Transubstantiation that some are at least of a supicious improbity as worship of Images and of the consecrated Elements and many others some are of a nice and curious nature as the doctrine of Merit of Condignity and Congruity some are perfectly of humane inventions without ground of Scripture or Tradition as the formes of Ordination Absolution c. When men see that some things can never be believ'd heartily and many not understood fully and more not remembred or consider'd perfectly and yet all impos'd upon the same necessity and as good believe nothing as not every thing this way is apt to make men despise all Religion or despair of their own Salvation The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this and by a distinction undertakes to save you harmless you are not tied to believe all with an explicite Faith it suffices that your Faith be implicite or involved in the Faith of the Church that is if you believe that she says true in all things you need inquire no further So that by this means the authority of their Church is made authentick for that is the first and last of the design and you are taught to be sav'd by the Faith of others and a Faith is preached that you have no need ever to look after it a Faith of which you know nothing but it matters not as long as others do but then it is also a Faith which can never be the foundation of a good life for upon ignorance nothing that is good can be built no not so much as a blind obedience for even blindly to obey is built upon something that you are bidden explicitely to believe viz.
for it is in the second Council of Cabailon and not in Theodore's Penitential But I will not trouble the Reader further in the matter of the Latine Church in which it is evident by what hath been already said there was concerning this no Apostolical Tradition How it was in the Greek Church is onely to be inquir'd Now we might make as quick an end of this also De poenit dist 5. c. In poenit if we might be permitted to take Semeca's word the gloss of the Canon Law which affirm's that Confession of deadly sins is not necessary among the Greeks because no such tradition hath not descended unto them This acknowledgement and report of the Greeks not esteeming Confession to a Priest to be necessary is not only in the Gloss above cited De poenit dist 1. c. Quidam Deo but in Gratian himself and in the more ancient Collection of Canons by Burchard and Ivo Carnotensis Bellarmine fancies that these words ut Graeci are crept into the Text of Gratian out of the Margent Well! suppose that but then how came they into the elder Collections of Burchard and Ivo That 's not to be told but creep in they did some way or other because they are not in the Capitular of Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury and yet from thence this Canon was taken and that Capitular was taken from the second Council of Cabaillon De poenit lib. 3. cap. 5. in which also there are no such words extant So the Cardinal In which Bellarmine betrays his carelessness or his ignorance very greatly 1. Because there is no such thing extant in the world that any man knows and tells of as the Capitular of Theodore 2. He indeed made a Penitential a Copy of which is in Benet College Library in Cambridge from whence I have receiv'd some Extracts by the favour and industry of my friends and another Copy of it is in Sir Robert Cotten's Library 3. True it is there is in that Penitential no such words as ut Graeci but a direct affirmation Confessionem suam Deo soli si necesse est licebit agere 4. That Theodore should take this Chapter out of the second Council of Cabaillon is an intolerable piece of ignorance or negligence in so great a Schollar as Bellarmine when it is notorious that the Council was after Theodore above 120. years 5. But then lastly because Theodore though he sate in the Seat of Canterbury yet was a Greek born his words are a good Record of the opinion of the Greeks that Confession of sins is if there be need to be made to God alone But this I shall prove with firmer testimonies not many Epist. Canon ad Letorum but pregnant clear and undeniable S. Gregory Nyssen observ'd that the ancient Fathers before him in their publick discipline did take no notice of the sins of Covetousness that is left them without publick penance otherwise than it was order'd in other sins and therefore he interposes his judgment thus But concerning these things because this is praetermitted by the Fathers I do think it sufficient to cure the affections of Covetousness with the publick word of doctrine or instruction curing the diseases as it were of repletion by the Word That is plainly thus The sins of Covetousness had no Canonical Penances impos'd upon them and therefore many persons thought but little of them therefore to cure this evil let this sin be reprov'd in publick Sermons though there be no imposition of publick penances So that here is a Remedy without Penances a Cure without Confession a publick Sermon instead of a publick or private Judicatory But the fact of Nectarius in abrogating the publick penitentiary-Priest upon the occasion of a scandal does bear much weight in this Question I shall not repeat the story who please may read it in Socrates Sozomen Epiphanius Cassiodore and Nicephorus and it is known every where Relect. de poenit part 5. Sect. Only they who are pinch'd by it endeavour to confound it as Waldensis and Canus some by denying it Ad sextum p. 31. edit Salmanticae 1563. per Matthiam Gartium as Latinus Latinius others by disputing concerning every thing in it some saying that Nectarius abrogated Sacramental Confession others that he abrogated the publick only so very many say and a third sort who yet speak with most probability that he only took away the office of the publick Penitentiary which was instituted in the time of Decius and left things as that Decree found them that is that those who had sin'd those sins which were noted in the Penitential Canons should confess them to the Bishop or in the face of the Church and submit themselves to the Canonical penances This pass'd into the office of the publick Penitentiary and that into nothing in the Greek Church But there is nothing of this that I insist upon but I put the stress of this Question upon the product of this For Eudaemon gave counsel to Nectarius and he followed it that he took away the penitentiary Priest Lib. 5. cap. 19. ut liberam daret potestatem utì pro suâ quisque conscientiâ Eccl. hist. lib. 7◠cap. 16. ad mysteria participanda accederet So Socrates and Sozomen to the same purpose ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret prout sibi ipse conscius esset confideret ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere poenitentiarium illum Presbyterum exauthoravit Now if Nectarius by this Decree took away Sacramental confession as the Roman Doctors call it then it is a clear case the Greek Church did not believe it necessary if it was onely the publick Confession they abolished then for ought appears there was no other at that time I mean none commanded none under any law or under any necessity but whatever it was that was abolished private Confession did not by any decree succeed in the place of it but every man was left to his liberty and the dictates of his own Conscience and according to his own persuasion to his fears or his confidence so to come and partake of the Divine mysteries All which is a plain demonstration that they understood nothing of the necessity of Confession to a Priest of all their sins before they came to the holy Sacrament And in pursuance of this are those many Exhortations and discourses of S. Chrysostom who succeeding Nectarius by his publick doctrine could best inform us how they understood the consequence of that decree and of this whole Question The summe of whole doctrine is this It is not necessary to have your sins revealed or brought in publick not onely in the Congregation but not to any one but to God alone Homil. 56. sive 8. de Poenit tom 1. Make a scrutiny and pass a judgement on your sins inwardly in your Conscience none being present but God alone that seeth all things And again Declare unto God alone thy sin Homil. 9. de Poenit.
Church Vide quae supra annotavi eâ— Decreto Gratiani Sect. 1. which are discordant enough and many times of themselves too blameable be yet by them accounted so sacred that it is taught to be a sin against the holy Ghost willingly to break them in the world there cannot be a greater verification of this charge upon them it being confessed on all hands that Not every man who voluntarily violates a Divine Commandement does blaspheme the holy Ghost The End of the First Book THE SECOND BOOK SECTION I. Of Indulgences ONE of the great instances to prove the Roman Religion to be new not primitive not Apostolic is the foolish and unjustifiable doctrine of Indulgences This point I have already handled so fully and so without contradiction from the Roman Doctors except that they have causelesly snarled at some of the testimonies that for ought yet appears that discourse may remain a sufficient reproof of the Church of Rome until the day of their reformation The first testimony I brought is the confession of a party for I affirm'd that Bishop Fisher of Rochester did confess That in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences and that they began after the people were a while affrighted with the torments of Purgatory To this there are two answers The first is that Bishop Fisher said no such words No proferte tabulas His words are these In art 18. contr Luther Who can now wonder that in the begining of the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences And again Indulgences began a while after men trembled at the torments of Purgatory These are the words of Roffensis What in the world can be plainer And this is so evident that Alphonsus a Castro thinks himself concerned to answer the Objection Lib. 8. adv haeres tâ—t Indulgenâ—iae and the danger of such concessions Neither upon this occasion are Indulgences to be despis'd because their use may seem to be receiv'd lately in the Church because there are many things known to posterity which those Ancient Writers were wholly ignorant of Quid ergo mirum si ad hunc modum contigerit de indulgentiis ut apud priscos nulla sit de iis mentio Indeed Antiquity was wholly ignorant of these things Hâ—stiensis in summâ l. 5. tit de remiss Biel in Canon Missae lect 57. vide Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. de Indul. Sect. Quod ad primam and as for their Catholic posterity some of them also did not believe that Indulgences did profit any that were dead Amongst these Hostiensis and Biel were the most noted But Biel was soon made to alter his opinion Hostiensis did not that I find The other answer is by E. W. That Roffensis saith it not so absolutely but with this interrogation Quis jam de indulgentiis mirari potest Who now can wonder concerning Indulgences Wonder at what for E. W. is loth to tell it But truth must out Who now can wonder that in the begining of the Church there was no use of Indulgences So Roffensis which first supposes this that in the Primitive Church there was no use of Indulgences none at all And this which is the main question here is as absolutely affirm'd as any thing it is like a praecognition to a scientifical discourse And then the question having presuppos'd this does by direct implication say it is no wonder that there should be then no use of Indulgences That is it not only absolutely affirms the thing but by consequence the notoreity of it and the reasonableness Nothing affirms or denies more strongly than a question Are not my ways equal said God and are not your ways unequal that is It is evident and notorious that it is so And by this we understand the meaning of Roffensis in the following words Yet as they say there was some very Ancient use of them among the Romans They say that is there is a talk of it amongst some or other but such they were whom Roffensis believ'd not and that upon which they did ground their fabulous report was nothing but a ridiculous legend Dissuasive 1. part Sect. 3. which I have already confuted The same doctrine is taught by Antoninus who confesses that concerning them we have nothing expresly either in the Scriptures or in the sayings of the Ancient Doctors And that he said so cannot be denied but E. W. says that I omit what Antoninus addes That is I did not transcribe his whole book But what is it that I should have added This. Quamvis ad hoc inducatur illud Apostoli 2 Cor. 2. Si quid donavi vobis propter vos in persona Christi Now to this there needs no answer but this that it is nothing to the purpose To whom the Corinthians forgave any thing to the same person S. Paul for their sakes did forgive also But what then Therefore the Pope and his Clergy have power to take off the temporal punishments which God reserves upon sinners after he hath forgiven them the temporal and that the Church hath power to forgive sins before hand and to set a price upon the basest crimes and not to forgive but to sell Indulgences and lay up the supernumerary treasures of the Saints good works and issue them out by retail in the Market of Purgatory Because S. Paul caus'd the Corinthians to be absolved and restored to the Churches peace after a severe penance so great that the poor man was in danger of being swallowed up with despair and the subtleties of Sathan does this prove that therefore all penances may be taken off when there is no such danger no such pious and charitable consideration And yet besides the inconsequence of all this S. Paul gave no indulgence but what the Christian Church of Corinth in which at that time there was no Bishop did first give themselves Now the Indulgence which the people give will prove but little warrant to what the Church of Rome pretends not only for the former reasons but also because the Primitive Church had said nothing expresly concerning Indulgences and therefore did not to any such purpose expound the words of S. Paul but also because Antoninus himself was not moved by those words to think they meant any thing of the Roman Indulgences but mentions it as the argument of other persons Just as if I should write that there is concerning Transubstantiation nothing expresly said in the Scriptures or in the writings of the Ancient Fathers although Hoc est corpus meum be brought in for it Would any man in his wits say that I am of the opinion that in Scripture there is something express for it though I expresly deny it I suppose not It appears now that Roffensis and a Castro declared against the Antiquity of Indulgences Their own words are the witnesses and the same is also true of Antoninus and therefore the first discourse of Indulgences in the Dissuasive might have gone on
in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a witness Haeres 75. but because I cited no words of his and my adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their prayers and oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prays for one sort and only gives thanks for the other Letter pag. 10. Truth will out pag. 25. as these Gentlemen the objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120. To which greater light is given by the words of S. Austin Who is he for whom no man prays but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of S. Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his adversary or for his own cause S. Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words A. L p. 11. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls Mysta Catech. 5. for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful sacrifice If S. Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of S. Cyril are very plain The third allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confess'd even by these Gentlemen the objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of S. James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted S. James and I wonder that he shall urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and S. Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sense and practice of the Greek Canon in this question And first for S. James his Liturgy Biblioth Sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 345 Sect. Jacob. Apostolus which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of S. James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually
shines In the Liturgy of S. Basil Basilii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ab Andrea Masio ex Syriaco conversa which he is said to have made for the Churches of Syria is this prayer Be mindful O Lord of them which are dead and departed out of this life and of the Orthodox Bishops which from Peter and James the Apostles unto this day have clearly professed the right word of faith and namely of Ignatius Dionysius Julius and the rest of the Saints of worthy memory Nay not only for these but they pray for the very Martyrs O Lord remember them who have resisted or stood unto blood for religion and have fed thy holy flock with righteousness and holiness Certainly this is not giving of thanks for them or praying to them but a direct praying for them even for holy Bishops Confessors Martyrs that God meaning in much mercy would remember them that is make them to rest in the bosom of Abraham in the region of the living as S. James expresses it And in the Liturgies of the Churches of Egypt attributed to S. Basil Greg. Naz. and S. Cyril the Churches pray Be mindful O Lord of thy Saints vouchsafe to receive all thy Saints which have pleas'd thee from the beginning our Holy Fathers the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles Martyrs Confessors Preachers Evangelists and all the Souls of the just which have died in the faith but chiefly of the holy glorious and perpetual Virgin Mary the Mother of God of S. John Baptist the forerunner and Martyr S. Stephen the first Deacon and first Martyr S. Mark Apostle Evangelist and Martyr Of the same spirit were all the Ancient Liturgies or Missals and particularly that under the name of Saint Chrysostom is most full to this purpose Let us pray to the Lord for all that before time have laboured and performed the holy offices of Priesthood For the memory and remission of sins of them that built this holy house and of all them that have slept in hope of the resurrection and eternal life in thy society of the Orthodox Fathers and our Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 O thou lover of men pardon them And again moreover we offer unto thee this reasonable service for all that rest in faith our Ancestors Fathers Patriarchs Prophets and Apostles Preachers Evangelists Martyrs c. especially the most holy and unspotted Virgin Mary and after concludes with this prayer Remember them all who have slept in hope of Resurrection to Eternal life and make them to rest where the light of thy countenance looks over them Add to these if you please the Greek Mass of S. Peter To them O Lord and to all that rest in Christ we pray that thou indulge a place of refreshing light and peace So that nothing is clearer than that in the Greek Canon they prayed for the souls of the best of all the Saints whom yet because no man believes they ever were in Purgatory it follows that prayer for the dead us'd by the Ancients does not prove the Roman Purgatory To these add the doctrine and practice of the Greek Fathers Eccles. hier Cap. 7. in theoria Dionysius speaking of a person deceased whom the Ministers of the Church had publickly pronounced to be a happy man and verily admitted into the society of the Saints that have been from the beginning of the world yet the Bishop prayed for him that God would forgive him all the sins which he had committed through humane infirmity and bring him into the light and region of the living into the bosoms of Abraham Isaac and Jacob where pain and sorrow and sighing have no place To the same purpose is that of S. Gregory Naz. Naz. in fuâ—â—s Caesarii orat 10. in his funeral Oration upon his Brother Caesarius of whom he had expresly declar'd his belief that he was rewarded with those honours which did befit a new â—reated soul yet he presently prays for his soul Now O Lord receive Caesarius I hope I have said enough concerning the Greek Church their doctrine and practice in this particular and I desire it may be observed that there is no greater testimony of the doctrine of a Church than their Liturgy Their Doctors may have private opinions which are not against the doctrine of the Church but what is put into their publick devotions and consign'd in their Liturgies no man scruples it but it is the confession and religion of the Church But now that I may make my Reader some amends for his trouble in reading the trifling objections of these Roman adversaries and my defences I shall also for the greater conviction of my Adversaries shew that they would not have oppos'd my affirmation in this particular if they had understood their own Mass-book for it was not only thus from the beginning until now in the Greek Church but it is so to this very day in the Latin Church In the old Latin Missal we have this prayer Missa latina Antiqua edit Argentinae 1557. pag. 52. Suscipe sancta Trinitas hanc oblationem quam tibi offerimus pro omnibus in tui nominis confessione defunctis ut te dextram auxilii tui porrigente vitae perennis requiem habeant à poenis impiorum segregati semper in tuae laudis laetitia perseverent And in the very Canon of the Mass which these Gentlemen I suppose if they be Priests cannot be ignorant in any part of they pray Memento Domine famulorum famularumque tuarum qui nos praecesserunt cum signo fidei dormiunt in somno pacis Ipsis Domine omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii lucis pacis ut indulgeas deprecamur Unless all that are at rest in Christ go to Purgatory it is plain that the Church of Rome prays for Saints who by the confession of all sides never were in Purgatory I could bring many more testimonies if they were needful but I summ up this particular with the words of S. Austin De curapto mortuis cap. 4. Non sunt praetermittendae supplicationes pro spiritibus mortuorum quas faciendas pro omnibus in Christiana Catholica societate defunctis etiam tacitis nominibus quorumque sub generali commemoratione suscepit Ecclesia The Church prays for all persons that died in the Christian and Catholic faith And therefore I wonder how it should drop from S. Austins pen De verbis Apostoli Serm. 17. Injuriam facit Martyri qui orat pro Martyre But I suppose he meant it only in case the prayer was made for them as if they were in an uncertain state and so it is probable enough but else his words were not only against himself in other places but against the whole practice of the ancient Catholic Church I remember that when it was ask'd of Pope Innocent by the Archbishop of Lyons Sacramentarium Gregor antiquum why the prayer that was in the old Missal for the soul of Pope Leo
the worship of images yet they were not Iconoclasts Indeed Claudius Taurinensis was but he could not put this story in for before his time it was in as appears in the book of Charles the great before quoted These things put together are more than sufficient to prove that this story was written by Epiphanius and the whole Epistle was translated by S. Hierome as himself testifies In Epist. 61. 101. ad Pammach But after all this if there was any foul play in this whole affair the cosenage lies on the other side for some or other have destroyed the Greek original of Epiphanius and only the Latin copies remain and in all of them of Epiphanius's works this story still remains But how the Greek came to be lost though it be uncertain yet we have great cause to suspect the Greeks to be the Authors of the loss And the cause of this suspicion is the command made by the Bishops in the seventh Council Syn. 7. Act. 8. Can. 9. that all writings against images should be brought in to the Bishop of C. P. there to be laid up with the books of other heretics It is most likely here it might go away But however the good providence of God hath kept this record to reprove the follies of the Roman Church in this particular The authority of S. Austin reprehending the worship of images De moribus Eccles. lib. 1. c. 34. was urg'd from several places of his writings cited in the Margent In his first book de moribus Ecclesiae Jam videbitis quid inter ostentationem sinceritatem postremo quid inter superstitionis Sirenas portum religionis intersit Nolite mihi colligere professores Nominis Christiani nec professionis suae vim aut scientes aut exhibentes Nolite consectari turbas imperitorum qui vel in ipsâ verâ religione superstitiosi sunt vel ita libidinibus dediti ut obliti sint quid promiserint Deo Novi multos esse sepulchrorum picturarum adoratores novi multos esse qui luxuriosissimè super mortuos vivant he hath these words which I have now set down in the Margent in which describing among other things the difference between superstition and true religion he presses it on to issue Tell not me of the professors of the Christian name Follow not the troops of the unskilful who in true religion it self either are superstitious or so given to lusts that they have forgotten what they have promis'd to God I know that there are many worshippers of sepulchers and pictures I know that there are many who live luxuriously over the graves of the dead That S. Austin reckons these that are worshippers of pictures among the superstitious and the vitious is plain and forbids us to follow such superstitious persons Sed illa quà m vana sint quà m noxia quà m sacrilega quemadmodum à magnâ parte vestrum atque adeò penè ab omnibus vâ—bis non observentur alio volumine oftendere institâ—i Nunc vos illud admaneo ut aliquando Ecclesiae Catholicae maledicere definatis vituperando mores hominum quos ipsa condemnat quos quotidie tanquam malos filioâ— corrigere studeâ— But see what follows But how vain how hurtful how sacrilegious they are I have purpos'd to shew in another volume Then addressing himself to the Manichees who upon the occasion of these evil and superstitious practices of some Catholics did reproach the Catholic Church he says Now I admonish you that at length you will give over the reproaching the Catholic Church by reproaching the manners of these men viz. worshippers of pictures and sepulchers and livers riotously over the dead whom she her self condemns and whom as evil sons she endeavours to correct By these words now cited it appears plainly that S. Austin affirms that those few Christians who in his time did worship pictures were not only superstitious but condemned by the Church This the Letter writer denies S. Austin to have said but that he did say so we have his own words for witness Yea but 2. S. Austin did not speak of worshippers of pictures alone what then Neither did he of them alone say they were superstitious and their actions vain hurtful and sacrilegious But does it follow that therefore he does not say so at all of these because he says it of the others too But 3. neither doth he formally call them superstitions I know not what this offer of an answer means certain it is when S. Austin had complained that many Christians were superstitious his first instance is of them that worship pictures and graves But I perceive this Gentleman found himself pinch'd beyond remedy and like a man fastned by his thumbs at the whipping-post he wries his back and shrinks from the blow though he knows he cannot get loose In the Margent of the Dissuasive De fide symb c. 7. Contr. Adimant c. 13. there were two other testimonies of S. Austin pointed at but the * Pag. 27. Letter says that in these S. Austin hath not a word to any such purpose That is now to be tried The purpose for which they were brought is to reprove the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome in the matter of images It was not intended that all these places should all speak or prove the same particular but that which was affirmed in the text being sufficiently verified by the first quotation in the Margent the other two are fully pertinent to the main inquiry and to condemnation of the Roman doctrine as the first was of the Roman practice The words are these Neither is it to be thought that God is circumscribed in a humane shape that they who think of him should fancy a right or a left side or that because the Father is said to sit it is to be supposed that he does it with bended knees lest we fall into that sacriledge for which the Apostle Execrates them that change the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a corruptible man For for a Christian to place such an image to God in the Church is wickedness but much more wicked is it to place it in our heart So S. Austin Now this testimony had been more properly made use of in the next Section as more relating to the proper matter of it as being a direct condemnation of the picturing of God but here it serves without any sensible error and where ever it is it throws a stone at them and hits them But of this more in the sequel But the third testimony however it pleases A. L. to deny it does speak home to his part of the question Contr. Adimant c. 13. and condemns the Roman hypothesis the words are these See that ye forget not the testimony of your God which he wrote or that ye make shapes and images But it adds also saying Your God is a consuming fire and a zealous God
These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God he so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sense that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. pag. 57. E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls Pag. 57. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for adoration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repair'd upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod eolitur adoratur in parietibus deping atur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council
images in rich apparel and by pretending to make them nod their head to twinkle the eyes and even to speak the world is too much satisfied Some such things as these and the superstitious talkings and actings of their Priests made great impressions upon my Neighbours in Ireland and they had such a deep and religious veneration for the image of our Lady of Kilbrony that a worthy Gentleman who is now with God and knew the deep superstition of the poor Irish did not distrain upon his Tenants for his rents but carried away the image of the female Saint of Kilbrony and instantly the Priest took care that the Tenants should redeem the Lady by a punctual and speedy paying of their rents for they thought themselves Unblessed as long as the image was away and therefore they speedily fetch'd away their Ark from the house of Obededom and were afraid that their Saint could not help them when her image was away Now if S. Paul would have Christians to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols to avoid the giving offence to weak brethren much more ought the Church to avoid tempting all the weak people of her Communion to idolatry by countenancing and justifying and imposing such acts which all their heads can never learn to distinguish from idolatry I end this with a memorial out of the Councils of Sens and Mentz C. 14. who command moneri populum ne imagines adorent C. 41. apud Bellarmin lib. 2. de imag S. S. c. 22. Sect. Secunda propositio The Preachers were commanded to admonish the people that they should not adore images And for the Novelty of the practice here in the British Churches it is evident in Ecclesiastical story that it was introduc'd by a Synod of London about the year 714. under Bonifacius the Legat and Bertualdus Archbishop of Dover and that without disputation or inquiry into the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it but wholly upon the account of a vision pretended to be seen by Eguinus Bishop of Worcester the Virgin Mary appearing to him and commanding that her image should be set in Churches and worshipped That Austin the Monk brought with him the banner of the Cross and the image of Christ Beda tells and from him Baronius and Binius affirms that before this vision of Egwin the cross and image of Christ were in use but that they were at all worshipped or ador'd Beda saith not and there is no record no monument of it before this Hypochondrical dream of Egwin and it further appears to be so A. D. circitâ—r 792. because Albinus or Alcuinus an English-man Master of Charles the Great when the King had sent to Offa the book of C. P. for the worship of images wrote an Epistle against it ex authoritate-Divina scripturarum mir abiliter affirmatum and brought it to the King of France in the name of our Bishops and Kings Annal. part 1. saith Hovedon SECTION VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity AGainst all the authorities almost which are or might be brought to prove the Unlawfulness of Picturing God the Father or the Holy Trinity the Roman Doctors generally give this one answer That the Fathers intended by their sayings to condemn the picturing of the Divine Essence but condemn not the picturing of those symbolical shapes or forms in which God the Father or the Holy Ghost or the Blessed Trinity are supposed to have appeared To this I reply 1. That no man ever intended to paint the essence of any thing in the world A man cannot well understand an Essence and hath no Idea of it in his mind much less can a Painters Pensil do it And therefore it is a vain and impertinent discourse to prove that they do ill who attempt to paint the Divine Essence Vide Plutarch de Iside Osir. This is a subterfuge which none but men out of hope to defend their opinion otherwise can make use of 2. To picture God the Father in such symbolical forms in which he appear'd is to picture him in no form at all for generally both the Schools of the Jews and Christians consent in this that God the Father never appear'd in his person for as S. Paul affirms he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see He always appeared by Angels or by fire or by storm and tempest by a cloud or by a still voice he spake by his Prophets and at last by his Son but still the adorable majesty was reserved in the secrets of his glory 3. The Church of Rome paints the Holy Trinity in forms and symbolical shapes in which she never pretends the Blessed Trinity did appear as in a face with three Noses and four Eyes one body with three heads and as an old man with a great beard and a Popes Crown upon his head and holding the two ends of the transverse rafter of the Cross with Christ leaning on his breast and the Holy Spirit hovering over his head And therefore they worship the images of God the Father the Holy Trinity figures which as is said of Remphan and the Heathen Gods and Goddesses themselves have made which therefore must needs be idols by their own definition of idolum sâ—mulachrum rei non existentis for never was there seen any such of the Holy Trinity in Unity as they most impiously represent And if when any thing is spoken of God in Scripture allegorically they may of it make an image to God they would make many more Monsters than yet they have found out For as Durandus * In 3. sent dist 9. q. 2. n. 15. well observes If any one shall say that because the Holy Ghost appeared in the shape of a Dove and the Father in the old Testament under the Corporal forms that therefore they may be represented by images we must say to this that those corporal forms were not assumed by the Father and the Holy Spirit and therefore a representation of them by images is not a representation of the Divine person but a representation of that form or shape alone Therefore there is no reverence due to it as there is none due to those forms by themselves Neither were these forms to represent the Divine persons but to represent those effects which those Divine persons did effect And therefore there is one thing more to be said to them that do so Rom. 1. 23. They have chang'd the glory of the incorruptible God into the similitude of a mortal man Now how will the Reader imagine that the Dissuasive is confuted and his testimonies from Antiquity answered Pag. 60. Why most clearly E. W. saith that one principle of S. John Damascen doth it it solves all that the Doctor hath or can alledge in this matter Well! what is this principle The words are these and S. Austin points at the same Quisnam est qui invisibilis corpore vacantis ac circumscriptionis figurae
not fully observed others according to the quality of the matter and time being obliterated or abrogated by the Magistery of the whole Church De Coron milit cap. 3. â— Tertullian speaks of divers unwritten Customs of which tradition is the author custom is the confirmer and faith is the observer Such are the renunciations in the office of Baptism trine Immersion tasting milk and honey abstinence from the Bath for a week after the receiving the Eucharist before day or in the time of their meal from the hand of the presisidents of Religion anniversary oblations on birth-days and for the dead not to fast not to kneel on Sundays perpetual festivities from Easter to Whitsuntide not to endure without great trouble bread or drink to fall upon the ground and at every motion to sign the forehead with the sign of the Cross. Some of these are rituals and some are still observed and some are superstitious and observ'd by no body and some that are not may be if the Church please these indeed were traditions or customes before his time but not so much as pretended to be Apostolical but if they were are yet of the same consideration with the rest If they be customs of the Church they are not without great reason and just authority to be laid aside But are of no other argument against Scripture than if all the particular customs of all Churches were urg'd For if they had come from the Apostles as these did not yet if the Apostles say dicit Dominus they must be obeyed for ever but if the word be dico ego non Dominus the Church hath her liberty to do what in the changing times is most for edification And therefore in these things let the Church of Rome pretend what traditions Apostolical she please of this nature the Church may keep them or lay them aside according to what they judge is best For if those Canons and traditions of the Apostles of which there is no question and which are recorded in Scripture yet are worn out and laid aside those certainly which are pretended to be such and cannot be proved cannot pass into perpetual obligation whether the Churches will or no. I shall not need upon this head to consider any more instances because all the points of Popery are pretended to rely upon Tradition The novelty of which because I shall demonstrate in their proper places proving them to be so far from being traditions Apostolical that they are mere Innovations in Religion I shall now represent the uncertainty and fallibility of the pretence of Traditions in ordinary and the certain deceptions of those who trust them the impossibility of ending many questions by them I shall not bring the usual arguments which are brought from Scriptures against traditions because although those which Christ condemns in the Pharisees and the Apostles in Heretical persons are not reprov'd for being Traditions but for being without Divine authority that is they are either against the Commandment of God or without any warrant from God yet if there be any traditions real and true that is words of God not written they if they could be shown would be very good But then I desire the same ingenuity on the other side and that the Roman Writers would not trouble the Question or abuse their Readers by bringing Scriptures to prove their traditions not by shewing they are recorded in Scripture 2. Thes. 2. but by bringing Scriptures where the word tradition is nam'd 2. Tim. 2. For besides that such places cannot be with any modesty pretended as proofs of the particular traditions it is also certain that they cannot prove that in General there are or can be any unrecorded Scripture when the whole Canon should be written consign'd and entertain'd For it may be necessary that traditions should be call'd on to be kept before Scriptures were written and yet afterwards not necessary and those things which were deliver'd and are not in Scripture may be lost because they were not written and then that may be impossible for us to do which at first might have been done But this being laid aside I proceed to Considerations proper to the Question 1. Tertullian S. Hierom and S. Austin are pretended the Great Patrons of Tradition and they have given rules by which we shall know Apostolical Traditions and it is well they do so for sand ought to be put into a glass and water into a vessel something to limit the running element that when you have receiv'd it you may keep it A nuncupative record is like figures in the air or diagrams in sand the air and the wind will soon disorder the lines And God knowing this and all things else would not trust so much as the Ten words of Moses to oral tradition but twice wrote them in Tables of Stone with his own singer Clem. Alexan. Strom. lib. 1. pag. 276. I know said S. Clement that many things are lost by length of time for want of writing and therefore I of necessity make use of memorials and collection of Chapters to supply the weakness of my memory And when S. Ignatius in his journey towards Martyrdom confirm'd the Churches through which he passed by private exhortations as well as he was permitted he exhorted them all to adhere to the tradition of the Apostles meaning that doctrine which was preach'd by them in their Churches and added this advice or caution Eusib lib. 3. That he esteem'd it was necessary that this Tradition should be committed to writing Eccles. hist. c. 35. Graec. that it might be preserv'd to posterity and Reports by word of mouth are uncertain that for want of good Records we cannot tell who was S. Peter's Successor immediately whether Clemens Theo loret l. r. c. 8. Eccles. hipâ— Linus or Anacletus and the subscriptions of S. Paul's Epistles having no record but the Uncertain voice of Tradition are in some things evidently mistaken and in some others very uncertain And upon the same account we cannot tell how many Bishops were conven'd at Nice Eusebius says they were 250. S. Athanasius says they were just 300. Eustratius in Theodoret Bellar. de Concil Eccles. l. 1. c. 5. Sect. De numerâ— says they were above 270. Sozomen says they were about 310. Epiphanius and others say they were 318. And when we consider how many pretences have been and are daily made of Traditions Apostolical which yet are not so a wise man will take heed lest his credulity and good nature make him to become a fool S. Clemens Alexandrinus says that the Apostles preach'd to dead Infidels and then rais'd them to life and that the Greeks were justified by their Philosophy and accounts these among the Ancient Traditions Epist. ad Episc. Antioch Pope Marcellus was bold to say that it was an Apostolical Tradition or Canon that a Council could not be called but by the authority of the Bishop of Rome
but the Churches in the first ages practis'd otherwise and the Greeks never believ'd it nor are all the Latin Churches of that opinion as shall be shown in the sequel The second Canon of the Council in Trullo commands observation of no less than fourscore and five Canons Apostolical deliver'd to the Church but besides that no Church keeps them there are not many who believe that they came from the Apostles S. Austin said that the Communicating of Infants was an Apostolical Tradition but neither the Protestants nor the Papists believe him in that particular Stromat lib. 1. lib. 2. c. 39. Clemens Alexandrinus said that Christ preach'd but one year S. Irenaeus confutes that Tradition vehemently and said it was an Apostolical Tradition That Christ was about 50 years of age when he died and therefore it must be that he preach'd almost 20 years for the Scripture says Matth. 4. 17. Jesus began to be about 30 years old Marc. 1. 14. when he was baptiz'd and presently after he began to preach Luc. 3. 23. Now this story of the great age of Christ Irenaeus says That all the old men that were with Saint John the Disciple of our Lord say that S. John did deliver unto them Nay not only so but some of them heard the same from others also of the Apostles There were many more of such traditions the day would fail to reckon all the Vnwritten Mysteries of the Church Cap. 29. said the Author of the last Chapters of the Book de Spiritu Sancto falsly imputed to S. Basil and yet he could reckon but a few all the rest are lost and of those that remain some are not at all observ'd in any Church But there cannot be a greater instance of the vanity of pretending Traditions than the collection of the Canons Apostolical by Clement Lib. 1. c. 18. Câ—â—h fide which Damascen reckons as parts of the New Testament that is equal to Canonical Writings of the Apostles but Isidore Hispalensis says they were Apocryphal made by hereticks and publish'd in the name of the Apostles Apud Gratian. dist 16. c. Canonâ—s but neither the Fathers nor the Church of Rome did give assent to them and yet their authority is receiv'd by many in the Church of Rome even at this day But it is to be observ'd that men accept them or refuse them not according to their authority which in all the first fifty at least is equal But if they be for their interest then they are Apostolical if against them then they are interpolated and Apocryphal and spurious and heretical as it hath happened in the fifth Canon and the 8â…˜ But this is yet more manifest if we consider what * Tract 26. in Matth. Oportet causè considerare ut nec omnia secreta quae feruntur nomine Sanctorum suscipiamus propter Judaeâ—s qui fortè ad destructionem veritatis Scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa nec omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent ad demonstrationem Scripturarum nostrarum magni ergo viri est audire adimplere quod dictum est Omni probate quod bonum est tenere Tamen propter eos qui non possunt quasi Trapezitae inter verba discernere vera hobeantur an falsa non possunt semetipsos cautè◠servare ut verum quidem teneant apud se ab omni autem specie malâ abstineant nemo uti dâ—bâ—t ad confirmationem dogmatum libris qui sunt extra Canonizatas Scripturas Origen says No man ought for the confirmation of doctrines or opinions to use books which are not Canoniz'd Scriptures Now for ought appears to the contrary many Traditions were two or three hundred years old the first day they were born and it is not easie to reckon by what means the Fathers came or might come to admit many things to be Tradition and themselves were not sure therefore they made rules of their conjecture presumptions and sometimes weak arguings It will be much more hard for us to tell which are right and which are wrong who have nothing but their rules which were then but conjectural and are since prov'd in many instances to be improbable 1. Such is that rule of S. Austin Lib. 4. de baptis contr Donat. c. 24. c. 6. Whatsoever was anciently receiv'd and not instituted so far as men looking back may observe by posterity that is not decreed by Councils may most rightly be believ'd to descend from Apostolical Tradition That is if we do not know the beginning of an universal custom we may safely conclude it to be Primitive and Apostolick Which kind of rule is something like what a witty Gentleman said of an old man and an old woman in Ireland that if they should agree to say that they were Adam and Eve no man living could disprove them But though these persons are so old that no man remembers their beginning and though a custom be immemorial and hath prevail'd far and long yet to reduce this to the beginning of things may be presum'd by him that a mind to it but can never convince him that hath not And it is certain this rule is but a precarious pitiful Presumption since every ancient custom that any succeeding age hath a mind to continue may for the credit of it and the ignorance of the original like new upstart Gentlemen be entituled to an Honourable House Every one believes the Commandments of his Ancestors to be Traditions Apostolical said S. Hierom And that these came in by private authority and yet obtain'd a publick name we have competent warranty from Tertullian De Coronâ Milit. c. 4. who justifies it thus far Do you not think it lawful for every faithful man to appoint what ever he thinks may please God unto discipline and salvation And From whomsoever the Tradition comes regard not the Author but the Authority And S. Irenaeus tells Apud Euseb. l. 5. c. 26. Gr. 24. Lâ—t that the variety of keeping Lent which puts in strongly also to be an Apostolical Tradition began among his Ancestors who did not accurately observe their customs who by a certain simplicity or private authority appointed any thing for their posterity So that here it is apparent that every private man that was of an ancient standing in the Church might introduce customs and usages which himself thought pious And next it is also evident that when these customs deriv'd from their Ancestors hapned to continue in a lasting use their posterity was very apt to call them Traditions Apostolical according to * Lib. de Coronâ Militis Si legem nusquam reperio sequitur ut Traditio consuetudini morem hunc dederit habitu um quandóque Apostoli authoritatem ex interpretatione rationis Tertullian who confessed this very thing Thus things indifferent being esteem'd useful or pious became customary and then came for reverence into a putative and usurp'd authority But they