to be High Priests or Priests of that order which himself is and that it is the person of Christ who offers and not of the Minister then indeed there is a fit Priest for the Sacrifice But then it must be proved which can never be that Christ in his own person undertakes this Office in every Mass and then it must also be granted that no man in the Church of Rome can pretend any more to offer this Sacrifice than he can pretend to be the person of Christ 31. Wherefore (h) de Mis l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmine gives us their sense to this purpose The Sacrifice of the Mass is offered by Christ by the Church and by the Minister but in a different manner Christ offers it by a Priest a man as his proper Minister the Church offer as the people offer by their Priest so Christ offers by an inferior the Church by a superior the Minister offers as a true but ministerial Priest Now this pretends an authority from Christ but the Office of performing this Sacrifice to be in the Priest And to this purpose the Council of Trent (i) Sess 22. both declares Christ to have commanded his Apostles and their successors in the Priesthood that they should offer this Sacrifice and also bestow one of their rash Anathema's on him who shall say that Christ did not make his Apostles Priests or did not ordain that they should offer his Body and Blood when he said Do this in remembrance of me But as there is no expression in these words of Christ or any other to shew that he instituted his Apostles and their Successors to be such Priests as to offer a proper propitiatory Sacrifice so it appears that the state of the Gospel doth not admit of any person but only Christ himself to offer his own Body and Blood as a proper and compleat propitiatory Sacrifice since none else are or can be of that Office of Priesthood to which it belongs to offer this Sacrifice nor is any other capable of performing the necessary Rites thereof 32. Cons 4. The great effects of Christs Sacrifice cannot be attributed to any repeated Sacrifice Cons 4. The great benefits from the merits of Christs Sacrifice are wholly procured by that one offering of himself when he died and gave himself a Sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour and now lives for ever to pursue the ends thereof And therefore there neither can nor need be any other propitiatory Sacrifice of Christs Body and Blood For that Sacrifice of Christ which was offered by himself and made satisfaction for sin did thereby obtain the grace and gave a compleat and abiding sanction to the terms of the Gospel Covenant that through his name all who believe and obey may through his mediation receive remission of sins and all other blessings of the Covenant Now the Eucharist as a Sacrament confirms the benefits of this Covenant and exhibits the blessings thereof But the Eucharist cannot now since the death of Christ give such a Sanction and establishment to the new Covenant that from it that Covenant should receive its sureness and validity as it did from Christ's real Sacrifice nor are any new terms of grace superadded to that But the validity of the new Covenant is supposed in the administration of the Eucharist And Christs own offering obtained to himself that high exaltation whereby he can give repentance and remission of sins and is a continual Intercessor and Advocate and therefore lives to execute his own last Will and Testament and to bestow the benefits of that propitiatory Sacrifice which he hath offered Now these which were the great things procured by his Sacrifice have such a peculiar respect to his own offering himself that it is impossible they should have any dependance upon any after-celebration of the Eucharist especially when this Sacrament must have its vertue from that new Covenant established and from the exaltation of Christ And since by that Sacrifice Christ is a propitiation for the sins of the whole World there is need of no renewed expiatory Sacrifice to extend or apply the benefits thereof to particular persons which is sufficiently done in the Eucharist as a Sacrament and in other Ministerial administrations dispensing in Gods name and by his authority the blessings of the new Covenant to pious penitent and believing persons 33. I might here also observe that (k) Barrad Conc. Evang. Tom. 4. l. 3. c. 16. some of the Romanists themselves declare that Christ doth not merit in the Sacrament of the Eucharist because the state of heavenly Glory in which he is excludes merit but here are presented to God the infinite merits of his death on the Cross Now if this be true and the reason given for it is not inconsiderable it must needs exclude any propitiatory Sacrifice from the Eucharist But I shall further observe that those admirable acts of the obedience of Christ in the wonderful humiliation of his life and death and submitting himself according to his Fathers will to suffer even the death of the Cross were of high value for the making his propitiatory Sacrifice which himself offered available in the sight of God to procure his blessing to man But now since our Lord sits at Gods right hand there is no such further humiliation nor need there be since what he once did was of such unspeakable merit and worth to give any new merits of like nature to renewed proper propitiatory Sacrifices But the merits of his life and death are of infinite and sufficient vertue And whereas Christ neither appointed that there should be nor declared that there is any proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist he who can think against plain evidence that in the first celebration of the Eucharist Christ offered himself a proper propitiatory Sacrifice and consequently that he died really the night before he was crucified and was dead when his Disciples heard him speak and conversed with him alive hath a mind and belief of a fit size to receive this and several other strange Doctrines of the Church of Rome But besides what I have here said if Transubstantiation be a Doctrine contrary to truth of which I shall discourse in the (l) Sect. 4. n. 14-25 next Section the foundation of the Proper Propitiatory Sacrifice is thereby removed 34. Of additional Doctrines in the Church of Rome To these Instances I may further add that the Romish Church superadding to the Christian Religion many new Doctrines as necessary points of Faith doth hereby also derogate from the authority of our Saviour For this casts a disparagement upon his revelation Christ and his Apostles made a full declaration of the Christian Doctrine insomuch that whosoever shall teach any other Doctrine is under the Apostolical Anathema Gal. 1.8 9. which (m) Cont. lit Petil. l. 3. c. 6. S. Austin extends so far as to apply that Anathema to him whosoever he be who shall teach any
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy Sect. 1. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World p. 141 Sect. 2. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery p. 159 Sect. 3. Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome and are by the Authority thereof established which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour p. 186 Sect. 4. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God p. 214 Sect. 5. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy p. 241 CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly Sect. 1. Of Quakers p. 262 Sect. 2. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion p. 275 Sect. 3. Of Anabaptists p. 279 Sect. 4. Of Independents p. 292 An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Discourse Intituled Sure-Footing in Christianity THE first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith p. 321 Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 330 An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture p. 349 An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 367 An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it p. 383 An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori p. 404 An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie p. 416 An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori p. 433 An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority p. 451 Answer to his Corollaries p. 460 An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse p. 468 Sect. 1. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures p. 469 Sect. 2. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith p. 473 Sect. 3. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith p. 476 Sect. 4. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice p. 478 Sect. 5. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council p. 484 Sect. 6. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople p. 486 Sect. 7. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus p. 487 Sect. 8. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon p. 489 Sect. 9. Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine p. 491 Sect. 10. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus p. 492 Sect. 11. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith p. 497 Sect. 12. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian p. 501 Sect. 13. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith p. 506 Sect. 14. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius p. 507 Sect. 15. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil p. 510 Sect. 16. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith p. 512 Sect. 17. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith p. 515 Sect. 18. Answering the remainder of his Discourse p. 516 Sermons Preached upon several Occasions A Sermon Preached at Lyn S. Margaret 's at the Bishop's Visitation Octob. 15. 1677. on 2 Cor. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation p. 523 A Sermon Preached at Norwich March 2. 1678. on Joel 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart p. 555 A Sermon Preached on S. Matth. 5.20 For I say unto you That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven p. 577 OF REPROACHING AND CENSURE The First Part Concerning the irregular Excesses and great Sinfulness of uncharitable evil-speaking especially of Superiours CHAP. I. Some preparatory considerations concerning the evil of Reproaching 1. REligion hath that general influence upon the life of the pious man that it commands and governs his thoughts and affections his words and actions But where the true rules of piety are neglected very many indulge themselves in great disorder and miscarriages in every one of these particulars Among other things a strange licentious liberty is taken by no small number of men in speaking injuriously and casting reproaches and unreasonable censures upon others contrary to the rules of our Christian profession yea even upon men of the best principles and the best lives and not sparing our Rulers and Governours in Church and State 2. And this evil temper hath so far insinuated it self Evil speaking a vice dangerously prevailing at this time and is become so spreading and so open and manifest that I account it one of the prevailing vices of our dayes And when men are ashamed to own many other sinful practices or to shew any approbation of them as of drunkenness swearing uncleanness oppression and such like uncharitable speeches of others are entertained with a secret delight and pleasure and oft with open expressions of satisfaction And this shews the great defilement of this sin which not only prevails on the passions and affections by corrupting and disordering them but it also debaucheth and perverteth the very inward principles of Conscience it self I wish that with respect to very many persons we had not now just cause to take up the complaint of (a) Naz. Or. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it ought to be reproved and checked Gr. Nazianzen concerning the time he lived in That that man was best esteemed of not he who being governed by the fear of God durst not speak an idle word but he who speaketh the most contumeliously against others either openly or by sly intimations 3. And therefore I shall now design to speak
mixture of hearty sorrow that so much evil should prevail in the world and that so many persons divers of whom intend well should be led away thereby And I humbly beseech Almighty God of his mercy and goodness to bless and give good success to all those labours which are undertaken to guide men into the right wayes of truth and peace 26. I know that many men account him to be wanting in kindness The nature of true kindness and love to men under mistakes and error and love to others who undertakes to lay open their mistakes and miscarriages how sincere and beneficial soever his intentions be yea though this be managed with the greatest tenderness and prudence even as indiscreet Children have hard and unkind apprehensions of him who openeth their sores though it be for their cure and such a person with many men shall rather be ranked amongst revilers and reproachers than amongst the number of Friends And they account that to be kindness and love when any one is ready to speak in favour of them and their actions and will take care to hide their faults and errors whensoever he discerns them And this kind of behaviour is indeed in a due measure an Office of charity in the case of private failings where the offender is sufficiently sensible of his miscarriage and affected with it But it is much otherwise where things that deserve blame are publickly declared and professed and are justified and vindicated or indeed where they are kept more private but without any penitent resentment of them Yet these cases fall under different Rules and considerations If this were true kindness as it cannot be towards men who themselves do amiss and by their examples and perswasions would engage others to do the like to flatter and complement them and to encourage them that they do well to continue in those practices which are their errors and miscarriages then must our grand adversary the Devil be looked on as our kind friend who is very forward to sooth men in their faults and to perswade and intice them into a resolved continuance in them and to shut their ears and open their mouths against those who would advise them better But this is true Christian kindness love and goodness to follow the example of our Lord and to set our selves to do good and to preserve or reduce others from evil though in so doing we expose our selves to the censure and displeasure of bad men or of them who are misguided CHAP. II. The Principles and Practices maintained in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy SECT I. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World Sect. I 1. IN this Chapter I shall enquire The bad Principles and practices owned in the Church of Rome whether the Church of Rome and the Members thereof who practise upon the Principles they are there taught be not chargeable with things really very evil and infamous and which deserve to be greatly condemned In this discourse I shall not intend to take notice of all the considerable errors in doctrine and practice which are owned and espoused in that Church But I shall instance in so many as may be sufficient to satisfie any unprejudiced and impartial Reader of the great corruption of that Church and how hurtful and dangerous it is to be guided by it I acknowledge there hath been so much said already and so largely and plainly proved by divers Protestant Writers and by many of our own Church and particularly by many learned and worthy Discourses of Dr. Stillingfleet in this Controversie of late years that I do not pretend nor need I to add much that is material and considerable to what they have written nor indeed to say so much as they have done upon those Arguments of which I shall discourse But yet I think such Remarks as I shall make may be of so much use to some persons as to give them a satisfactory account how necessary it is to avoid the Romish gross Errors 2. Several Heads of these proposed And what I shall here consider I shall reduce unto five-Heads First to give some instances of the principles and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance against the peace and good order of the Church and of the world and the violation of the rights both of secular Rulers and of other Churches and Bishops Secondly Of such things as are plain obstacles and hindrances to an holy life Thirdly Of those practices and opinions which derogate from the dignity and authority of our Saviour Fourthly of some things which debase the Majesty of God and deprive him of that glory and worship which is due unto him Fifthly Of such things as represent Religion and the Doctrines thereof as a thing contrived or ordered to serve the interests of worldly designs or human Policy And in treating of the several instances I shall give I desire my Reader to observe that since I use these Heads in part for Method and Order sake that which is to be considered in them is not only how aptly they are digested under these several heads though I think that is sufficiently clear but especially whether they do not manifestly contain what is false evil and opposite to Christianity And therefore it may be further noted that several things which I shall treat of are upon other accounts also evil and blameable besides the respect they bear to those particular Heads under which I do digest them 3. Observ 1. Popish Principles opposite to peace and due order First I shall enquire into the principles and allowed practices of sedition and disturbance against peace and good order of the Church and the world Here I shall not need to prove that true Religion and the Christian temper greatly promotes peaceableness and establisheth justice and righteousness in the earth And that the doing wrong and injury the prosecuting unjust claims and invading the rights and properties of others as also the embroiling any part of the World in discord and confusion in wars and tumults and in Sedition and Rebellion is exceeding contrary to our holy Religion For the true principles of Morality and the light of nature will direct men who are not influenced by interest and passion to condemn and detest such things as these Wherefore taking this for granted I shall in the first place reflect on the injurious demeanour of them at Rome towards secular Princes in claiming to the Romish Bishop an universal Soveraignty over Kings and Princes with a Power to depose them and dispose of their Kingdoms That the Pope makes and hath oft acted upon this claim of Sovereign Supremacy I have shewed (a) Christ Loyalty B. 1. ch 6. Sec. 2. in another Treatise And that the power of deposing Kings is owned as a Doctrine of the Romish Church I have
caused that Law to be transmitted to several parts of the Empire but yet had plainly written to him how much it was against God And then adds utrobique ergo quod debui exolvi qui Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro Deo quod sensi minime tacui On both hands therefore I have performed what I ought I have yielded obedience to the Emperour and I have not forborn to speak what was my judgement on the behalf of God And in this Epistle also and in others frequently he owns Mauritius to be his Lord and himself to be his Servant And the usual subterfuge of Romish Writers that what the Popes have spoken in such a respect to Emperours was from humility and gracious condescension only can have no place here For he went as far as any Subject in his capacity might do in what he was perswaded was unlawful and further than he might do who was no Subject In humility he might dispense with his own right but not with what concerns God and Religion 15. These things do so plainly shew that those ancient Bishops acknowledged the Emperour to be their Superiour even in constituting Laws and doing other acts which had respect to the state of Religion that I think it unnecessary to add other instances which might be given for many Centuries The known expression of Otho Frisingensis declares Gregory the Seventh to be the first of the Roman Bishops who usurped the deposing power But Conradus (f) Ursp p. 336. Vrspergensis differing herein from Otho whom he mentions seems to fix the first Original of these Papal proceedings upon Gregory the Third who above seven hundred years after Christ in the contest concerning Images where it might have been expected that he who was so earnest for the adoration of Images should have highly honoured the Emperour who bare the impress of Divine authority did (g) ibid. p. 286. forbid Italy to pay any tribute to Leo Isaurus the Emperour and deprived him of his rights there But it is manifest that all the Roman Bishops who succeeded him were not of the like spirit and temper Above an hundred years after him Leo the Fourth (h) Gratian. Dist 10. de capitulis and to Leo the Fourth assures Lotharius the Emperour that he would as much as he was able irrefragably keep and observe his imperial precepts and that they were lyars who should suggest the contrary concerning him and (i) c. 2. qu. 7. Nos si incompetenter he likewise submits his actions to be examined by the Emperour or such as he should commissionate and to be corrected or amended if he had done amiss and not kept to the right rule of the Law 16. But the main hurt of this pretended Papal power so much contended for at Rome is not only the disturbing peace Such Principles of Rebellion lead men to damnation fomenting Wars and unjust invading the right of Princes but besides the ambition therein contained by stirring up Subjects in rebellion against their Soveraigns it puts them according to S. Paul's Doctrine into a state of damnation Rom. 13.2 And such rebellious practices are the more promoted by those frantick principles of many of the Church of Rome which have spread themselves also amongst other Sects which give liberty to Subjects without respect to the Popes Sentence to take away the lives of Princes It is too clear to be denied that such Positions are maintained by divers of the Jesuits and it must be granted also that there is truth in what some of the Jesuits have observed that the like was asserted by other Writers in the Church of Rome before the first institution of that Order 17. The Pope's usurped claim over other Churches and Bishops There is also great disorder and evil unduly occasioned in the Church by the claim the Roman See pretends to over all other Bishops and Churches To this authority she hath no just title but the exercise of this power did obtain and prevail in many Churches by various methods and degrees of encroachment And by this means both rights and also purity and due order are jointly violated Hence this Church obtrudes on others her pernicious Doctrines and practices under a pretence of authority And by the same means it hinders the necessary reformation of great and spreading corruptions and thunders out Censures against such Churches as reform themselves according to Primitive and Apostolical rules 18. Now such an Authority over all other Bishops and Churches could never be founded in any actual possession or in any human or Ecclesiastical constitution of what nature soever For an incroaching authority is void by the ancient Canons especially that of Ephesus and being an unjust possession ought to return to him who hath the true right And where there hath been any consent given to an unjust claim by misunderstanding or upon any other account or where any other act whatsoever hath been done by Princes falsty pretended to be of Divine Authority or by Bishops in any part of the Church to yield or convey any Superiour Authority to the Roman Bishop they cannot by any act of their own exclude themselves and their Successors from the obligation to perform their duty in duly guiding governing and reforming their people And therefore so far as the authority which Princes and Bishops have received from God and Christ doth oblige them to the performance of this work no pretended power of the Bishop of Rome nor any act done by any others or even by themselves can set them free from it But this universal Superiority is claimed by the Pope as not derived from any human Constitution but from the authority of Christ To which purpose the Catechism according to the Decree of the Council of Trent declares That the Catholick Church (k) Catech. ad Paroch c. de Ordinis Sacramento Summum in eo dignitatis gradum jurisdictionis amplitudinem non quidem ullis Synodicis aut aliis humanis constitutionibus sed divinitus datam agnoscit quamobrem omnium fidelium episcoporum caeterorumque antistitum quocunque illi munere potestate praediti sint pater ac moderator universali Ecclesiae ut Petri Successor Christique Domini verus legitimus vicarius praesidet doth acknowledge in him the Pope the highest degree of dignity and amplitude of Jurisdiction not given him by any Synodical or other human Constitutions but by Divine Authority wherefore he the Father and Governour of all the Faithful and of the Bishops and the rest who are in chief Authority whatsoever Office or Power they are indued with doth preside over the the Vniversal Church as the Successor of Peter and the true and lawful Vicar of Christ the Lord. 19. But notwithstanding this great noise it was unknown to the ancient Church no such Divine institution hath been or can be produced and pasce oves and tu es Petrus have been oft scanned and no such thing can be
found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
of the best members of the Church who are so far from them as all of the Romish Communion are obliged to be and are thereby guilty of heinous sin and of that which is greatly scandalous to Christianity SECT II. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery 1. I Shall now come to consider that there are such doctrines asserted by the Church of Rome and such practices established therein as are plain obstacles and hindrances to a holy life Holiness and purity are suitable to the nature of God and agreeable to the end of Christ's coming into the World to redeem us from all iniquity and to purifie to himself a peculiar people zealous of good works Obstacles in the Roman Church to an holy life Tit. 2.14 This is a compliance with his Gospel which is a doctrine according to Godliness and his Church which he founded is an holy Catholick Church And therefore nothing can be of God and Christ which is not agreeable to true goodness and piety but that must be contrary to God and Christianity which is opposite to holiness and a godly life But that the Church of Rome doth declare such Doctrines as undermine piety and holiness and establishes such constitutions and practices as are highly prejudicial thereunto I shall manifest by some particular instances And here I shall consider 2. 1. In their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution First Their Doctrine of Absolution This is such that it sooths men in their sins and thereby takes away the weighty Motive and Argument to holiness of life which is from the necessity thereof to avoid the wrath of God and endless perdition and to obtain the favour of God and everlasting salvation For this Church and the Writers thereof do generally teach that attrition though without contrition is a sufficient disposition or qualification for the receiving Priestly absolution and that persons so qualified and thereupon absolved are in a safe state as to the avoiding eternal damnation and the future enterance into everlasting happiness Now contrition includes a grief for and hatred of sin as it is an offence of God with a purpose and resolution not to go on in the practice of evil and this is conjoined with a chief love to God But attrition is a grief for sin in such a manner that it is not produced from nor containeth in it the chief love of God and goodness And when divers wayes are either asserted or disputed of by many Casuists concerning the difference between Attrition and Contrition Mart. Becanus speaks with much plainness and I think with truth when he tells us (a) Part. 3. Tr. 2. c. 35. Qu. 1. that contrition includes aversion from sin and conversion to God which is in loving him above all and that this principle of the love of God which includes consequently hatred of sin and turning from it is that thing in which contrition essentially differs from attrition and that all other differences or wayes of distinguishing them are either to be rejected as false or may be spared as being of little or no use 3. Now some Writers of the Romish Communion especially in former Ages have been of opinion that contrition is necessary to justification But this assertion is declared by (b) Tom. 4. Disp 3. Qu. 8. Punct 3. Gr. de Valentia to be sententia his presertim temporibus vix tolerabilis such an one as especially in these times is scarce fit to be tolerated And he calls the other the common opinion This (c) Bell. de poenit l. 2. c. 18. Bellarmine takes for granted and Becanus declares (d) ubi sup Qu. 6. omnes fatentur contritionem non esse necessariam in Sacramento Poenitentiae that all acknowledge that Contrition is not necessary in the Sacrament of Penance And these Writers and many others affirm the Council of Trent to have declared thus much And that Council plainly enough determines that Contrition (e) Sess 13 de poenitentia cap. 4. is a grief of mind for sin already committed with a purpose to do so no more and that this which encludes a hatred of the past evil life and the beginning of a new life when it hath Charity joined with it doth reconcile man to God before the actual receiving the Sacrament of Penance if there be a desire to partake thereof But then it adds concerning another sort of sorrow from the foulness of the sin or the fear of punishment ex peccati turpitudine vel ex supplicii metu and of this that Council determines that it cannot bring a sinner to justification without the Sacrament of Penance but it doth dispose him to obtain the favour of God in the Sacrament of Penance A bad life encouraged hereby Now the result of all this according to the plainest sense their own Authours give is that if a wicked man ready to go out of the world shall be troubled when he apprehends the foulness of his sins lest he should go to Hell which is attrition and shall then send to the Priest and receive Absolution this man though his bea rt be not turned from sin to God and to a love of him and of goodness will according to this loose Doctrine go out of the world in the favour of God and in a justified state And thus much is pretended to be effected by vertue of the Sacrament of Penance and Priestly Absolution 4. Now it is to be acknowledged that the true Ministerial Absolution is very profitable being in an eminent manner contained in dispensing the holy Sacraments and is of much greater weight than many men account it to be to them that believe and truly repent or to them who sincerely perform the conditions of the Gospel Covenant but no pretence of Absolution must be admitted to make void these conditions And it may be granted that in the Roman Church in some Societies there are rules of severity directed to them who are disposed to seriousness but this their Doctrine of Absolution takes off all necessity of observing any such rules or any vows whereby they obliged themselves to any duties or exercises of perfection so far as concerns the fear of God as to the interest of an eternal state And this Doctrine opens a gap to all licentiousness of life contrary to the rules of Christianity and all good conscience by the security it pretends to give of eternal happiness to wicked and debauched men who amend not their lives nor forsake their sins If this be truth then are all the promises and threatnings of the Gospel made void as they are Motives to the necessary duties of holiness and piety 5. Holiness of Christianity undermined hereby By such arts as this all the great precepts of Religion are made of none effect in order to salvation For if against
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
shape to their souls but referr to them by expressing the resemblance of the bodies in which they once dwelt and to which they were and shall be again united though now separated from them And therefore this notion allows the Images of God in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased not making any considerable difference betwixt these so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them 4. If this notion were of any weight the Jewish Church might then have been warranted in setting up Images of God and worshipping them also with respect to God provided they were not like him nor esteemed so to be And yet God plainly forbad their making any Image of him in the likeness of male or female or any other thing though he had sufficiently taught them and they well knew that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these And God declares his dislike against any such Images because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish and the laying down this reason doth sufficiently declare against all such Images as are not like to him 13. Secondly Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to which they profess to give that Latria or high worship which is due to the true God alone This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent (q) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God And in the beginning of that Session they strictly forbid all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise and their sixth Anathema is against him who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par de Euch. Sacr. in init huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament And the words of Adoration in the Missal and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament are accordingly to be understood to give Divine honour thereunto And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (Å¿) Instit Mor. part 2. l. 5. c. 16. species or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far and the Roman Catechism declares that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament as an excellent institution of our Saviour but reserve the Divine honour to God alone for there is nothing which is not truly God be it otherwise never so sacred to which such worship may be given S. Paul was an eminent Apostle but with detestation disclaimed the receiving it Act. 14.13 14 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution for the healing those Israelites who looked upon it but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince be given to any other in his Dominions though it be to one he hath highly advanced he will account this a disparaging his dignity and practising Treason and Rebellion and God who is a jealous God will not give his worship to another But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation This is grourded upon transubstantiation for if that substance which is in the Sacrament be no longer Bread and Wine but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ in union with his Divinity then and only then may Divine honour be given unto it And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ who is at Gods right hand and nothing else then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God which is proper Divine Worship as much to be performed to this Sacrament as to him in Heaven since both is substantially one and the same thing wholly and intirely The (t) Sess 13. c. 1 4 5. Anath 1. 2. Council of Trent declares that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a conversion of their whole substance into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ And they say the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity and therefore whole Christ are contained in the Eucharist but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not but only the species or appearance thereof and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament and it anathematizeth him whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation and forbids all Christians that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist than as this Council hath determined Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just but if this be false as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament administred according to Christs institution doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood with the benefits of his Sacrifice in an Heavenly Mystical and Sacramental way but the manner of this gracious presence it is needless curiously to enquire And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances yet are they greatly changed by their consecration from common Bread and Wine to contain under them such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries which is the effect of Divine power and grace Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ and the benefits of his Passion if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God in his Institutions who hath the disposal of this grace But that the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their substance and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ is generally asserted by all Protestants whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith and the new Roman Creed according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth which is so solemnly sworn unto Indeed there are such expressions frequently
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
corda lift up your hearts unto the Lord. And we glorifie the grace of God who bestows upon them who truly repent and believe such unspeakable benefits in the use of those means or signs which are otherwise mean than as they are sanctified to an holy and excellent use by the Institution of God and the right celebration of his Ordinance SECT V. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy 1. IN this last Section Of the Politick interests driven on in the Roman Church I shall consider some such things in the Church of Rome which represent Religion as it is by them professed to be a crafty contrivance of human policy or a cunning method to serve the particular interests of some men in the world True Religion which hath respect to the chief good and happiness of men doth indeed bring the greatest satisfaction to men in this world but this is not done by gratifying their inordinate affections but by commanding and subduing them But this being from God and having to do with him is a thing of the greatest simplicity and sincerity in the world and therefore proposeth nothing but what is true and good and suitable to God and his Honour And when things manifestly false or evil which are fitted to advance the outward interest of the proposers are obtruded under the disguise of Religion and required as things sacred to be received with the greatest veneration this gives too much appearance that under the name of Religion politick designs and fraudulent ends and purposes of men are managed And where such things are done Sect. V. it may tempt many of those who discover and understand them to cast off the serious sense of Religion it self Now very many things in the Romish Church appear designed to impose on and delude the people and by false pretences to advance the honour of the Pope especially and of their Clergy also and to gratifie the avarice of the Romish Court and enervate piety 2. Their Doctrine of Attrition and Absolution Divers of their errors carry on some interests seems contrived to make loose men who have little regard to God to have a mighty veneration for their Priest who notwithstanding their wicked life both can and will if they be taught right secure them in the other world upon such terms as Christ and his Gospel will not admit Their Service in a tongue not understood by the people is fitted to uphold the reputation of the Clergy among the Ignorant Vulgar as doth also the prohibiting the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue as is observed by (a) de Scr. q. l. non legendis c. 21. Ledesima Their Doctrine of Transubstantiation propitiatory Sacrifice and the conficient Priest alone receiving the Eucharist in one kind tend much to extol the dignity and greatness of their Clergy but the falseness of all these I have above discovered Their exempting their Clergy that as (b) M. Bec. Part. 2. Tr. 3. c. 6. Q. 11. Becanus saith they are not subject to Secular Princes nor can be punished by them nor are bound to observe their Laws out of obedience doth jointly tend to the advancement both of the Pope and the Clergy but is contrary to the true rules of Christianity as I have in another Discourse shewed And though amongst us the true honour of the Ministry which our Lord conferred upon it be by many too much neglected and disregarded we make not use of false methods for its support Besides these their feigned revelations and visions concerning matters of truth and Doctrine their many counterfeited Relicks as objects of veneration and their falsly pretended Miracles for the confirmation of their Doctrine are manifestly designed delusions to impose upon others that they may be admired by them 3. But because this Chapter hath been already very large I shall wave many things which might have been insisted on and shall only consider a few things which have a chief respect unto the Pope himself That the claim of the Papal Supremacy is in all the branches thereof groundless I have somewhat declared in the first Section of this Chapter and more fully in another Discourse there referred unto And that this is adapted to exalt the Papal dignity grandure and Soveraignty and to bring in vast revenues for its support needs not be suggested to any considering men And the Popes pretence to be S. Peter's Successor seems not to be ordered with plain and honest sincerity in his first entrance thereupon For at the time of his Coronation among other Rites one of the last is that (c) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 2. c. 3. fol. 40. the Pope must take his handful of money from his Chamberlain in which he must be sure to have neither silver nor gold and scattering it among the people must use those words of S. Peter Silver and Gold have I none Some things in the form of the Papal Coronation observed but what I have that give I you Now it seems not very fair and upright dealing that the Pope by being advanced to his See should pretend himself to be a Successor of S. Peters poverty especially when in order to his expressing thus much there is care taken before-hand that he must cautiously avoid the having all silver or gold in his hand If S. Peter himself had been known to have done thus when he used those words this would have been looked upon in him as a cheat and imposture which is one of the first things declared by his pretended Successor in such a case where he might uprightly and infallibly have spoken truth And a like abuse of holy Scripture is in that other Rite at his Coronation which goes immediately before this when the Pope is sat down or almost lies along upon a Marble Seat at the Lateran Church at Rome which Seat is called Stercoraria and one of the Cardinals lifts him up (d) ibid. using those words in Psal 113.7 8. Suscitat de pulvere egenum de stercore erigit pauperem ut sedeat cum principibus solium gloriae teneat Where what the Psalmist calleth a dunghill the Roman Church who would be accounted the faithful Interpreter of Scripture interpreteth concerning a stately Marble Seat But waving such things as these I shall enquire into two other things of greater moment and concern the one of Infallibility the second of delivering Souls from Purgatory by Indulgences and applying to them a fit proportion of the Churches Treasury 4. Concerning Infallibility Infallibility calculated for design This is a strange claim in such a Church where there are so many palpable errors contrary to the Doctrine of the Scriptures and the ancient Church But this pretence mightily serves their interest for if this be once believed and received all their other errors must thereupon be received with
497. at the Council of Trent declared against the Infallible judgment of Councils and thought he had proved that sufficiently by observing that all the particular Bishops there assembled were fallible and that therefore the firmness of its Constitutions and Anathemas must depend on the Popes Confirmation And yet it might be thought that the Providence of God may as well order the decisions of General Councils to be infallibly true in points of Faith for the guidance of his Church as that it should infallibly guide the Bishop of Rome whenever he teacheth Doctrines of Faith who in other cases and in his own person is acknowledged by his chief Advocates to be fallible even concerning Matters of Faith 7. But there are others or Oral Tradition who call themselves Members of that Church but are in no great favour and esteem at Rome who lay no stress upon the unerring judgments of either Pope or Council more than of other men but place a kind of Infallibility upon the certainty of Oral Tradition and thence conclude that whatsoever is delivered down in a Church by way of Tradition must be infallibly true because no Age could make any change therein This is Mr. White 's way and particularly asserted in (n) J. S. h. sure footing the Discourses of Mr. Serjeant But what is said in defence of this way is pure Sophistry And if such persons furnished with these Notions or Fancies had lived in the beginning of Christianity they might have been Advocates either for Paganism or the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees on whose behalf the indefectiveness of Tradition might have been urged as well as for the Church of Rome and almost in a persect Parallel 8. Secondly Infallibility is not owned by the chief of the Romanists who neither own the Pope's judgment nor the Councils in deciding controversies There is good reason to think that the chief men of the Church of Rome give little credit themselves to the pretence of Infallibility For in such great Controversies wherein considerable numbers of that Church are ingaged on both sides these have some of them for many Ages continued without any satisfactory decision from their Infallibility even in such cases where such a decision would contribute much to truth would end quarrels and be greatly useful for the guiding all mens Consciences And therefore the determining such things would be an excellent work of charity but the leaving them undetermined or at least the allowing the liberty of rejecting any pretended or real determination may be politick lest they should disoblige the contrary party I shall instance in that Question which is at some times of concernment to all Mens Consciences of their Communion whether the authority of the Pope or a General Council be the greater Which hath never yet been decided by the consent of a Pope and a General Council Indeed in some smaller Councils (o) 70 Decret l. 3. Tit. 7. c. 1. Leo the tenth did at the Lateran assert the Authority of the Pope above a Council And Pius the second in a Provincial Council at Mantua declared (p) Ibid. l. 2. Tit. 9. c. 1. appeals from a Pope to a future Council to be void and Schismatical which was also confirmed (q) Ibid. c. 2. by Julius the second But this way of decision is so little satisfactory among themselves that the Cardinal of Lorrain did in the Council of Trent openly declare (r) Hist Conc. Trid. l. 8. p. 580. that the Council was above the Pope and that this was the general sense of the French Church And divers other Bishops spake their judgments there to the same purpose 9. And the General Councils of Basil and Constance asserted the authority of the Council above the Pope and yet this is no satisfactory decision to them of the contrary opinion So that here we have the pretence to Infallibility whether in the Pope or in a General Council slighted by themselves as they think fit And this is a thing of such concern that if the highest authority be in the Council this must fix the Infallibility there also if there be any such thing because infallible determination must be by a Divine guidance and so must include God's Authority in that Determination to which none can be Superior If this be seated in the Council it would take down the Pope's Plumes If in the Pope the World might be spared the trouble of General Councils as a needless thing and then all those Christian Churches Emperors and Bishops which will take in divers Bishops of Rome were very imprudent who either laboured much for them or took any great satisfaction in them Wherefore it must needs be a business of design and not of integrity to make a loud noise about Infallibility to prevail thereby upon the Consciences of other men when they have so low an esteem of it themselves 10. Thirdly No Infallibility of the Roman Church Romish Infallibility unknown to Primitive Christianity was ever known or owned in the Primitive Church and therefore was never delivered by Christ or his Apostles but the pretence thereof is an Innovation of later date And whereas the Pope unjustly pretends to a singular right of Succession to the Authority and Prerogatives of S. Peter it is observable that S. Peter himself though an eminent and prime Apostle even in a Council had no peculiar gift of Infallibility or judgment of decision above other Apostles For in the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15. when after much disputation S. Peter had declared his sense v. 7 11. and after him S. James expressed his judgment v. 13 21. the final determination of that Council did much more follow the words of S. James than of S. Peter v. 19 20. with 28 29. Wherefore the claim of (ſ) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p. 552. Pius the fourth in his Epistle to the Emperor must have an higher Plea than that of Succession to S. Peter that if the Bishop of Rome be present in a Council he doth not only alone propose but he also alone decrees and the Council adds nothing but Approbation 11. Nor can it be imagined that if the Primitive Church had owned any Infallibility in the Pope or Romish Church that so Pious and good a Bishop as Cyprian would so earnestly have opposed the declaration of Stephen Bishop of Rome concerning the Baptism of Hereticks But he not only declares Stephen to (t) Cyp. Ep. 74. be in an error but declares him to have written proudly impertinently ignorantly and imprudently which sufficiently shews him to have known nothing of his Infallibility And (u) Inter Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75. Firmilianus a renowned Bishop of Cappadocia declares his sense against the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen also approving S. Cyprian's answer to it and using severe expressions against the behaviour and determination of Stephen as bold insolent and evil improbè gesta And (w) Sent. Episcop Conc. Carth. in
Cypr. a Carthaginian Council of eighty seven Bishops did unanimously declare their judgment for the baptizing Hereticks who returned to the Church which was contrary to what the Bishop of Rome had determined And that this Council did sit after Cyprian had received the Epistle and Judgment of Stephen Bishop of Rome is observed by (x) Argum. Ep. Cyp. 73. Pamelius Now though all these Bishops were in an error in accounting the Baptism of all Hereticks to be null and that they ought generally to be Baptized when they returned to the Church yet it cannot be supposed that they were so obstinately resolved in their error as to reject the infallible evidence of truth When many of these very Bishops who lived to understand their error did as (y) Dial adv Lucifer S. Hierome testifies disclaim and reject it and that Cyprian himself did so as did also those parts of the Eastern Church who adhered to Firmilian is judged not improbable by S. (z) Aug. Ep. 48. Austin though it was not certain But hence it appears that since Stephen's determination was slighted and opposed by such eminent Bishops both of the Carthaginian and Eastern Church who sincerely designed to embrace the truth no such thing was then owned as the Infallibility of the Romish Bishop And if Stephen did so generally declare against the Baptizing any who returned from any Heresie whatsoever as he seems to do in the words of his Epistle cited by (a) Ep. 74. S. Cyprian si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos c. he erred on the one hand as they did on the other and the determination of the general (b) Conc. Nic. c. 19. Council of Nice and of (c) Conc. Const c. 7. Constantinople takes the middle way requiring some sort of Hereticks who kept the substantial form of Baptism to be received upon their former Baptism and that others should be baptized when they returned to the Church 12. And the Practical judgment of the ancient Church is concerning this case sufficiently manifest in that when Heresies arose and their errors and impieties appeared necessary to be condemned and the Catholick Doctrine was necessary to be declared and confirmed by the greatest and fullest judgment which could be made in the Church this was not done by application to the particular Church of Rome only but by the summoning General Councils which with all the troublesome Journeys and expences attending them had been a very needless and vain thing if the Romish Infallibility had then been owned And in the four first General Councils the Bishop of Rome was personally present in none of them nor was his particular Sanction thought necessary to confirm them but they were all held in the Eastern parts of the Church and all of them desired and obtained the Imperial Confirmation with respect to their external force and effect And the (d) v Crackenthorp's Vigilius Dormitans None infallible who oppose the Doctrine of Christ and contradict themselves fifth General Council was managed perfectly contrary to the mind and sense of Vigilius then Bishop of Rome 13. Fourthly Since so many Doctrines and Practices are asserted in the Church of Rome which are plainly contrary to the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles of which several instances are given in this Chapter that Church ought not nor cannot be owned infallible by those who own the Holy Scriptures and Christ and his Apostles to be so Besides this I might add that the Romish Bishops themselves have oft some of them at one time contradicted what others of them at other times have affirmed The Constitution of Boniface the Eighth was revoked by (e) Clement in l 3. Tit. 17. c. 1. Clemens the Fifth as scandalous and dangerous And I above observed that regal Supremacy in temporals is owned by Innocentius the Third but is disowned in the stile of many Bulls of Deposition by other Popes But there needs no other testimony against any pretended Infallibility than its being contradicted in what it delivers by that evidence which is certainly infallible And there can scarce be a greater imposture and delusion than such a false pretence as this which is designed both as a prop to uphold the whole bulk and fabrick of Popery and a contrivance to raise a very high veneration thereof 14. Secondly Of Indulgences and the pretence of freeing souls from Purgatory thereby I shall consider the pretended power of securing offenders from Purgatory or releasing their souls out of it partly by the Priests Masses and chiefly by the Popes Indulgences and being interested thereby in that treasure of the Church which he hath power to dispense For the Romanists tell us that as there is in sin a fault and in mortal sins an obligation to eternal punishment which is discharged in the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution so there is an obligation to temporal punishment even in venial sins and if this be not sufficiently undergone in this life by way of satisfaction it must be made up by the sufferings of Purgatory And thus a model is contrived and drawn up to shew how sinners may escape these evils of sin without amendment Now sin indeed is of that pernicious and hurtful nature in every respect that by reason of it God sometimes punisheth persons and Families even after true repentance and receiving the person into his particular favour and such were the judgements on Davids House after his Murther and Adultery And I esteem the practices of sin and vice to be so hurtful that though they be sincerely repented of if that repentance and the fruits of it be not very exemplary they will make abatements in the high degrees of the future reward And strict penitential exercises ought to be undertaken by all Penitents for greater offences according to the quality of their transgressions This in the ordinary discipline of the ancient Church was performed before the Church gave Absolution which oft included the severe exercises of divers years and this was the Exomologesis oft mentioned in Tertullian and Cyprian And if in danger of death such penitents were reconciled who had not compleated their penitential exercises (f) Conc. Nic. c. 13.4 Conc. Carth. c. 76. the Canons required that if they recovered these must afterwards be performed And these things were testimonies of their abhorrence of the sin their high value for the favour of God and the priviledges and Communion of the Church and that they had exercised themselves to undergo difficulties and severities rather than to forfeit them 15. But concerning the Romish Purgatory though God never revealed any such thing nor did the ancient Church believe it I shall not here engage in that dispute but shall only observe that this fiction of temperal punishment of sin in Purgatory is somewhat unequal since the body which is so great a partaker in and promoter of the sin is wholly freed from all these punishments and rests quietly in its
alwaies preserved from alteration and change yea even at Rome notwithstanding this way of delivery wherein the following Generation have received their Language from their Fathers yet if they who conversed there in the Apostles times were now alive they would discern such alteration of speech and even in speaking mens names that they would not be able to understand their present language and if they can shew no greater security for the delivery of their Doctrine than of their Language that also may be as much changed notwithstanding their help of Tradition And it may be further observed that those Languages which in this way of Traditional Learning are grosly corrupted and even lost such as Hebrew Greek and Latin yet in Books and Writings they are faithfully preserved which shews Writings more sure keepers or preservers of words and civil things than this way of Tradition is It would be needless to shew that in Writings and civil behaviour there is as great variation in some few successions of Generations for this is sufficiently known to all observing men § 3 4. He applies this to Christianity and saith So Children get by degrees notions of God Christ Saviour Hell Virtue and Vice and are shewn how to say Grace and Prayers afterwards they become acquainted with the Ten Commandments Creed Sacraments forms of Prayer and other practices of Christianity the actions and carriages of the elder guiding the younger to frame their lives to several virtues by the Doctrine delivered in words as Faith Hope Charity Prayer c To this I answer That Children do indeed by degrees learn the Notions of God c. But this Tradition alone is not that which guides them here but also the Scriptures and Ancient Writers are of great use as they inable the Teachers of the foregoing Generation to guide them more faithfully Indeed in the way of this Tradition alone some general signification of words which concern matters of Faith may probably be delivered as that God signifies him whom we are to worship reverence serve and obey and such like But more particular notions of these matters of Religion as they may be sometimes preserved aright so where is no other way of preservation than this Tradition they may be very corruptly and dangerously delivered It is certain that Noah knew the true God and taught his Children concerning him and in his daies and since their Posterity increased to great multitudes and yet having only this way of Tradition they were so far corrupted in their knowledge of God that they owned Creatures yea the lowest of Creatures for God and thereby lost the knowledge of the true God and yet even the Gentiles who worshipped other things instead of God pretended that this they received by this way of Tradition and this was their great Argument why they should not receive Christianity because their Ancestors had delivered to them that way of Worship they then used in Heathenism Clemens Alexand. in his Admonition to the Gentiles brings them in speaking thus We must not reject those things which were delivered to us from our Fathers and almost all the Fathers who write against Gentilism industriously shew the vanity of this their plea. The saying of Prayers and Grace aright depends much upon the preservation of the true Notions of God and Christ and the knowledge of Duties and Promises and therefore if there be any corruption in the delivery of those things it is like to be also in the performance of these actions of Prayer and saying Grace in which case will the carriages and practices of the elder Christians be corrupted But he sayes they learn the Creed ten Commandments and forms of Prayer The Creed is indeed a good preservative of the chief Articles of our Belief Had it not been for this Form and some other like it received in the Church which because written and in stinted words is more of kin to the way of Scripture delivery than to other delivery by Oral Tradition it is like these points of Faith might have been rejected or lost among them who only hold unto the way of that Tradition The ten Commandments are likewise a sure preservative of that which God requires in them from man but these are the words of Scripture Neither the Creed nor the ten Commandments concern the Controversie of Tradition as it is disowned by Protestants otherwise than to observe the way whereby the certainty of them is conveyed unto us and thus we do assert that we are more certain of the Creed by its being committed to Writing and comprized in a fixed form of words and being every way agreeable to Scripture than any can be by way of delivery from Father to Son only by word of mouth in all successions of Generations and the same certainty we have of the ten Commandments by their being in the Scripture Records and being likewise delivered in writing which is the way which even Papists make use of as well as others What he adds of Sacraments and forms of Prayer these are like to guide men aright where the notions of Religion concerning them are preserved intire but if there be a corruption in Religion these things as soon as others may be depraved as indeed they are in the Romish Church where though the Creed and the Commandments do deliver much truth yet are they somewhat perverted by Traditional Expositions nor can they secure from the delivery of many other corruptions In § 5. He desires us to consider How the Primitive Faithful were inured to Christianity e're the Books of Scripture were written or communicated We know this then was by the preaching of the Apostles among them who had the inspiration of God to guide them and were unerrable deliverers and yet even they in this preaching made very great use of the Books of the Old Testament to prevail with men to receive the Doctrines of Jesus But I shall further mind him that the Christians at Rome in the Primitive state of that Church before they had any written Scripture of the New Testament thought it requisite for the inuring themselves to Christianity to obtain some Writings Apostolical concerning whom Eusebius writes thus At Rome the light of Religion did so shine upon the minds of these hearers of Peter that they thought it not sufficient to content themselves with once hearing him nor with the unwritten Doctrine of the Divine preaching but with all manner of perswasions they did earnestly desire Mark who followed Peter that by writing he would leave them a memorial of that Doctrine which was then delivered to them by words nor did they desist until he did perform it and this was the cause of the writing that which is called The Gospel according to Mark. He likewise relates That when the Apostle knew what was done by the revelation of the Spirit he was pleased with the forwardness of the men and by his Authority confirmed the Writing that it might be read in the Churches
Tradition § 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property That it is certain in it self because this will prove the fourth fifth and seventh Now though this be not true that what is certain in its self can satisfie the piercing Wits and convince obstinate Adversaries and be ascertainable unto us because there may be a certainty in the thing which is not discerned and it is not the being but the evidence of certainty submitted to that works these effects else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing since all truth is certainly in it self truth yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition I shall over and above yield the rest This he thus goes about to prove Since Faith must be certain and must have a certain Rule he hath as he saies shewed that Scripture is not certain therefore Oral Tradition is This loose Argument deserves no better answer than that I have shewed Scripture is certain in it self therefore Oral Tradition is not Yet I must tell him his Argument is otherwise faulty than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain for there is something besides Scripture which is a better guide or leader to the Faith than the Oral Tradition and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as preserved in the Ancient Fathers or approved Writers of their time For though they were men and might in some things mistake and therefore their testimony is much inferiour to Scripture yet since they lived in times near the Apostles and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth than what is now owned in the Church of Rome after many successions of Ages and great degeneracy of life even in the dreggs of time And we have as much and more reason to think these men both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ and faithful in relating them as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers and the present Traditions of the Romish Church may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention Disc 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith which shall be discussed in the end of this Book § 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition in that he saith It hath for its basis the best nature in the Vniverse man's and that not in speculations which may mistake by passion but his eyes and ears which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature and this in most many times every day which is a much higher certainty than a sworn Witness hath of what he saw or heard but once These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing Must there not be a delivering and receiving which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind He who considers this aright will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis a man clad with all his infirmities with a memory that may let things slip especially if they be numerous as revealed truths are with an understanding that may mistake especially in things difficult as many truths are with affections that may disrelish or slight them if corruption prevail as it may oft do in the members of the Church with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat when they think they only explain and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered may remain very uncertain whether they be true or not And he who is a Witness in any Court may be much more sure that what he once saw or heard if he perfectly remember it was so heard or seen by him than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men who took them themselves upon others relations and they on others and so on So that the great imperfection of Tradition is chiefly as to the delivery of it by former Ages which this Author doth not so much as touch of here in his proof of its certainty and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses shall be answered in their place But what he saith That in most many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses this may be true concerning some Christian truths but to assert this concerning all truth is such an apparent falsity as no ingenuous man could be guilty of For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree which is truth and have had in many Cases Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith and in many other things they are yet undetermined which could not be if these things were daily cleared to their senses unless they be men of much duller sense than the rest of mankind are § 13. He reminds of what he had said before § 8. That it is as evident that while the next Age believes and practises as the former Age did they are of the same Faith as it is that to believe the same is to believe the same But this is not at all to the purpose concerning Oral Tradition only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off or wholly omitting matters difficult and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would dissent in But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition as we have above shewed that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held See n. 13 14. § 14. He tells his Reader That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logick and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logick and Sophistry but what he now asserts is a bold daring to let his Reader know that under some contrived expressions he will strain to vent any falshood though never so gross Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it do say very much against it yea they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered Yea that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse he who here would perswade his Reader that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition yet Disc 7. § 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it and spends that Discourse in Answer Though indeed much more than that is by us observed against Tradition He concludes § 15. from his Discourse that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty I conclude from the
being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
of the Apostles and Evangelists the common delivery by word of mouth which Theophilus had heard of concerning matter of Christian Religion was not so certain as the Evangelical writing and therefore this Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God Joh. 20.31 if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith S. Paul would not have told his Philippians Phil. 3.1 To write the same things for you is safe unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment nor yet would this be safe for them unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment which could not be unless it was a Rule of Faith Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times when the Apostles were deceased S. Peter declares 2 Pet. 1.12 I will not be negligent to put you alwaies in remembrance of these things though you know them v. 15. I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth signifies to make a short comprisal of things for the help of memory Now if this was the design of S. Peters Epistle it will necessarily follow that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory is best secured by the Written Word of God otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance And lest if this Apostle had said no more of this subject any might have objected that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition he himself directly shews that this is the advantage of his writing and the end of both his Epistles 2 Pet. 3.1 This second Epistle beloved I write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance And Jesus himself said to the Jews If you believe not Moses writings how shall you believe my words John 5.47 SECT II. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith NExt his search after Scriptures this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith I might here mind him that others of his Church have delivered that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule Nicol. de Cusa a Cardinal of the Roman Church lib. 2. de Concordant Cath c. 6. sayes That the manner of the General Councils was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle where they were assembled And a little after he adds Matters of Faith were first treated of The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures But to examine his Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran which was no ancient Synod being above six hundred and forty years after Christ They say We all confirm unanimously and consonantly consonanter not consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the holy Fathers adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have taught These words are delivered indeed by that Synod but if that Synod be enquired into this will make little for Oral Tradition This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin against the Monothelites in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers S. Ambrose Austin Basil Cyrill Hippolytus Epiphanius Chrysostom Justine Athanasius Hilary Nyssen Nazianzen Leo and others with reference to whose words the Synod added We all confirm c. Where it is observable they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers and this is no way of Oral Tradition nor any thing rejected but highly approved by Protestants Yea here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council own that as Catholick Doctrine which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers and eminent Writers in other Churches which is not this Discoursers way And it is further observable that these sayings of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith but are owned by them as Truths unto which they all agree whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus we all confirm their Doctrines cannot signifie that they make these their Rule but that they consent with them in the things alledged and confirm their saying to be truth And this Protestants will do as well as the Synod of Lateran But that we may enquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod it is observable that none of the Fathers Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites who denyed two wills in Christ refer to any Oral Tradition but very many to several grounds of Scripture For instance Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod that Christ said According to the form of God I and my Father are one but according to the form of a servant I came not to do my own will but his who sent me where he plainly manifests two wills Again from Leo He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will and operation of his Divinity of his will wrought Miracles whence he testifies saying As the Father raiseth the dead and quickens them so the Son quickneth whom he will by his created will and operation he who is God above nature as man willingly underwent hunger thirst reproach sorrow and fear and this again the Evangelist testifies saying he went into an house and would have none know but could not lye hid and again They went through Galilee and he would not that any should know And again he would go into Galilee also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink So S. Austin Ambrose Cyril c. in their testimonies read in this Council to prove the humane will of Christ urge farther If it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt My soul is sorrowful to death Now is my soul troubled And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia declared in this Council that the testimony of Cyrill of urging those Texts was for the perfect refuting those Hereticks S. Austin is likewise produced thus glossing concerning Christs Humane Nature If we say he was not sorry when the Gospel saith My soul is exceeding sorrowful if we say he did not eat when the Gospel saith he did eat the worm of rottenness creepeth in and there will be nothing left sound then his body was not real nor his flesh real but
the Doctrine delivered by this Discourser or by Protestants Yet further these words of Tharasius confirming the Letters of Adrian then read we may observe how those Letters also as they were recorded by that Council agree with the Protestant Doctrine Now Adrian in that Epistle to Constantine and Irene which Tharasius refers to exhorts them to acquiesce in the Tradition of the Orthodox Faith in the Church of Blessed Peter and Paul the chief of the Apostles and to imbrace it as it hath been done by other Emperours honouring their Vicar with all their heart For these chief of the Apostles who did begin the Catholick Orthodox Faith did command their Faith to be preserved by writing as by Laws enacted even to all them who should succeed them in their Seats and so saith he our Church doth keep it Yea as to the Question in hand then about Images Adrian there urgeth Arguments from Scripture with such expressions as this As the holy Scripture hath it so let us have it and after his arguments from Scripture adds wherefore it is not to be doubted and then indeavours to shew the consent of Fathers Whence it is evident Adrian urged the Emperors to close with the delivery of the Church of Rome because then that Church did keep to the written Laws of the Apostles and by this means preserved their Faith and Scripture he follows to put things out of doubt this was then as appears the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and if that be it which will please this Discourser let him take it and follow it In Act. 3. of this Council this Discourser cites these words We receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church But is this enough for this Authors purpose 1. Is every thing that is received and venerated made a Rule of Faith 2. Must these Apostolical Traditions needs be Oral Tradition Or did the Apostles deliver nothing in Writing These words are in an Epistle of Theodore of Jerusalem to that Council which was by it approved but in that Epistle as throughout this Council they pretended to the Scriptures and Doctrine of the Fathers cited from their Writings to ascertain them of the Doctrine of the Apostles as to the then disputed point concerning Images Yea that we may know what in that Epistle was meant by Apostolical Tradition it is more plain in the end of that Epistle in these words Whereas therefore it is sufficiently plain that the Scripture receiveth them wherefore it is lawful Whence though this Council was erroneous in the decision of the Controversie then in the World for ought hath been yet produced it doth not appear to have been in the same error with this Discourser concerning the Rule of Faith His next testimony from this Council is Act. 7. where the Council have these words We walking in the Kings High-way and insisting upon the Doctrine of our holy and Divine Fathers and observing the Tradition of the Catholick Church in which the holy Spirit dwells do define But what if the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church meant by them was not Oral but written As for the Fathers testimonies its plain they were not received by Oral Tradition but were such as were found in their Writings and were thence cited both in the Letter of Adrian in the second action of that Council and in the testimonies produced Act. 4. As for Tradition it is observable that in the definition of this Council in which are the forecited words they declare that they receive the Churches Traditions whether in Custome or in Writing but then they declare things so received by them to agree to the Gospel and all such customs of the Church if truly such will Protestants as heartily receive as this Council These things they might observe though they did not make them a Rule of Faith And that the Tradition they relied on as the ground of their Faith was chiefly the holy Scriptures may appear probably because in the beginning of the fourth Action where they produce the grounds of their Tradition they first urge several Scriptures Exod. 25. Numb 7. Ezek. 41. Heb. 9. and others and after them the Fathers Writings but it appears more certainly in the seventh Action where is their Synodical Epistle to Constantine and Irene in which they urge many Scriptures to prove the truth of what this Council defined and then say These to wit Scriptures being so confessedly and without all doubt we believe these things to be acceptable and pleasing to God Whence it appears that the Rule by which they did without all doubting believe was the holy Scriptures and what else is a Rule of Faith So that they principally relied on the Scriptures and in consent with them on the written Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and the customs of the Catholick Church And this is that Protestants will not disclaim but allow as a Rule though they will keep better to it than this seventh General Council as it is called did Lastly From the first Action of this Council he cites these words which were spoken by Basilius of Ancyra as part of a recantation of his former opinions and seem to be allowed by that Council They who contemn the Writings of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church and bring for their excuse and inculcate the words of Arius Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus saying unless we were sufficiently instructed out of the Old and New Testament we would follow the Doctrines of the Fathers and of the six holy Synods and the Traditions of the Catholick Church let him be accursed And so will Protestants say They who contemn the preaching of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church against Arius and those other Hereticks which preaching and Tradition did declare it self grounded and was truly grounded upon Scripture imbracing and venting the words of these Hereticks which we know were against Scripture though these persons pretend Scripture to be on their side which we know is not let him be accursed Nor from these words will it follow as he would have it that it was ever the pretence of most execrable Hereticks to decline Tradition and pretend sufficient light from Scripture the contrary to this hath been by me shewed and will be further manifested These words do not speak it the constant practice of Hereticks to pretend to Scripture but only speak of some certain Hereticks whose time is defined to be betwixt the sixth and seventh General Councils for if they had not lived after the sixth Council they could not have declared why they did not follow the six General Councils and if they had not lived before the seventh General Council their words could not have been there produced But such words as these of those Hereticks which decline the true Tradition of the Church founded in Scripture and satisfie themselves with empty pretences of Scripture Protestants will condemn Yet lest the gloss upon these words
letters are Barbarians as to our speech Cap. 5. He saith Tradition being thus in the Church let us come to that proof which is from Scripture and so spends several Chapters in shewing the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles out of Scriptures From what hath been observed it is evident 1. That the Hereticks Irenaeus dealt with were in some thing of the Spirit of this Discourser that is only for their own Tradition and would neither be tryed by Scriptures nor any other Tradition but what was amongst themselves as our Discourser will disown tryal by Scriptures and by what was delivered in the Fathers Writings or Councils Cor. 14. and from all other Churches but the Roman Church Cor. 13 17. 2. That the reason why he so much insisted upon Tradition was because these Hereticks as they denied Scripture so they pretended to the best Tradition which way of his arguing speaks not Tradition the Rule of Faith but of considerable use in this case even as if we should dispute with a Pagan who owns not Christian Revelation concerning the truth of Christian Religion the using rational Arguments against him will shew that we count them very useful in this case but will not conclude that we own reason and not revelation for a Rule of Faith so if a Christian shall urge the Doctrine of the Old Testament as sufficient and certain against the Jew it would be a vain consequence to inferr that he makes this only and not the New Testament-Revelation the Rule of his Christian Faith 3. That Irenaeus did not think the urging the present Tradition of the Church sufficient against those Hereticks but thought it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Churches Tradition and this Doctrine of the ancient Church he evidenceth sufficiently from the writings as also from the verbal testimonies of them who were famous in the ancient Church and Protestants are as ready as any to appeal to the ancient Church and had we such a man as Polycarp who conversed with S. John we would receive his testimony as far as Irenaeus did But having only ancient Writings which Irenaeus thought sufficient in the case of Tradition we readily appeal to them 4. That when Irenaeus saies the Apostles Tradition is manifest in the whole World lib. 3. c. 3. or lib. 1. c. 3. though there be divers tongues in the World yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same That is the Church in the whole World believes and delivers the same Faith He speaks this against those Hereticks about those great Articles of Faith That there is one God and one Jesus Christ c. as himself expresseth lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 3. c. 3. for even in the time of Irenaeus there was not in all the World an agreement in all Doctrines since Victor Bishop of Rome and Irenaeus did not agree in this whether it was Lawful to Excommunicate the Asian Churches for their different observation of Easter Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 6. Now is this any consequence That Doctrine which teacheth one God c. against those Hereticks was generally continued in the Church till Irenaeus his time which was not two hundred years after Christ therefore all Doctrine must certainly be preserved without corruption in the Churches Delivery above sixteen hundred Years after Christ though we certainly know that besides Protestants other Churches do not now deliver the same things 5. When he said Ought we not to have followed Tradition if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures He saith not we ought to do so now they have left them but rather in these words intimates the contrary But now more directly to see his opinion of the Rule of Faith consider these words of his lib. 3. c. 1. The Gospel they then preached they after delivered to us by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith And then shewing how the Evangelists have delivered to us by Writing saith If any man assent not to them he despiseth even Christ the Lord and the Father and is condemned of himself and resisteth his own salvation Lib. 2. c. 46. Wherefore since the holy Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical clearly and without ambiguity and as they may of all be heard declare c. they appear very dull who blind their eyes at such a clear discovery and will not see the light of preaching C. 41. Having therefore the truth it self for our Rule and the testimony of God being openly manifest we ought not to reject the firm and clear knowledge of God If we cannot find the solution of all things in Scripture we must believe God in these things knowing that the Scriptures are perfect being spoken by the word of God and his Spirit Lib. 4. c. 66. Read more diligently the Gospel which is given us by the Apostles and read more diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and every Doctrine and every passion of our Lord set forth in them Lib. 3. c. 11. The Gospel is the pillar and firmament of the Church and the Spirit of life wherefore it is consequent that it hath four pillars he hath given us a fourfold Gospel which is contained in one Spirit If then according to Irenaeus men may believe by the Scripture and that is the pillar and foundation of Faith and they that seek may find all Doctrine in it which is there clear and manifest is not this enough to shew he makes it a Rule of Faith If not we have observed him calling it by the name of a Rule also and declaring that none but the Barbarous Nations did then receive the Faith in an unwritten way SECT XI What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith ANd first in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where in the begining of his Prooem having observed that some who profess themselves to believe in Christ differ in so great things as concerning God our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost by which words he manifestly refers to such Hereticks as Irenaeus before him treated of Such were Montanists Valentinians Marcionists c. he begins to lay a Rule he will proceed by in the words referred to by this Author Let the Ecclesiastical Preaching delivered from the Apostles by order of succession and remaining in the Church to this time be preserved that only truth is to be believed which in nothing differs from the Ecclesiastical Tradition This is his Rule he will proceed by in these Books by which in opposition to those Hereticks he means the Churches delivery of truth which was chiefly contained in the Scriptures as I shall evidence first because he useth promiscuously the phrases of Ecclesiastical Preaching and Scripture frequently in this Prooem and excepts against the Book called The Doctrine of Peter as being no part of it and in the end of the same Prooem declares that therefore he who would treat of these things to know what is truth in
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
but to this Man will I look that is poor and of a contrite Spirit Isa 66.1 2. Now upon this consideration of the Divine Goodness the Ninevites proceeded in their Repentance and tho that was undertaken upon uncertain hopes yet with good success But we have plain Promises and Directions to our Duty and as plain Promises annexed thereunto such as Ezek. 18.20 I will judg you O House of Israel every one according to his Ways saith the Lord God ' Repent and turn your selves from all your Transgressions so Iniquity shall not be your Ruine I come now to consider some peculiar Encouragements from Christianity and shall here mention three 1. From the coming of the Son of God into the World He came to be a Mediator and a Sacrifice and to assure us that God is ready to be reconciled to all them that turn to him and entertain the Terms of his Covenant And therefore those who are truly penitent shall by virtue of the Death and Sacrifice of Christ and the Reconciliation he hath thereby made obtain the Favour of God This was so much designed by our Saviour that Repentance was one of the first things he preached Mat. 4.17 Jesus began to preach and to say Repent And among the last Things which he committed to his Apostles before his Ascension this was one That Repentance and Remission of Sins should be preached in his Name among all Nations Luke 24.47 And is it not our great Comfort that the Encouragements to true Repentance are assured by the Doctrine of the Gospel and by the Death of Christ and that they are confirmed by both the Sacraments of the New Testament If God had not been willing to receive humble Penitents and to give them his Blessings would he have sent his Son and have given so great a Blessing to the World as to put us upon returning to him And if Christ came to call Sinners to Repentance will he not own and receive them who obey his Call It is true indeed that the Proposals of the Gospel do chiefly relate to God's bestowing spiritual and eternal Blessings and our Care should be especially about these things but even temporal Blessings are not excluded from the Promises of God 2. From the Glory of Christ's Exaltation He who upon Earth proposed the Grace and Doctrine of Repentance hath now in Heaven all Authority and Power to dispense the Blessings he promised to them who obey him And he is faithful and true to perform his Word Would you obtain Remission of Sin and the Favour of God He as our High-Priest is our Intercessor effectually to procure this Blessing from God for them who heartily turn to him And as our King he is himself empowered to dispense this Favour of God For God hath exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour to give Forgiveness of Sins Acts 5.31 And he who took so much pains to seek after the straying Sheep will no doubt embrace them who by his care do return If you seek for the Welfare and Preservation of the Church of God and its being defended against its Enemies as humble pious Christians are the Heirs of Promise these Blessings are the Benefits contained in the Covenant and Promise of God And withal there are special Encouragements from our Saviour's Exaltation for our expecting to receive these Mercies For our Saviour being exalted at God's right-hand is now made an Head over all things to the Church and this includes both his near Relation which he beareth to it and that also he taketh upon himself a very particular Care of it And his Exaltation is so fatal to his and his Churches Enemies that he must reign till all his Enemies be made his Footstool Hereupon he tells Saul going to Damascus that it was hard for him to kick against the Pricks His Enemies must fall before his Power but he will effect what he undertakes to uphold 3. From the more particular Consideration of the State of the Gospel-Church The Christian Church is made up of returning Penitents but these are owned of God as his Children and Heirs and they shall shine as the Sun in the Kingdom of their Father And such is God's Care of this Society of his Church that if it walk in his Way it shall be supported by him tho Earth and Hell should contrive against it Yet no particular Branch or Part of the Christian Church hath any security of its standing or any assurance from God that it shall be preserved but upon the Conditions of its holding the Faith and practising Piety and Obedience or hearty Repentance And indeed it can have none because there can be no particular Promise from God against the Nature and Terms of the New Covenant which enjoins Faith and Obedience as necessary Conditions of Acceptance with God The Romish Church pretends that she can never fall but must always continue because of that Promise of our Saviour Mat. 16.18 On this Rock I will build my Church But to this all I shall say at this time is That these Words do no way particularly refer to the Roman Church as it would arrogate to it self And our Lord hath plainly declared to us that no Church or Persons whatsoever can be represented by a House built upon a Rock which will stand notwithstanding all Oppositions but those who hear and obey his Doctrine which the Church of Rome doth not But all who neglect this Faith and Practice are as those who build on the Sand their House will fall and great will be the Fall thereof Mat. 7.24 25 26 27. And that there was no particular Privilege of this Nature ever intended to be granted to the Church of Rome is further manifest from that Epistle St. Paul wrote to the Romans For with some particular respect to that Church he lets them know If God spared not the natural Branches take heed lest he also spare not thee and if thou continue not in his Goodness thou also shalt be cut off Rom. 11.21 22. But all particular Churches whatsoever who heartily obey the Doctrine of the Gospel are secured of God's especial Care and Preservation from those Words of our Saviour John 15.2 Every Branch in me that beareth Fruit my Father purgeth it that it may bring forth more Fruit. The fruitful part of his Vineyard will not want his Care And it is our great Comfort that God's Catholick Church stands by his Foundation upon a Rock so that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it or no kind of Destruction shall be able to overcome it So that whatever Enemies it hath in the World they like the proud and mighty Waves if they dash themselves against the Rock will be broken in pieces but the Rock it self and that which is built upon it as an impregnable Fortress standeth firm For the Comfort of the Primitive Christians the Book of the Revelations gave them assurance that God would take care that his Church should not be overwhelmed
defamed as acting by Beelzebub Nor was this wicked and blasphemous slander only some rash sudden unadvised words of some inconsiderable persons but the Pharisees saith S. Matthew Mat. 9.34 and the Scribes saith S. Mark Mar. 3.22 passed this censure upon him and what was thus spoken at one time was repeated and declared again at another Mat. 12.24 And we may discern by this instance how easily the greatest calumnies may be propagated by a zealous and eager party from one age to another and from one place to another For the Jews in after ages still embraced for truth this impudent falshood which is taken into their (u) v. Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 12.24 Talmud which contains a collection of the main body of their Traditions and Opinions And this wicked and contumelious aspersion of our Lord though contrary to the highest evidence was also endeavoured to be spread abroad among the Pagan Gentiles insomuch that (w) Orig. cont Cels l. 1. Eus Dem. Ev. l. 3. c. 6. divers Christian Writers thought fit to refell the same and to shew the manifest contradiction which this carried to the piety of our Saviours Religion to the nature of his precepts to the works which he did and to the Spirit and practice of his followers all which include a manifest opposition to the evil one 18. At other times they charged him with being a Samaritan and having a Devil and being a Samaritan Joh. 8.48 The name of Samaritan was fixed on him to promote a popular hatred The Samaritans rejected the true worship of God at Jerusalem and depraved and corrupted Religion and oft manifested a great hatred towards the Jews They frequented Mount (x) Joseph Ant. l. 13. c. 6. Gerazim as the place of their Worship in opposition to Jerusalem and their despising the true Worship of God at Jerusalem is observed in the (y) Hor. Heb. in Joh. 4.20 Talmud and sufficiently in the holy Scripture it self And for the countenancing their depraved worship the Samaritan version of the Pentateuch as it is now extant hath corrupted the law and hath put in the word Gerazim in the place of Ebal where God commanded an Altar to be made and Sacrifice to be offered Deut. 27.4 5 6 7 8. Now the name of a Samaritan being odious to the Jews they call our Saviour a Samaritan not as if they thought he was so by his birth for they admitted him to the Jewish worship as a Jew and knew his nearest relations to be Jews but they would hereby declare that he had equally corrupted Religion and deserved to be as much hated as the Samaritans were And to this purpose was he thus aspersed though his custome was to attend the Jewish Synagogues Luk. 4.16 and he carefully served God according to the precepts of his Law But as if this foul calumny was not sufficient they further added that he had a Devil or that he in whom alone the Godhead dwelt bodily was possessed by the evil one And this wicked slander was intended to raise the highest prejudice of the people against him and to keep them far enough from being directed by him And therefore they said Joh. 10.20 he hath a Devil and is mad why hear ye him 19. And it may be observed And in like manner our Reformation Bishops and Ministry have been aspersed with Popery how the carriage of many men among us towards his Ministers the Bishops and Clergy of the Church of England doth too nearly resemble this behaviour which I have mentioned of the Jews towards our Lord himself Certainly one of the great works the Devil contrives to uphold in this last Age of the World is the gross corruption of Popery Our Clergy and Bishops were very instrumental in the Reformation and casting out of Popery those of our Church Preach and Write against Popery so as to make the clearest discovery of the falseness of their doctrine and the sin of their practices These have confuted and baffled them the most effectually and with most convictive evidence These have plainly laid open in the face of the world the folly evil and mischief of many considerable things asserted and maintained by the Church of Rome and have thereby raised the indignation of the Romanists themselves who look upon these men to be their most formidable adversaries and they are indeed the great bulwark against Popery And yet because these men are not so weak and rash as to run beyond the bounds of truth and sobriety into other unreasonable errors they must needs be clamoured on as friends to Popery And other men who talk indeed against Popery with great noise and are real and earnest in what they say and some few of them have done useful service herein by many who are indeed eager against it but most of them speak with much weakness and many mistakes whereby they give great advantage to their adversaries these must be accounted the chief and main enemies to Popery when for the generality of them the Romanists themselves have no great fear of the Writings and Arguments of such opposers And from these our excellent Reformation meets with virulent censures 20. I doubt not as many Jews were against the Devil but among the Jews in our Saviours time there were many besides him and his Disciples who talked much against the Devil and did indeed hate him though in many things through their misguided zeal they greatly served his interest And that the Jews had some among them who sometimes cast out Devils is not to be doubted from what we read in the Scripture of the Jewish Exorcists and of our Saviours appeal to the Pharisees Mat. 12.27 By whom do your children cast them out (z) Antiq. l. 8. c. 2. de bel l. 7. c. 25. Josephus takes some notice of their Exorcisms but what he writes is of such a nature concerning the driving away Devils by some Herbs and charms that they who pretended to act against the evil one by these methods did seem rather to comply with him But that some of the Jews both before and after the coming of our Lord did cast out evil Spirits by the power and in the name of the God of Abraham and the God of Israel is asserted and acknowledged by (a) Justin adv Tryph. Iren. adv Haeres l. 2. c. 5. Justin Martyr Irenaeus and other ancient Christian Writers But their undertaking was far from being sufficient to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Satan nor were they always successful and effectual in lesser cases When the Sons of Sceva a Jew and chief of the Priests undertook to cast out a Devil the evil Spirit prevailed against them and they were not able to stand before him But it was he whom the Jews aspersed as complying with the Devil who did abundantly more against him than they all were able to do and he spoiled principalities and powers 21. And besides all this though the singular and sinless
a new Commandment which every Christian must obey following the example of our Lord. But to reproach others is to act contrary to love for this intends hurt and to lessen the esteem of others and cast some blemish upon them and the defamer pleaseth himself for the present in so doing But charity thinks no evil 1 Cor. 13.5 and he who truly loves any man and is his real friend cannot hear him unjustly evil spoken of with any delight and satisfaction but is troubled at it and is so averse from joining in the same himself that so far as he fairly and honestly can he will vindicate his reputation and plead his cause Yea charity will act with that seriousness on the behalf of a friend that as (c) Max. Tyr. Diss 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 especially when it respects the Ministers of God in Church or State Maximus Tyrius observes it will even work through places not passable and easily overcome things that are dreadful 5. But when censures and calumnies are raised against the Ministers and Governours of the Church there are two other ways whereby they greatly offend against the duty of love the one with respect to the love of God in promoting his honour and the other with regard to the love of men unto whom these reproaches are published For these things tending to lessen their reputation are so far as they take place like to hinder the success of their labours and of their Ministerial Office And the offender who commits this sin considerately and advisedly so as to discern the large consequents of it must be one who for the gratifying his passion is willing to become instrumental that the work of God and the happiness of man both which are committed to the care of the Ministry should not prosper and have their desired effect And this great good is really hindred by this sinful practice whether men will consider it or no. And there is much of the like evil in defaming or speaking reflectively against our Secular Governours since they also are the Ministers of God to man for good 6. Secondly The reproaching Superiours is a breach of the fifth Commandment For therein honour and reverent respect is commanded to all Superiours 2. It is a great breach of the fifth Commandment to speak evil of Rulers and this is necessary for the upholding their just Authority But to reproach is not to honour but to dishonour and vilifie them And though our natural Parents be the nearest to us on whom we have a more particular dependance and from whom we have a more especial care yet Governours and Rulers are chiefly to be honoured because they are set by God in an higher station and have a larger portion of his Authority committed to them and as Gods Ministers are appointed for a more comprehensive benefit and extensive good to mankind and are common Parents to govern and take care of those who are under them in civil Societies Hence (d) Phil. de Decalog p. 76. Philo not amiss observed that the fifth Commandment being placed as between the duties to God and man had great respect to both and that he who breaks this Commandment will be condemned at both these two tribunals that of God and that of man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of irreligion towards God in the Divine Tribunal and of enmity towards men in the humane And though this may be truly said of almost all other transgressions yet it appears more eminenly in the breach of this Commandment And it adds to the force of this precept that the Doctrine of Christianity doth mightily inforce it and strictly require us to honour the King and all who are over us either in the Church or State 7. And it is worthy of our serious consideration which is a special Commandment with promise that the Apostle for the inforcing obedience to this fifth precept of the Decalogue gives it this Character Ephes 6.2 that it is the first Commandment with promise or it is a great and chief command unto which God annexed a special and signal promise And thus much I think the Apostle to intend by these words When our Saviour declared which was the first Commandment of the law Mar. 12.28 29 30. the phrase first doth not there refer to order but to excellency as is manifest from v. 31 and v. 33. and therefore the question which in S. Mark is expressed which is the first Commandment is in S. Matthew which is the great Commandment Now the fifth Commandment is therefore manifested to be a great and very considerable Commandment because to that alone of all the precepts of the Decalogue God was pleased to affix a peculiar and excellent promise For that declaration of Gods kindness in the end of the second Commandment that he shews mercy unto thousands of them that love him and keep his Commandments is truly observed by (e) In Annot. in Eph. 6.2 Erasmus and Grotius not to have a peculiar respect to that precept alone but to have a general regard to them all as the words in that precept do evidently manifest But to this fifth Commandment this excellent promise is adjoined that it may be well with thee and that thou maist live long on the Earth which shews that our own interest is highly concerned in this case 8. Wherefore the observing the duties of this precept is the way which God himself hath directed men for the obtaining his blessings This is a forfeiture of the right to Gods blessings in the world and the continuance of them in this world and this the Apostle declares and urgeth with respect to the time of Christianity And the neglect of the duties of this command so far as concerns the terms of Gods promise is a forfeiture of that right and title we might have to all the advantages of this life and the blessing of God for our comfort and well-being here upon Earth And these earthly blessings when the law was given were so proposed in this fifth Commandment of the Decalogue as to have some typical respect also to the blessings of the life to come Now though God of his bounty and patience doth many times bestow long life and therewith many other enjoyments of this world upon them who have no right to them by the terms of his Covenant and promise yet they want that assurance of these things and especially that favourable kindness and particular care of God to go along with them which the pious man enjoys and which is far more valuable and excellent than the possession of any outward good is Wherefore the careful and conscientious practice of reverence and honour towards Superiour relations however some men may account of it is no light thing it being that upon which our title to the blessings of God so much depends 9. Thirdly All reproachful Calumnies especially against Superiours are a violation of the sixth Commandment 3. This is a breach of
given also (b) B. 2. ch 1. Sec. 1. n. 4 c. sufficient evidence and the same hath been done at large by others The Romish claim is like that of the Tempter who concerning the Kingdoms of the World and the glory of them said Luk. 4.5 6. All this is delivered unto me and to whomsoever I will I give it and it hath also a parallel title which bears it self up upon confident usurpation vain boasting and false pretences Yet they who are thorough Papists must acknowledge this 4. Some Writers indeed of that Communion deny the Pope any power over Princes in things temporal but besides the Censure they generally undergo from their own party they are put to hard shifts when they undertake to reconcile their Assertions with the publickly received Constitutions of that Church For instance sake I shall take notice of the Council of (c) Concil Lateran c. de haeset Laterane concerning which they have as fair and plausible a plea as for any other thing which declares that the Pope may give the Country of a temporal Lord to Catholicks if he neglect to purge his Country of Hereticks Here it is first pretended Of the Câ—uncil at the Lateran that this was not declared by that General Council but only by Pope Innocent III. after it was broken up and that there were no Constitutions or Canons made in that Council And yet in the Decretalia of Gregory the Ninth who was Pope about twelve years after that Council this very Constitution is inserted into the (d) Decret l. 5. Tit. 7. c. 13. Excommunicamus Canon Law as being established by Innocentius in a General Council And from the Authority of that Council Transubstantiation hath been ever since acknowledged to be a declared Doctrine of the Roman Church And what goes under the name of this Council is acknowledged to have the Authority of a General Council both by the Council of Constance and by that of Trent as hath been observed by the (e) Of Popery p. 48-51 Bishop of Lincoln 5. But it is further said by them that the Canon of Lateran concerneth (f) Shel l dons Reasons for Allegiance p. 41. not Sovereign Princes but only some feudatory Lords in Italy and some parts of the Empire And whereas this sense seems plainly contradicted by the last clause of that Constitution eadem servata lege circa eos qui non habent dominos principales that the same Law should be observed concerning them who have no Chief Lords over them they note that there is an (g) Constit Fredericâ— n. 7 Imperial Law established by Frederick the Second much to the same purpose with this Canon to make void the rights of such Lords as purge not their Lands from Hereticks and that therein this clause is annexed that this same Law shall be observed against them who have-no Chief Lords But say they it cannot be supposed that the Emperour would enact a Law which might make void his own Imperial Dignity and forfeit his Empire Now in this Constitution of Frederick there is no express mention of any right of disposing Dominions devolving it self upon the Bishop of Rome but it may be considered how much this Emperours interest and that of the Church and See of Rome were at this time linked together For his possession of the Empire much depended on the Popes authority for (h) Mar. Polon in Oth. p. 394 395. Ursperg p. 326 327. Ave. tâ—â— Ann. Boio 〈◊〉 p. 519. Innocent the Third having excommunicated and deposed Otho the Emperour some of the Princes fix their thoughts upon Frederick to advance him to the Empire and the Pope closeth with this design and encourageth both him and them And therefore this clause concerning the advancing the interest of the Church and the forfeiture of Sovereign Dominion of what force or validity soever it be both tended to assert Fredericks own right and jointly to gratifie the Romish See And this Law was confirmed by him in compliance with the Pope (i) Constit Fred. in Praef. on that very day in which he received his Imperial Diadem from Honorius the Third who succeeded Innocentius And this Law was highly applauded by Honorius and ratified (k) ibid. in fin by him with a severe Curse against them who should act any thing against it and was again confirmed by Boniface the Eighth and seems to be framed by the Popes order from this clause in the Preface Cum nihil velit Ecclesia quod nobis eâdem non placeat voluntate 6. And yet if this were true that the Doctrine of their Church gives the Pope power of disposing only Emperours and Kings must be submissive to the Pope of such Principalities which belong to inferiour and dependent Lords this would afford but little security to the greatest Princes if the Romish Bishop be still allowed to judge in this case For the most imperious Popes have oft very plainly declared the Secular authority of the highest Princes to be derived from them and to depend upon them And the collection of Sacred Ceremonies contains such things concerning Emperours and Kings as when occasion serves may be made use of to infer subjection and dependance Thus we are told (l) Sacr. Cerem l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 1. that the elected Emperour must implore the favour of the Apostolical See and offer himself ad quaecunque fidelitatis juramenta Romanae Ecclesiae praestanda to take any Oaths of Fealty to the Church of Rome and must humbly desire Unction Consecration and the Imperial Diadem And the Pope after examination of the Election and considering the fitness of the Person doth grant him his grace and favour and doth eum nominare denunciare assumere declarare Regem Romanorum Nominate authoritatively pronounce receive and declare him to be King of the Romans and to be fit and sufficient to receive the Imperial Dignity And in this manner it is there said that divers Emperours have addressed themselves to the Pope some of which are there particularly named And if any King shall come to Rome (m) l. 1. Sect. â—3 c. 2. f. 132. after the first day of his being there he is to carry the Popes train and to pour out water for his hands and to carry up the first Dish to his Table and serve the first Cup in other Collations which things with others mentioned in the same Book carry in them fair appearances of doing homage And some of the Romish Bishops which have somewhat more than others complemented Secular Authority in some of their notions have yet in their practice acted as much against them as any others So did Innocent the Third who acknowledged (n) Decretal l. 4. Tit. 17. c. 13 Pervenegabilâ—m Rex superiorem in temporalibus minime recognoscit that a King is to own no Superiour in temporals and therefore speaking of his own Authority besides what he had within the Patrimony of the Church
this impure Doctrine all those Texts of Scripture be urged which require the wicked man to repent and turn from all his iniquities that he may live and other such like we are told by (f) Gr. de Valent. ubi sup Gr. de Valentia that this is the general rule extra sacramentum neminem posse justificari sine contritione that excepting the use of the Sacrament none can be justified without contrition But then he tells us casus quo Sacramentum poenitentiae usurpaetur plane ab illa lege universali exceptus est that case in which the Sacrament of Penance is used is clearly excepted from that universal Law And this exception he sayes is made in Christs instituting the power of the Keys and of remitting and retaining sins As if the power of the keys and the ministerial Authority which rightly understood is great and excellent though it be grossly perverted and abused by the Romanists and sleighted and undervalued by others was an underhand contrivance to frustrate and defeat all the great precepts of God and the Laws of Christianity And these precepts are so far made void thereby that (g) Melch. Can. Relect. 4. de Poenit. Canus confidently affirms that he who with attrition receives the Sacrament of Penance is not only in a safe state but doth as much as the precepts of God require from him Whereas saith he Baptism and the Sacrament of Absolution confer grace to him that is attrite and these two Sacraments were directly instituted for the remission of all sins qui suscipit alterum ex his sive contritus sive attritus vere implet praeceptum de poenitentia quoniam Deus nihil amplius exigit in compensationem delicti commissi quam vel contritionem sine sacramento vel attritionem cum sacramento He who receives either of these either with Contrition or with Attrition doth really fulfil the precept of Repentance because God doth require nothing further in compensation for the fault committed than either Contrition without the Sacrament or Attrition with the Sacrament And thus the illustrious and substantial precepts of purity and newness of life are by these men made to dwindle into the shades of darkness 6 And as this Doctrine of Attrition is improved by them it tends to eat out all true devotion This renders pious devotion unnecessary since we are told by the Romish Casuists and Controversial Writers that this disposition is sufficient for performing the highest acts of Religion even the receiving the holy Eucharist Indeed they ordinarily grant that the precept of Contrition being an affirmative precept doth oblige at some special times though they are very sparing in fixing these times but many particularly mention the case of being in danger of death and some add the receiving or dispensing a Sacrament which ought to be handled reverently and some may assign some other special cases But others can tell us how that which is thus granted in words shall contain nothing of reality under it For if the Question be proposed whether when the precept of Contrition doth bind Attrition with the Sacrament of Penance be not still in that case sufficient h Becanus declares (k) M. Bec. ubi sup Qu. 7. that though some be of the other opinion they are most in the right who affirm this because the precept of Contrition is obligatory only on them who have mortal sin and therefore if a man may be freed from mortal sin by Attrition non amplius obligatur praecepto contritionis he is no further bound by the precept of Contrition Such strange methods are made use of to evacuate the Divine precepts And they tell us that Attrition with Absolution makes up Contrition 7. Hereby sinners are deluded by false hopes By these artifices repentance is misrepresented as if it could be sufficiently performed without amendment of life and the way to Heaven is so described as to be so far from requiring a patient continuance in well doing that there is no necessity of well doing at all This is to encourage men in such a wicked and evil life against which Christ the righteous judge will pronounce an heavy Sentence And thus they deal with the souls of men as a flattering Mountebank may do with the Body if he should pretend that he can cure the most dangerous diseases without carrying off the matter and cause of the distemper and without his Patient 's taking so much care as to observe the rules of temperance and sobriety but that man who is wise will not give heed to such deceitful boastings nor venture his life upon confidence of the truth of them when there are other rules and directions to be observed for his cure from whence he may rationally and upon sure grounds expect a good effect These Pontifician devices carry in them a perfect estrangement from the true Christian rules and since Christianity consists in life and practice more than in words and profession that man who practiseth on this Doctrine may be a Papist and do all that the Church of Rome requireth but he cannot be a true Christian to do all that the Gospel of our Saviour makes necessary to salvation 8. I confess a bad man according to the Romish Doctrine will fail of salvation if he miss the opportunity or neglect the care of Absolution But wicked men who hazard their fouls and eternal happiness that they may gratifie their lusts where they have no encouragements of hope proposed to them will much more do so where they have such great encouragements And according to this Doctrine this hazard doth not seem exceeding great when they may frequently confess and be absolved and especially after they have committed any mortal sin and thereby set all things again even and strait between God and themselves so far as concerns their being in a justified state And what may be pretended to remain as an obligation upon them to bear temporal pains and satisfactions this also may be (i) v. Sect. 9. n. 14 c. otherwise provided for 9. And we may further consider how little goes to the making up of Contrition according to the Romish Casuists Of Contrition or such a repentance as availeth to justification without the Sacrament of Penance Of this I shall give an account from Father (k) Theol. Mor. l. 5. Tract 6. c. 4. n. 1. Layman He declares that the substance of Contrition consists in detesting sin above all evil but (l) ib. n. 2. any continuance of time is not necessary to that contrition by which a sinner is justified but one simple act of grief is sufficient and it is most probable that without calling his sins to remembrance he may be perfectly converted and justified by contrition temporis momento in a moment of time And he farther saith (m) ib. n. 3. that any express purpose of keeping Gods Commands or abstaining from sin is not necessary further than it is vertually included in
will discern that such faculties are not like to be very common 14. This prohibition is many wayes evil But such a prohibition is upon many accounts evil First It being a duty and pious practice for men to acquaint themselves with the Holy Scriptures Psal 1.2 Psal 78.5 6. Jo. 5.39 Act. 17.11 it is an opposition to God and goodness to deny them the liberty to do that which pleaseth him and is their duty Secondly Since God gave this as one great gift to his Church that they should have the Sacred Oracles of the Holy Scriptures which they might all acquaint themselves with as our Lord said they have Moses and the Prophets Luk. 16.29 and it is one of the advantages Christ hath bestowed on his Church that they may have the knowledge of the Doctrine of the Gospel as it was dictated by the infallible inspiration of the Holy Ghost as will appear from n. 17. it is high injustice and sacrilegious fraud to deprive the Members of the Christian Church of that excellent good which the will of Christ bequeathed to them and is their right Thirdly The reading the Holy Scriptures being of such excellent usefulness to men as was observed n. 10 11 12. this prohibition is a thing very uncharitable to men Fourthly The ground on which they proceed that the use of the Scriptures if generally permitted is more to the prejudice than advantage and benefit of men when the Holy Spirit himself declares them to be greatly profitable as was observed n. 12. this is to charge the wisdom of God with folly as if in his great acts of favour and kindness he had not wisely consulted the good of man but had by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost made such Books publick which if the Church of Rome did not take care that they might not come into the hands of the greatest part of men would do a great deal of hurt to the World And now I need not make remarks to shew how little there is of piety in such things as these 15. The Churches of God of old steered another course The Scriptures were generally allowed to be read by the Jews and ancient Christians from this of the Romanists That amongst the Jews at the time of our Saviours coming and his Apostles preaching the people were not debarred the use of the Holy Scriptures though they were clearly opposite to the Traditions and corrupt Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees may appear from our Saviours putting them upon searching the Scriptures Jo. 5.39 from S. Peter's commending their taking heed to the sure word of prophecy 2 Pet. 1.19 as also from the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily Act. 17.11 and Timothy's having known them from a child 2 Tim. 3.16 16. That the ancient Christians had the Scriptures translated into the several languages of the Countreys in which there were any Christian Churches founded is manifest from the testimonies of S. Hierome S. Chrysostome and Theoderet which have been produced (u) In their Epistle prefixed to the Bible by the Authors of our last English translation In which they particularly mention the Egyptians Indians Persians Armenians Scythians Aethiopians Romans Goths and some others And (w) Ep. ad Phil. p. 23. ed. Usser Polycarp declares to the Church of the Philippians to whom he writes that he trusts they were exercised in the holy Scriptures And (x) de Lazaro Chrysostome exhorts his Auditors that they would diligently read the holy Scriptures at home in their houses and the like is frequently done by S. Austin and divers other the most eminent ancient Writers Nor was the Scripture then forbidden to be read even by children but Eusebius (y) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tells us how usefully and to what good purpose for the guiding and establishing of â—any Christians in the time of Persecution Origen had been exercised in the holy Scriptures in his very childhood 17. and were so designed of God But we need go no further in this case than to the Holy Scriptures themselves S. Paul directs his Epistle to the Church of Rome Rom. 1.7 To all that be in Rome beloved of God called to be Saints and his first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 1.2 To the Church at Corinth called to be Saints with all that in every place call on the name of Christ and his second Epistle to the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaia 2 Cor. 1.1 Now it is plain from hence that he intended they might all know and read the matter of his Epistles and that these and consequently other parts of the Canon of the holy Scripture were not under a prohibition that they might not be read by the major part of Christians And when the hearers of S. Peter at Rome as (z) Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 14. Eusebius relates were not satisfied with hearing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Doctrine of the Divine declaration without writing they prevailed with S. Mark to write for them the summ of the Christian Doctrine and leave it with them and this their desire was very well approved by S. Peter But let him who can conceive such strange things suppose that to gratifie their desire of being rightly guided in the Christian Doctrine and for their future instruction when these teachers should remove to another place the Gospel of S. Mark was left with them but under such a prohibition that none might read it or know the particular contents thereof unless he should obtain a particular faculty in writing from S. Peter or S. Mark to that purpose And when S. Peter wrote his Epistles that the Christians even after his decease might have those things always in remembrance 2 Pet. 1.12 13 15. and chap. 3.1 2. it is something hard to imagine how they should be able to make such use of these Epistles as to keep in memory the Christian truth and precepts if they were not permitted to read them or to know the contents thereof And when Saint John's Gospel was written Joh. 20.31 that men might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing they may have life through his name surely no man can think that what was written for this purpose might not be read for the same purpose by those who were concerned to believe and obtain life 18. Some of the Church of Rome have pretended Pretended reverence reflected on that they shew reverence to the holy Scriptures and treat them as Sacred things with veneration when they take care they may not come into the hands of every common person But a due reverence to any Divine institution is not to forbid it to the generality of Christians but to take care that there be a diligent and pious use thereof Thus a right veneration to the solemn worship of God and the holy Sacraments is not performed in prohibiting Christians to
refuted that I think them not worthy to be named 31. But (e) Ledesim de Scrip. qu. Ling. non legendis c. 13. Coster Ench. c. 17. several Writers of the Romish Church tell us that it is not necessary the people should understand the expressions of the publick prayers and praises and consequently not say Amen to them because these services are not directed to them but to God and they may partake of the benefit of these services though they do not understand them Bellarm de Verb. Dei l. 2. c. 16. as an ignorant Country man may have received advantage from a Latin Speech spoken on his behalf to a Prince Of the pretence that prayers are directed to God and not to the people by whom it is well understood or as absent persons may be advantaged by the prayers which others put up for them though themselves do not hear them But that this is an insufficient defence may appear 1. Because though the Lessons are directed to the people yet these also are read in a tongue they understand not 2. Because the thing here to be considered is not whether one may not be benefitted by anothers prayers and Religious addresses to God which is supposed to be true when we pray for one another but we are here to take notice whether the people ought notto bear a part and to join in those great exercises of Religious piety of prayers thanksgiving and glorifying God in the right performance of his publick worship and service For the whole exercise of Divine worship is not only to seek for blessings from God but also to praise him and glorifie him which the people cannot particularly join in and go along with unless they understand what is expressed in the service And therefore if they ought to join therein by being debarred from understanding it they are hindred from these acts of piety which they ought to perform and God is deprived of a great part of that glory that is due to him and consequently Religion and piety are much prejudiced thereby 32. Now it may be reasonably presumed The people are concerned to-worship God that if the people have such beings and souls as are indued with capacities of worshipping and glorifying God they ought to be employed to this purpose but if they have none such which would be to suppose them not to be Christians or men and to be uncapable of doing acts of duty and Religion and of receiving rewards then will they not be concerned to attend Gods publick worship And these pleas used by these Writers are as plausible to excuse their absence from the publick Assemblies as their not understanding the publick Service But that the people are to join in the duties of Religious worship is not only supposed by S. Paul in that discourse upon this subject 1 Cor. 14. but may be proved from the Psalms and many other Scriptures calling upon all people to praise and laud and glorifie God and from S. John's Visions of the Gospel-Church where sometimes the 144000 sometimes so great a multitude as no man could number are represented joyning together in the worship of God 33. But a thing so manifest as this is stands in need of no further proof siince there are such frequent precepts for prayer thanksgiving and giving glory to God directed to all Christians And the Christian Church from the beginning acknowledged the people to be much concerned in the performing the publick worship of God (u) Just Apol 2. Justin Martyr declares how in the prayers before the Eucharist all the Christians together rose up and presented those prayers and in those at the Eucharist they joined their consent by answering Amen Tertullian declaring the Christian practice saith (w) Tert. Apol c. 39. we go together to the Assembly and Congregation ut ad Deum quasi manu facta precationibus ambiamus orantes that we may earnestly call on God by prayers as with a joint strength and this force saith he is acceptable to God And before both these Ignatius urging and commending the publick service said (x) Ign. Ep. ad Eph. if the prayer of one or two hath so great a force 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how much greater is that of the Bishop and the whole Church And in the Primitive times sometimes an Amen and sometimes other responsals were directed to the people in the ancient Liturgies The result of all this is that whereas the peoples actual joining in the several parts of Gods worship is a great part of their duty and the pious and devout performance of it both tends to the honour of God and to their edification the present Church of Rome by establishing their service in a tongue not understood by the people both unjustly and impiously hinders the due worship of God and that piety of men which is conjoined with it and derived from it 34. I might give a fourth instance Immoral Doctrines hinted at of the hindrances to an holy life in the Church of Rome from those loose rules of practice delivered by divers of their Doctors and Casuists and the allowance their rules give to those gross enormities and heinous vices which the Philosophers and vertuous Pagans would abhor being opposite to the laws of nature and that honesty which prevailed amongst the better part of the Gentiles Of such things as these a large account hath been given in the Mystery of Jesuitism and several other Books as their giving allowance to perjury Murder and other such heinous sins upon sleight occasions as to preserve ones reputation and the like And what endeavours have been used by the doctrine of probability and other methods to uphold those positions which debauch Morality hath been manifested from the Books of Father Bauny Caramouel Estrix and divers others It is acknowledged that vigorous endeavours were used by some of their Bishops to suppress these wretched Principles of immorality but there was as earnest and vigorous diligence used to uphold the same by many Casuists and Divines especially in Flanders and France I do not therefore charge these Principles upon the Church of Rome in general but upon many Doctors therein Some of these abominable and immoral positions were condemned by Pope Alexander the Seventh and many were Sentenced by Pope Innocent the Eleventh and the Inquisition at Rome of the latter of which I shall take some particular notice 35. Amongst sixty five Propositions condemned in the Vatican (y) Decree of Innoc. 11. March 2. 1679. by the Pope and the Cardinals the general Inquisitors these were some (z) Prop. 5. That we dare not condemn him of mortal sin who should but once in his whole life put forth an act of the love of God (a) Prop. 10 11. We are not bound to love our Neighbour with an internal and formal act We may satisfie the precept of loving our Neighbour by only external acts (b) Prop. 15. It is lawful for a
Son to rejoice at his having murdered his Father when he was drunk because of the great riches thence accrewing to him by Inheritance (c) Prop. 17. It is sufficient to have an act of faith once in the life time (d) Prop. 24. To call God to witness to a light lie is not so great irreverence that for it he either will or can damn a man Now such horrid Positions as these and many others in the same Decree deserve the severest Censure and it may amaze any one that such things should be asserted by those who take upon them to instruct others in the Principles and Practices of Christianity And what wretched lives may they lead whose practices are directed by such Guides 36. Now though these Positions are condemned to be at least scandalous and pernicious in practice and therefore all persons are in that Decree strictly forbidden to practise upon them and all who shall maintain them are declared to be under the Sentence of Excommunication Yet this very Sentence is too kind and favourable to the Authors of these Positions upon a threefold account First In that such impious and irreligious Doctrines were not condemned as false wicked blasphemous or heretical but only as at least scandalous and pernicious in practice which is but a very mild Censure of these Doctrines themselves and speaks no more against them than is declared against some other positions contained in the same Decree which are not so abominable For instance (e) Prop. 19. That the will cannot effect that the assent of faith should be more firm in it self than the weight of the reasons which move to that assent do deserve and (f) Prop. 42. That it is not usury to require something besides the Principal as being due out of benevolence and gratitude but only when it is demanded as due out of justice For whatsoever may be said against these Positions it is a gentle and easie Censure of the other to put them in the same rank with these and under no heavier condemnation Secondly In that the authours of these unchristian Doctrines and those who till the time of this Decree have taught them and maintained them are not by this nor so far as I can learn by any other Decree brought under any publick censure which may embolden and encourage others to vent other wicked Principles against common morality in time to come though but with a little variation from the same Thirdly In that the Books in which these wicked Principles are contained and owned are not by this Decree and I think by no other prohibited to be read no not so far as the holy Scriptures themselves are under a prohibition SECT III. Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome and are by the Authority thereof established which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour Sect. III 1. Dishonour done to Christ THose practices and opinions which vilifie the dignity and authority of Christ are infamous and bring a deserved dishonour upon the authours of them and on them who embrace them And as he is worthy of all glory so his Church and the members thereof are deservedly zealous of his honour But herein the Romanists miscarry which I shall manifest in some particulars 2. by Invocating Saints First In their prayers and supplications to Saints and Angels their practice herein being not consistent with the honour due to our Lord as our Advocate and Intercessor This invocation of Saints is declared by (a) Sess ult the Council of Trent to be good and profitable And in the Oath enjoined by Pius the Fourth (b) in Bull. Pli 4. to be taken of all the Clergy a profession is required that the Saints are to be worshipped and invocated and in the publick Offices of the Romish Church both in their prayers and more especially and fully in their hymns supplications for all manner of Heavenly blessings are put up unto them (c) Cassand Consult de Cult Sanct. Cassander indeed tells us that these things are not done for any such intent as if praying to them should be thought simply necessary to salvation And in the same discourse he declares that they did not adjoin the Saints as if God either could not or would not hearken and shew mercy unless they be intercessors for it But it is well known that his mild and moderate expressions are displeasing to the greater part of that Church And however though the error in Doctrine is the greater when that is declared necessary which is not so the error in practice is not the less if in doing that which is on other accounts blameable it be declared not necessary to be done 3. Now the blessed Jesus is constituted of God and confidence in their intercession and merits our Advocate and Intercessor that we may in his name and through him draw nigh to God And it is part of his Kingly authority and headship over his Church to dispense those blessings for which we seek unto God in his name and he is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance and remission of sins Act. 5.31 But in many Books of Devotion used and approved by the Church of Rome their addresses are much more frequent to Saints and sometimes to Angels and especially and most frequently to the Blessed Virgin than to our Lord and Saviour himself and to these they apply themselves that by them they may find acceptance with God and that by their merits they may obtain help grace and blessing And even the title of intercessor and advocate also is oft-times given to them both in the more ancient Offices and in the present Roman Breviary together with expressions of trust and confidence in their merits frequently joined with them On S. Andrew's day they (d) in Missal sec us Sarum in Brev. pray with respect to him Sit apud te pro nobis perpetuus intercessor that he may be with thee for us a perpetual Intercessor And the blessed Virgin is stiled (e) Br. Rom. ad complet a Vesp Trin. our Advocate And they some times with respect to a Saint use such expressions as these in their addresses to God Ejus intercedentibus meritis ab omnibus nos absolve peccatis (f) ibid. Com. Confess Pont. Absolve us from all our sins through the intercession of his merits And with respect to Pope Nicholas both in the present Roman Breviary and in the Office secundum usum Sarum which was most in use in this Kingdom before the Reformation is a prayer for the sixth of December that by his merits and prayers we may be freed from the fire of Hell And of this nature numerous instances may be given And such like expressions concerning the Saints and applications to them encroached so far upon our Saviours Intercession and being our Advocate that with respect hereto Cassander says of
and Blood of Christ are consumed by the Priest on the Altar under the species of Bread and Wine because those species are consumed Now it is strange enough to speak of the glorified body of Christ being consumed which is capable of no corruption and it is yet more strange that it should be consumed by consuming the species when it is not the subject of those species Surely it would be more rational to assert the mortality of the soul and to think it sufficiently proved by the death of the body 28. To avoid this difficulty some steer another course (c) Coster Enchir. c. 9. de Sacrificio Missae Costerus a third Jesuit in a manner deserts the cause He first gives such a large description of a Sacrifice as may agree to other acts of Divine worship But when he speaks of the nature of this Sacrifice he declares it to be representative of the passion and Sacrifice of Christ He saith indeed that Christ is here offered but then he saith Christ upon the Cross was truly slain by the real shedding his blood but here is tantum illius mortis repraesentatio sub speciebus panis vini only a representation of his death under the species of Bread and Wine Now though repraesentare be sometimes observed to signifie rem praesentem facere to make the thing present as some learned men have observed the sense of Costerus must be what we generally understand by representing because he sometimes speaks of the species representing the dead body of Christ which cannot be by making it so and sometimes he declares the Sacrifices of the Law to represent the death of Christ but not so excellently as the Eucharist And concerning the effect of this Sacrifice (d) ibid. p. 324 334. he declares this difference between that Sacrifice on the Cross and this of the Mass that the former was offered to satisfie God and pay the price for the sins of the world and all other needful gifts but the latter is for the applying those things which Christ merited and procured by his death on the Cross And to this purpose again Hoc efficitur per Missae Sacrificium ut quod perfecit Christus in cruce id nobis singulis applicetur illic pretium est solutum pro peccatis omnibus hic nobis impetratur hujus pretii applicatio Quod orationibus quoque in Ecclesia praestatur quibus rogatur Deus ut efficiamur participes passionis Christi This indeed if it were the true Doctrine of the Romish Church in this particular would be a fairer account of it than either it self or others give But in truth this is so different from the sense of the Council of Trent above expressed that it seems to import that this Writer thought it hard to clear and defend the true sense of that Church and therefore chose to represent it under a disguise and in this Controversie in most things he comes nearer to the Protestant Doctrine than the Romish We own such a representation of Christs death in this Sacrament as consists with his real presence in a Spiritual and Sacramental manner We acknowledge such a Relation between the Passion of Christ on the Cross and the Memorial of it in this Sacrament that the Communion of the body and blood of Christ and the benefits procured by his passion are exhibited in this Sacrament and are therein by the faithful received And we account the elements of Bread and Wine to be offered to God in this Sacrament as an oblation according to the ancient Church since the setting apart and consecrating the elements is a separating them to God and to his service but we do not look upon them to make way for a proper propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucharist But I now pass from the consideration of the Sacrifice to consider the Priest who is to offer it 29. Cons 3. The Sacrifice of Christ peculiar to his incommunicable Priesthood Cons 3. It is peculiar to the Office of Christs high Priesthood after the order of Melchisedec to offer up himself to be a propitiatory Sacrifice and this high Priesthood is communicated to no other person besides himself The Sacrifice of our Saviour as (e) Athan. cout Arian Orat. 3. Athanasius saith hath compleated all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being once made and he adds Aaron had those who succeeded him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but our Lord having an high Priesthood which is not successive nor passeth from one to another is a faithful High Priest And this was the Apostles Doctrine Heb. 7. Now Bellarmine saith (f) de Mis l. 1. c. 24. no Catholicks affirm other Priests to succeed to Christ but they are his Vicars or suffragans in the Melchisedecian Priesthood or rather his Ministers But here it must be considered 1. That if they be Priests of such an order as can offer Christ himself or the Sacrifice of his Body and Blood to be a Sacrifice of atonement and propitiation they must be capable of performing all the necessary rites of that Sacrifice And one great rite thereof is that as the legal High Priest in making an atonement was to enter into the holy of holies with the blood thereof so he who offers the great Sacrifice of atonement which is the Body and Blood of Christ must enter into Heaven it self and there appear in the presence of God for us presenting his Sacrifice to God in that Holy place Heb. 9.11 12 24. but this none but Christ himself can do 2. He who is a Priest after the order of Melchisedec must be a Priest for ever since the order of the Melchisedecian Priesthood doth not admit succession as that of the Aaronical did Heb. 7.3 8 17 23 24 28. And therefore such persons as succeed one another in their Office cannot be of the Melchisedecian Priesthood 3. Since an High Priest is chiefly appointed to offer gifts or Sacrifices for sins Heb. 5.1 chap. 8.3 and thereby to make reconciliation and execute other acts of his Office in pursuance of his Sacrifice the offering that Sacrifice of reconciliation for which he is appointed is a main part of his Office and therefore not to be performed by him who hath not the same Office Wherefore since no man hath that Office of High Priesthood which Christ himself hath none can make the same reconciliation by offering the same Sacrifice of atonement or propitiatory Sacrifice 30. But we are told in (g) Catech. ad Paroch de Euch. Sac. p. 249. the Roman Catechism that there being one Sacrifice on the Cross and in the Mass there is also one and the same Priest Christ the Lord and the Ministers who sacrifice non suam sed Christi personam suscipiunt they take upon them the person of Christ and they say not this is Christs body but this is my body Now if these words should intend more than that the Minister acts by Christs authority who hath given to none authority
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
being so inhumanly savage that in their private Religious Assemblies they murdered an Infant and sucked and drunk his blood it was among other things answered by (f) Tert. Apol. c. 9. Tertullian (g) In Octav. p. 100. Ed. Oxon. Minucius Felix and (h) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 1. others that the Gentiles might be ashamed to charge any such thing on Christians who were so far from taking any human blood that they carefully avoided all blood even of Beasts But this defence could not well have been made on this manner if they had accounted themselves to have taken the Blood of Christ substantially in the Eucharist and not only such a mystical representation thereof as is not void of efficacy and reality And though I think it manifest that blood may lawfully be eaten and that the Apostolical prohibition thereof was but a provisional Decree for those times from the general declaration in the New Testament that nothing is unclean in it self from the liberty which Christians were allowed to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles or was set before them when they were invited to eat with unbelievers asking no question for conscience sake and also because blood was for this reason forbidden to be eaten under the Law because it was given upon the altar to make an atonement for their souls Lev. 17.10 11 12 13 14. Yet it may not be amiss observed that according to the computation of time fixed by Rhenanus as it is from him mentioned by (i) Pamel in Apolog. Tertul n. 138. Pamelius it is now about five hundred years since eating blood was generally allowed in the Western Church and about that time the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had prevailed which was publickly established under the time of Innocentius the Third above four hundred and fifty years since And that general prohibition of blood so long continued though upon mistake or more than necessary cautiousness might well be accounted not consistent with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or not fairly reconcileable thereunto 19. Thirdly Transubstantiation doth plainly contradict the evidence of sense Transubstantiation is contrary to the testimony of sense Now the testimony of our senses is so considerable that this is that which assured and manifested the certainty of the mighty Miracles wrought by Christ and his Apostles yea of the birth of Christ of his converse with men in the world and of his being crucified risen again and ascended into Heaven Upon the evidence of sense Thomas was convincingly perswaded of Christs resurrection and the other Apostles had such an esteem for this testimony that they could not but Preach the things which they had seen and heard Act. 4.20 And the certainty of what they taught concerning Christ and Christianity they founded upon the evidence of their senses in that it was what they had seen with their eyes and what they had heard and their hands had handled of the word of life 2 Pet. 1.16 17 18. 1 Joh. 1.1 And therefore the denying the evidence of sense would undermine Christianity and withal take away all possibility of certainty concerning the plain matters of fact in the world And there could be no assurance given that Christ taught any Doctrine nor could what he did teach be otherwise conveyed to us than by our eyes and ears unless men pretend to Enthusiasm And as that pretence is vain so if it were not no other men could be taught by such Enthusiasticks but by the exercise and use of their senses and upon supposition of the certainty thereof 20. But our eyes our taste our feeling and the inward sense of nourishment received from the consecrated elements do all of them testifie that the Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances after their consecration But here the Church of Rome thinks it her interest to (k) Catech. aâ—â— arochos p. 218. Curandum est ut fidelium mentes quam maxime fieri potest à sensuum judicio abstrahantur take care that the minds of Christians should as much as is possible be drawn off from the judgement of their senses And yet they who do lay aside the judgement of their senses must not believe that they do truly either read or see any such instruction as this directed to them And if the evidence of sense in the Sacrament be denied there will then be no certainty to the Communicants whether there be any Priest present to consecrate and consequently whether there be any words of consecration spoken or whether there be any elements to receive consecration And the senses of the Communicants do give a more joint testimony to the elements remaining in their proper substances than to these other instances 21. and is also opposite to reason Fourthly Transubstantiation is opposite to the principles of reason and understanding and includes manifold gross absurdities and contradictions 1. That the whole substance of the Body of Christ should be in many thousand yea many millions of places at the same time is sufficiently inconsistent with the nature of a body And as there are consecrated Hosts in many thousand places at once the Catechism framed according to the Decree of the Council of Trent agreeably to that Council declares that (l) Ibid. p. 223 225. Inquavis urriusque speciei parâ—icula totum Christum contineri under every least part either of the Bread or Wine whole Christ is contained even with his bones sinews and whatsoever belongs to the true state of his body as I above observed from the same Catechism 2. And in purfuance of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Romish Doctors do assert if a Mouse or any other brutish Animal or Insect do eat any part of the consecrated Host they do eat what is truly and substantially the Body of Christ This is acknowledged by (m) Part. 3 q. 80. a. 3. Aquinas and though the (n) Sent. l. 4. dist 13. A. Master of the Sentences would not admit this for truth but declared himself of the contrary opinion yet his Authority is here rejected and by the Censure of (o) Lib. 4. Art 9. the Divines of Paris this is reckoned among one of his errors But it is a thing dishonourable to the glorious Body of Christ to be eaten of Brutes and to pass into the draught and to be substantially present there where even the Romanists who assert that presence do not require Divine Worship to be given to it 3. And it is contradictory to assert that the substance of Bread and Wine being gone the accidents thereof do remain without any subject or matter being as the Roman Catechism saith (p) Catech. p. 219. 230. Edi. Lovan 1567. accidentia quae nulli substantiae inhaerent and species sine aliqua re subjecta Thus for instance the extension that was in the Bread is supposed to remain when the substance of the Bread is gone and that extension which can be measured and felt is in its own
great veneration as being founded upon the highest evidence since no evidence can be above infallible certainty and there can be no evidence against it but what appears to be such is a mistaken fallacy and therefore no doubts ought to be admitted for there cannot be any need of reforming the Doctrine of such a Church By this method also so far as men believe this they are kept in a peaceable subjection but in a way of fraud and neglect of truth We account all honest and prudent ways to promote peace with truth to be desireable But if stedfastness in errors such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees or of any Hereticks or Schismaticks be more desirable than to understand or embrace the truth then may the devices of the Roman Church be applauded which have any tendency to promote peace And yet indeed all their other projects would signifie little if it were not for the great strictness and severity of their Government This pretence to Infallibility is in the consequence of it blasphemous because as it pretends to be derived from God it makes him to approve and patronize all their gross errors and Heretical Doctrines And if any other persons should have the confidence to require all they say to be received upon their authority as unquestionable and infallibly true though it appear never so unlikely to the hearers or be known by them to be false such a temper would not be thought tolerable for converse but it is only admired in those of Rome where there is as little reason to admit it as any where else and no proof at all thereof but very much to be said to confute it For 5. First It is hard to believe The asserters of Infallibility are not agreed who is the keeper thereof that that Church should have been possessed of Infallibility for above 1600 years which doth not yet agree where to fix this Infallibility It is great pity that if they have Infallibility they should not know where it is And it is strange it should be accompanied with so much uncertainty that those of the Romish Communion should still disagree and be to seek who the person or persons is or are that are Infallible and whether any be such or not Many of the Romish Church claim Infallibility to belong to the Pope This way goes Bellarmine and many others who assert the judgment of Councils Whether the Pope whether General or Provincial to receive their firmness from the Pope's Confirmation and then (e) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 1 2 3. asserts that he cannot err in what he delivers to the Church as a matter of Faith And yet (f) de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 30. he grants that the Pope himself may be a Heretick and may be known to be such and by falling into Heresie may fall from being Head or Member of the Church and may be judged and punished by the Church And this is to give up his Infallibility since he who may fall into Heresie and declare it may err in what he declares And (g) Theol. Mor. l. 2. Tr. 1. c. 7. n. 1 2. Layman who asserts that the Pope in his own Person may fall into notorious Heresie and yet that in what he proposeth to the whole Church he is by Divine Providence infallible still acknowledgeth that this latter assertion is not so certain that the contrary should be an error in Faith Yea he admits it possible and to be owned by grave Authors such as Gerson Turrecremata Sylvester Corduba and Gr. de Valentia that the Pope may propose things against the Faith And this is to profess his Infallibility to be uncertain and indeed to be none at all And some of the Popes have been so unwary as in their Publick Rescripts to let fall such expressions which betrayed themselves to have no confidence of their own Infallibility Pope Martin the fifth determined a case proposed concerning the (h) Extrav Com. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 1. sale of a yearly Revenue to be no Vsury because one of the Cardinals had given him an account that such parts were allowed to be lawful by the Doctors Now it is not like that if that Pope thought his own judgment to be Infallible that he would profess himself to proceed in his Declaration upon the judgment of others And Pope Innocent the third considering those words of S. Peter Submit your selves therefore to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as Supreme c. would have it observed that the King is not expresly called Supreme (i) Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. Solite sed interpositum for sitan non sine causa tanquam but this word as is interposed perhaps not without cause but for sitan and perhaps are not a stile becoming the pretence to Infallibility since the one acknowledgeth and the other disclaims the doubtfulness of the thing declared But so much modesty was very needful in this Epistle when both this Observation it self and many other things in that Epistle were far enough from being infallibly true as the founding the Pope's authority upon Jer. 1.10 and on God's creating two great Luminaries and such like things of which above 6. But others of the Romish Church or a General Council own the infallible judgment in matters of Faith to be only fixed in a general Council That Adrian the sixth was of this Opinion is owned by (k) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine to whom (l) Lâ—ym ubi sup Layman adds Gerson and others of the French Church Now there is much more to be said for this than for the former Notion And though a General Council cannot claim absolute infallibility of judgment in all cases because it is possible the erring Party may happen in some cases to be the greater number as appeared in some of the Arian Councils which so far as concerned the greatness of them bad fair for the Title of General ones Yet if a General Council be regularly convened and proceed orderly with a pious intention to declare truth and without design of serving interests and Parties there is so much evidence concerning Matters of Faith that it may be justly concluded that such a Council will not err in them but that its Determinations in this case are infallibly true But the admitting the Infallible Decision of such a General Council in points of Faith is so far from the interest of the Church of Rome that the eager promoters of the Popish interest will by no means close with this For a General Council having respect to the whole Catholick Church and not being confined to the particular Roman limits The Church of Rome can upon this principle plead no more for any Infallibility resident in it than the Church of Constantinople or the Church of England may do To this purpose the General of the Jesuits Lainezius (m) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p.
separating party can justifie it self it must be able to plead truly and manifest that the Church from which it departs is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good even all the rules of Faith and Life and due Order which the Christian Religion doth direct and include 3. Beginning with the Quakers I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour and outward expressions of reverence to Governours when Christianity injoins kindness humility courteousness and the due expressions of them to all men and honourable respect to be given to Superiors I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath even in judicial proceedings which if rightly undertaken is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth the maintaining justice preserving rights and ending strife But waving very many blameable errors received amongst them I shall insist on four things which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses vigorously asserted which are of such a nature that those who embrace these Principles and practise according to them may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians Yet in so wild and Enthusiastick a Sect I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions Here I shall observe 4. First Their denial of and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord and in the Holy Ghost And (d) Conc. Nicen Constantinopol the two first General Councils of the Christian Church were in a good part imployed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresie And this Christian Faith is not only contained in and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity that many of those Hereticks who denied the Trinity thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained and his Church from him (e) Just Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. 13. had universally received Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunomius altered the Baptismal form not Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but into the death of Christ And amongst the Arians who owned not the Son to be co-eternal and of the same substance with the Father the form of Baptism was perverted and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop who Baptized into the Name of the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost And before these when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ his followers the Paulianists were injoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19. Nice to be re-baptized since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel in Cod. Ecel c. univ 19. was not into the Holy Trinity which he did not acknowledge And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholick Christian Church believed and into whose Name they were Baptized he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but they who disown the Trinity cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what my self hath formerly been concerned in Almost three and twenty years since some of the chief Quakers being busie in these parts two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions or Positions rather challenging me to dispute with them the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers with more also I then accepted this challenge and we went through all these nine in three days discourse In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarm'd Mr. Smith at Cambridge At that time in the Year 1659 I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead in the presence of George Fox and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of which were contained in a Book written by him and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend which was Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out I even tremble to write the words which the licentiousness of those times gave way to (l) Ishmael c. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer are denied and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness for the Lake and the Pit But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge 6. Sometime after this as if they had a mind to shew themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity I received a paper (m) Directed to them that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead and that the Father is the first and the Word the second and the Spirit the third and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead of Five Queries containing very many branches under them wholly levelled against the Doctrine of the Trinity and subscribed by George Whitehead and George Fox And after I had returned an Answer to these I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed In this paper which I have by me it is declared That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity are Popish terms and names
Circumcised Gen. 17.12 which is a manifest evidence that they were interested in this Covenant made with Abraham And this precept of Circumcision concerning the Infant Males continued in force until the coming of our Saviour and thereby Infants born in the Jewish Church were owned and received to be members of that Church Now our Saviours coming was not to confine the Church to narrower limits but to extend and enlarge it 3. And it may not be amiss to observe that the Jews themselves did generally acknowledge that the priviledge of having such Children admitted into their Church in their infancy whose Parents were members thereof was not peculiar to that Nation alone but did also belong to those who from among the Gentiles became Proselytes to the Jewish Religion When they admitted the chief sort of Proselytes which were called the Proselytes of righteousness this was usually done (a) Seld. de Syned l. 3. c. 3. p. 34 37-40 Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.6 by Circumcision together with a kind of Baptism or washing them with respect to their uncleanness in their Gentilism and Sacrifice as Mr. Selden and Dr. Lightfoot and others have observed who also have manifested from the Jewish writers that they did usually admit Children even Infants with their Parents And if the Mother was admitted into the number of this sort of Proselytes when she was with Child that Child afterwards born was supposed not to need any other washing but if it was a Male was received only by Circumcision And it also appears by the testimonies produced by the latter of these Writers (b) Hor. Heb. ibid. that they ordinarily admitted the Infants of Gentiles to be Proselytes if they were taken into the care and education of Israelites and this was agreeable to what God had established concerning him who was born in Abraham's House or bought with money of any stranger not of his Seed 4. And that the New Testament doth particularly admit Infants into the Church of God and giveth them a right to partake of the benefits of his Covenant as well as the Old Testament did might be justly presumed because there is not any thing said or done by our Saviour which doth exclude them nor is there any thing declared by God whereby he expresseth his altering the terms of his Covenant so as in this particular to confine it into a less and straiter compass under the Gospel But besides this there are plain expressions in the New Testament that Infants are received as Members of the Church of God and interested in the promises of his Covenant under the Christian Dispensation Our Saviour saith of them that of such is the Kingdom of Heaven Mar. 10.14 and S. Peter perswades the Jews Act. 2.38 39. Repent and be baptized for the promise is to you and to your Children and the same thing may be inferred from other Texts of Scripture And these expressions especially considering what God had established and injoined in the time of the Old Testament do sufficiently declare this sense of the Gospel-Covenant that Children and Infants are included therein 5. And whereas the Judaizers did earnestly contend with the Apostles about the necessity of Circumcision and other Jewish Rites to be continued in the Church we read of no contest about the admission of their Children into the Church Had the Apostles and the Christian institution herein differed from the Rules received under the Old Testament in not admitting Children into the Church of God these men would no doubt as eagerly have contended with the Apostles about this thing as about the other since this was a branch of Gods ancient Covenant and such a branch as they could not but think to be of high concernment to themselves and their Posterity But the Christian Doctrine plainly acknowledgeth that Children were reputed holy if but one of their Parents were Christians or Believers 1 Cor. 7.14 and therefore such Children which otherwise had been unclean were accounted to belong to the Church by vertue of that relation they had to such Believing Parents And when the Apostles are said to have Baptized persons and all theirs or all their Houshold upon the consideration now mentioned it is not to be doubted but Children and Infants were included in these expressions Act. 16.15 and v. 33. 1 Cor. 1.16 and also in that other precept of Baptizing all Nations and making them Disciples Mat. 28.19 And this will receive further confirmation from the ordinary and usual practice of the ancient Christian Church in Baptizing Infants which I shall by and by mention 6. Indeed under the Gospel it was necessary that adult persons both Jews and Gentiles should first be taught the Christian Doctrine and own their belief thereof and undertake the practice of repentance and obedience before they could be Baptized into the Christian Church But this gives no support to them who oppose the Baptism of Infants since even under the Old Testament such persons who being adult were received as Proselytes to the Jewish Church were first to be acquainted with the Law of God d and then to profess their owning and believing in the God of Israel (c) Selden ubi sup before they were admitted into that Church by Circumcision and other solemn Rites And this reasonable and necessary observation with respect to those who attained to years of discretion was well consistent with their Circumcising Infants and the Divine Law injoined that when strangers were desirous to embrace the Jewish Religion and were admitted thereto all their Males and therefore even those which were Infants must be Circumcised Exod. 12.48 7. And those words of S. Paul from which the favourers of Anabaptism have endeavoured to prove that under the New Testament none and therefore no Infants are interested in the Gospel-Covenant and Membership of the Christian Church by being born of Christian Parents are greatly mistaken S. Paul saith Rom. 9.6 They are not all Israel which are of Israel v. 7. Neither because they are the Seed of Abraham are they all Children but in Isaac shall thy Seed be called For 1. These words have no peculiar respect to the time and state of the New Testament but they give an account how the promise to the Seed of Abraham was to be understood from the very time in which it was made to Abraham And the Apostle here shews that this Promise and Covenant was particularly fixed upon Isaac and his Family v. 7. and then upon Jacob v. 13. and yet then Infants were constantly Circumcised 2. The true sense of these words is that the Promise and Covenant of God to and with Abraham and his Seed did not bind him to continue all the posterity of Ishmael or other Sons of Abraham nor yet the Posterity of Esau to be his peculiar Church and people though these were Circumcised and lineally descended from Abraham but had departed from the Religion Piety Faith and Obedience of their Father Abraham And from hence the Apostle proves that
the same promise can be no security to the Jews or the Posterity of Jacob in their unbelief and disobedience but God can otherwise accomplish his promise made to the Seed of Abraham by accomplishing it to them who walk in the steps of the Faith of Abraham 3. As this true sense is wholly alien from proving Infants not to be members of the Christian Church so the sense imposed upon them by the Anabaptists is neither agreeable to the words themselves and the scope of that place nor to such other expressions of the New Testament as I have above mentioned 8. Secondly This Opinion and Practice of Anabaptism is very uncharitable to Infants born in the Christian Church upon a double account For First The consequence of this Position will be to take away that great hope of Salvation which the true Principles of Christianity do afford concerning Christian Infants dying in their infancy I acknowledge that this consequence concerning all Infants is not owned by those who hold this erroneous opinion in denying Infant-Baptism who run into other errors to avoid this But yet this is deducible from their Assertion and therefore I charge this uncharitableness to be a proper consequent of this opinion For since Christians are Baptized into the Body or Church of Christ 1 Cor. 12.12 and are thereby entred as members thereof if Infants be denied to have any right to Baptism or to be capable of being Baptized they cannot then be owned to be members of the visible Church of Christ and parts of his Body And they who are supposed to be excluded from the visible Church by Gods special institution and to be thereby made uncapable of being received as members thereof cannot well be presumed to be admitted into membership with the invisible Church if we consider what God himself hath declared concerning the power of the Keys and of Binding and Loosing upon Earth And those great priviledges of the New Covenant of which eternal Salvation is the chief belong to that Church which is the Body of Christ and to the lively members thereof For Christ is the Saviour of this body Eph. 5.23 And this Body which is his Church is that which he will present to himself having neither spot nor wrinkle nor any such thing v. 27. And whereas Baptism is the laver of regeneration Tit. 3.5 if Infants are not capable of being partakers of that washing of water whereby the Church is cleansed and sanctified Eph. 5.26 and of the laver of regeneration and of regeneration it self also they cannot enter into the Kingdom of God Joh. 3.3 5. 9. But this opinion is further uncharitable to Infants in denying to them such means of grace as the Gospel of our Saviour doth afford them and the Christian Church hath from the beginning alwayes acknowledged to belong to them All the Ordinances and special Institutions of Christ tend to the great advantage and good of them who do aright partake of them and are useful to their spiritual and eternal welfare and benefit and so particularly is Christian Baptism Of this I have particularly discoursed in (d) Libert Eccles B. 1. c. 5. Sect. 3.4.5 another place And as the Scriptures sufficiently express the great benefit of Baptism with respect to regeneration and remission of sins so whosoever hath a due reverence for our Lord and Saviour can by no means entertain such low thoughts of his Institutions as to think them of no considerable usefulness to them who duly receive them But this piece of uncharitableness to Infants is much worse and more hurtful and prejudicial to them than the former For the opinion from whence the former consequent was deduced being untrue the consequence it self is also false and so hath no real influence or effect upon the state of Infants nor are damaged thereby whereas they are truly prejudiced by being denied the means of grace 10. On this account the Chiristian Church in the first ages thereof and in a continued succession from thence to this time hath admitted Infants to be Baptized and thought it self bound so to do S. Austin (e) de peccar Mer. remis l. 1. c. 26. declares this practice to have authoritatem universae Ecclesiae proculdubio per Dominum Apostolos traditam the Authority of the Vniversal Church without doubt delivered by the Lord and the Apostles and the Doctrine of Infant-Baptism is called by S. Austin (f) Ep. 28. firmissima Ecclesiae fides a Doctrine of Faith most firmly and constantly believed in the Church And much to the same purpose is frequently expressed by S. Austin To this purpose the determination of (g) Ep. 59. ad Fidum S. Cyprian and an African Council with him is very manifest When Fidus had written to Cyprian his opinion that Infants ought not to be Baptized within the second or third day of their Birth or until the eighth day which was the time appointed for Circumcision though this opinion allowed and asserted Infant-Baptism S. Cyprian largely declares that not any one of this Council did agree to this opinion but every one of them judged Nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei gratiam denegandam That the mercy and grace of God is to be denied to no Child of man i. e. upon account of their age And he there shews that Infants from the time of their Birth are not to be prohibited Baptism And of how great consequence they in those early times judged Infant-Baptism is apparent from this expression relating thereto (h) ibid. quantum in nobis est si fieri potest nulla anima perdenda est as far as is in our power if it be possible no soul is to be lost The plain testimonies of Origen both upon Leviticus and the Epistle to the Romans and of divers other Fathers and Councils might be added to manifest the universal reception of Infant-Baptism in the Catholick Church But this having been clearly and sufficiently evidenced by the Historical Theses of (i) Thes Theolog p. 429 c. Vossius upon this Subject of Paedobaptism I shall refer him thither who would have more large and ample proof hereof 11. But that learned man truly observes that there is something which may seem singular in some expressions of Tertullian and Nazianzen who though they deny not Infant-Baptism yet intimate the usefulness of deferring the Baptism of Infants and incline to perswade the same Now though any singular apprehension of one or two men is not to be laid in the balance against the general sense of the Church I shall however observe something further concerning the sense of both these ancient Writers Gr. Nazianzen doth indeed in his Oration (k) Orat. 40. p. 458. concerning Baptism advise that if Infants be in no danger of death their Baptism may be deferred till they be three years old or somewhat less or more that themselves may hear something of that Mystery and give answer But though he might proceed
dividing principle and practice can be justified before Christ himself For if Christ will say to them who neglect to express kindness and respect to the rest of his members In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me Matt. 25.45 May not they fear lest they hear the same who rashly and unjustly cast contempt reproach and disrespect upon that Church which he owneth as his and disown and reject its Communion 15. But this which they call gathering of Churches by taking to themselves those who either were or ought to have been under other Guides and Governours of the Church in a different but more justifiable way and order is indeed a making divisions in a setled Church and separations from it And this practce of division and separation is so greatly displeasing to the Holy Spirit of God that there are many earnest and vehement expressions in the Holy Scriptures against it To which purpose the Apostle beseecheth the Romans to mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 even them who by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple Against such separations the ancient and Primitive Christians were very zealous as I have noted in (u) Libert Eccles B. 1. C. 1. Sect. 3. another place and so are also the generality of the Protestant Writers 16. Such a way of separation which in the phrase and language of the ancient Christians was expressed by a Presbyter contemning his own Bishop and having a separate Congregation and erecting another Altar or different Communion as to Sacramental administrations was severely censured in those early times of Christianity In that most ancient (x) Can. Ap. 31. collection of Canons such a Presbyter and as many of the Clergy as joined with him were sentenced to be deposed and the Laity to be Excommunicated after admonition The Code of Canons of the Universal Church further determine concerning a Presbyter or Deacon who shall thus separate (y) Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. c. 85. that his deposition shall be without any way of return to his former honour and dignity in the Church and that if he persist in disturbing the Church he should be reduced by the Secular Power as being seditious And the African Code in this case declare (z) Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 10 11. that such a Presbyter should be ejected from his place and that he should be anathematized and the inflicting this double punishment which was not usual in the Church for a single crime shews of how heinous a nature this offence was then accounted when the Primitive rules of discipline were received 17. Amongst such Protestant Writers as are most in esteem with our Dissenters Calvin asserts it to be certain (a) Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.9 that this stone is continually moved by the Devil that he might break the Unity of the Church and he purposely opposeth and smartly condemneth (b) Inst l. 4. c. 1. in Ps 26.5 all separation from a true Church where the Holy Sacraments are duly administred and the true rule of Religion is imbraced The (c) Synops pur Theol. Disp 40. n. 37 41 42. Leyden Professors account the erecting separate Assemblies in the breach of Communion by them who hold the foundation of the Faith and agree with the Church therein upon occasion of external indifferent Rites or particular miscarriages in manners to be properly Schismatical and that this is one of the works of the flesh and renders a Society impure and that it is not lawful to hold Communion with such a Schismatical Church to which purpose they urge many Texts of Scripture And Zanchy treating largely hereof doth (d) Zanch. Miscel de Eccles c. 7. particularly undertake to maintain that though there be some diversity of Doctrine but in things not fundamental though different ways of Rites and Ceremonies though there be vices in Ministers or corruptions in people or want of due care in rejecting offenders from the Communion he that shall separate from a true Church upon these pretences shall not saith he escape the wrath of God and ira Dei manet super illum the wrath of God abides upon that person 18. How far such separations from our Church are made use of by the Romanists to serve their interest might be shewed of many of their Authors But I shall content my self here to observe what was noted by one of our own (e) Camd. Annal. Eliz. an 1583. learned Historians Mr. Camden concerning the time of Queen Elizabeth That when in her Reign some of the Ministry in dislike of the Liturgy Order and Government of the Church templa adire recusarent plane schisma facerent did refuse to come to our publick Worship and manifestly made a Schism this was done Pontificiis plaudentibus multosque insuas partes pertrahentibus quasi nulla esset in Ecclesia Anglicana Vnitas the Papists rejoicing at it and drawing away many to their party as if there were no Vnity in the Church of England 19. I shall now examine their particular Covenant whereby they ingage themselves to walk together as constant members of that particular Society or Congregation to which they join themselves Now this Covenant in a way of separation is no other but a bond of division and was to that purpose invented by the Brownists And that it was their practice is (f) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 41 42 43 44. acknowledged by the Churches in New England Against which such things as these may be justly alledged 1. That this contradicts another of their avowed Positions That nothing not instituted of Christ ought to be received or submitted to as terms of Communion with a Church and some of them more largely declare that (g) Answer to 32. Qu. qu. â—8 particular Churches have no power to make Laws for themselves or their members but to observe the Laws of Christ and if any Church presume further they go beyond their Commission and it would be sin to be subject to such Laws But such a particular contract with a single Congregation especially a separating one was never any part of Christs Institution But because this other opinion of theirs is also erroneous it is of greater concernment to observe that this way of Covenanting is opposite to the Institution of Christ in that by division and separation it breaks the Unity of the Christian Church which Christ hath established to be one Church and one Body But the dividing the Church into several Independent Societies which is contrary to what the Institution of Christ appointeth is so much designed by this Covenant that some of themselves tell us (h) ibid. Answ to Qu. 8. without this kind of Covenanting we know not how it would be avoided but all Churches would be confounded into one Now this is as much as to say that Christ and his Apostles
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
it be followed it can convey Christs Doctrine down to the Worlds end as will appear if any consider that if Protestants have Children who believe and practise as their Fathers brought them up they will be Protestants too and so forward from Generation to Generation I answer Tradition framed according to a notion which would free it from all the above said imperfections would be indeed evidenceable as to its ruling power to every capacity but this is not such a Tradition as can be expected to be found in the World But if any man consider of such a Tradition as is in the World in case he be confident of the true delivery of the sense of the foregoing Generation yet it will not be evidenceable as to its ruling Power unless he can be satisfied that the foregoing Generation did certainly hold the truth in all points Persons who have little knowledge may possibly believe this without supposing it at all doubtful But they who know how uncertain the way of Tradition is and what corruption of Doctrine was in the Jewish Church what Prophecies of Apostasie under the New Testament and what great defections were reproved in many particular Churches in the Apostles times as the Churches of Galatia and the Church of Sardis and others will see that they can have no other certainty of the former Generation where their Fore-Fathers lived being in the right unless they make use of some other trial besides a knowledge that they professed Christianity than an over-weening esteem of their own Relations which may be an affectionate but not a rational ground of perswasion and by this means the perswading virtue of Tradition may be prevalent but its ruling Power cannot be evidenced Indeed where there is no better help than Tradition it may lead to error in one place if it lead to truth in another and so is no where certain thus it did perswade the Heathen to refuse Christianity because their Fathers delivered other wayes of Gentile Worship which I suppose is part of that vain conversation received by Tradition from their Fathers mentioned by Saint Peter 1 Pet. 1.18 Yea God himself complains Jer. 9.13 14. They have forsaken my Law which I set before them and have walked after the imagination of their own heart and after Baalim which their Fathers taught them Protestants acknowledge the practice or belief of Fore-Fathers to be a considerable Motive to perswade either to judge or do as they judged and did until by inquiring into the Rule it shall discover any error therein and then it is to be declined Yet withal he who understands that his Fore-Fathers did keep to a fixed Rule in preserved Records hath thereby the more reason to rely on their judgment as a strong Motive to perswade him and this is the case of Protestants § 9. He proceeds to shew That the third condition of the Rule of Faith agrees to Tradition that is it is apt to justifie unreflecting persons that they proceed rationally while they rely on it because it is a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers in things they were taught and practised all their lives Nor can any deceit be suspected in such multitudes who all agree in a matter of fact appear to speak seriously and practise as they speak especially since Parents will be apt to teach their Children things good and true I answer Where there are many testifiers capable of giving testimonies surely it would be a madness not to believe a multitude of knowers but where what evidence they give supposeth such innumerable contingencies which though possibly they may all have happened right yet it is a thousand times more like they have not this testimony is far from any tolerable satisfaction But in the present case none can give testimony but only concerning the last Age nor concerning that with absolute certainty They cannot testifie what is necessary here to be known to wit that all Ages were free in every Succession from unfaithfulness of memory that they forgat no truth that they all had right understanding to err in none and a liking of it to imbrace all truth and a sufficient care not to add any explications which might vary from the truth nor to deliver any thing upon opinion which they did not certainly know to be truth and withal that every Age did commit the whole truth to the next Generation If any one of these fail in any one succession all security of their knowledge is gone and a former Generation proceeding upon Tradition cannot testifie all this and therefore cannot be a multitude of knowers This way of Tradition must therefore suppose all things right in the Roman Church but will not prove them so Can there be any likelihood now of the certainty of Oral and practical Traditions bringing down truth since before the Flood where the Successions of Generations were not many and many of them lived together and had an Adam cast out of Paradise as a visible token of Gods vengeance against them who were negligent in Religion yet it is certain there was great corruption at that time And after the Flood they worshipped other gods though they had the argument of the deluge to make them more careful both to deliver and receive the true Religion after Moses's time they had the Motive of the terrible presence upon Mount Sinai and many wonderful judgments and after Ezra's time the Argument of the Captivity to make them careful in Religion and yet in all these times they miscarried But he tells us no deceit can be suspected here I answer if there be so many waies of failing otherwise what if there be no design of deceiving but indeed it is not a thing impossible that there should be a designed forsaking the truth in the Church which in the way of Oral Tradition will eventually include deceiving Is it not possible that men who profess Religion may so far gratifie the Devil and their own vain imaginations as to forsake the truth they know in great matters of Faith and to practise and live contrary to it and to promote that which they know is contrary to truth Else what mean such complaints as these Jer. 11.9 10. A conspiracy is found amongst the men of Judah and among the Inhabitants of Jerusalem They are turned back to the iniquity of their fore-fathers which refused to hear my words and they went after other Gods to serve them Is not a conspiring to refuse Gods Word and to serve other Gods a designed rejecting the truth Yea I further demand what account can possibly be given of the high corruptions among the Jews all along from Moses to Christ unless a designed rejecting the truth especially in such cases as these That they who had seen Gods wonders in Egypt and had heard the commandments delivered on Mount Sinai should say to Aaron Arise make us Gods Exod. 32.1 If this was not done wilfully and against sufficient knowledge then we must imagine
be proved Yea evident it is that among the most eminent Fathers who lived not long after the Apostles daies there are acknowledged some errors and they were not alone in them but had many partakers and followers Cyprian erred about re-baptizing Justin Martyr Papias Irenaeus Lactantius and others were in the error of the Chiliasts and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors and in Clemens Alexandrinus and much more in Tertullian and Origen So that though this ground if the others all hold may help us to know the great points of Religion yet it can be no security to all the truths of God from the multitude of Believers The second ground is of the time nature with the former which concerns only the chief truths of Religion in the generality of Christians For the faithful could not while free from error believe this which is an error that the want of understanding any truth of God was the way to damnation for S. Paul saith expresly that they must receive the weak in the faith and God hath received him and God is able to make him stand Rom. 14.1 3 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth which they had evidence was of God was likewise dreadfully dangerous which would ingage them to hold fast all the truth they had received upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them yet would not the same inforcements lie upon them to shew the necessity either of their own knowing or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect and milk for the weak Yet I also assert that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel in the Apostles daies who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation who had capacities of understanding them but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes And the love of God and his truth would excite all the faithful as they had opportunity both to indeavour to know all truth of God and also firmly to receive and declare it but this will not free them from all ignorance or capacity of erring The third ground is many waies imperfect and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand for first it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers or to the greatest number of the Church visible but alas how evident is it that in all Ages the causes of hope and fear have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ as well as corrupting the practice of Christians and they who reject a good Conscience are in a ready way to make shipwrack of the Faith what possible security can be given that those Motives hopes and fears are a firm security to preserve Doctrine Secondly though it is not to be doubted but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears who had this Doctrine delivered to them yet considering that such pious men if considered as Fore-Fathers might have careless and wicked Children or as Priests and Teachers might have careless and irreligious Successors there must needs appear very great danger that in any family or place this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued by the prevalency of such hopes and fears Nor is this only a Notion since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresie and promoted it and taught it to their Children And since it is evident that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church there can be from this ground no rational security given that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful to deliver faithfully according to what they had received because it appears they did not act as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do His last ground likewise is unsound for in the way of Tradition all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable not only because as is abovesaid much may be undelivered by the truly faithful and much perversely delivered by the corrupt and much mistaken but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition For first we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles or without such a form if they deliver the Apostles very words it cannot be doubted but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it since the same words must needs signifie the same things But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery as the Rule of Faith pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth But a delivery without a form of words is only a delivery of what is conceived judged or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation and this is a way liable to error because it relies on the skill of every Generation or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner to every succession of deliverers Now as it is not certain that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth so for certain Controversies and Disputes they shew in many things that mens apprehensions are not unerrable Secondly if it had been certain that some in the late past Generations did deliver all truths fully yet in the way of Oral Tradition it cannot be known evidently who they are and which is that true Tradition for all men acquainted with Church History know that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church as about the Religious use of Images in the
eighth Century and many other cases Now before the determination of such a Council it is not evident which are the true deliverers from the way of Tradition since both parties contend for their own delivery and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser but delivery or Tradition and upon the former considerations it appears that the best deliverers may be the fewest And this may be as uncertain after a Council since there is nothing else to ascertain us but the vote of a major part which in many Councils hath certainly been the worser part and maintained Heresie and therefore so it may be in others where there can be no evidence given to the contrary And by Determinations of Councils the lesser part and their Adherents are determined to reject their way of delivery and receive the other and by this means the lesser number which may be in the truth must disclaim their own sense and judgment to submit to the judgment of others which may be in the wrong and so the true Tradition may be lost Yet that it may appear more evident how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is I shall applie his way of demonstrating to some other cases which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition It is certain that after Moses the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews and after Noah who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons they had the greatest hopes and fears to ingage them to this truth and these are the causes of actual will and the truths are knowable therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah and Jewish from Moses were indefectible according to this Discourser's Principles and so the true Religion may at this time be found either among Gentiles or Jews Yea it was certain that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise and to the Angels that fell before their fall and they had the greatest hopes and fears to perswade them to keep to this will of God knowing that obeying it was their happiness and deserting it their ruine these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them therefore according to this demonstrator Adam and Eve and all the Angels did continue in their obedience The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached or by many be received in the Christian Church But in these cases who sees not that it will be answered that either the truths of God declared were not sufficiently heeded or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied and at all times acknowledged and observed and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice but then every eye will see that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church as in any other company of men So that he hath made it as clear that the Romish Tradition is indefectible as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were and are and as certain as it is that there is no Devil or fallen Angel and no fall of man and consequently no sin in the World and no Heresie ever in the Christian Church But here it is needful to do this Authour that right as to observe his unusual modesty that he intitles this Discourse not a demonstration but an indeavouring to demonstrate § 6. He speaketh to this purpose If any shall object Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills since Christs Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice to say it is universally applied and preserves none good is to question Christs wisdom and many thousands Martyrs and Confessors did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills Again nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin to teach their Children what they think will damn them but most strongly carries them to the contrary To this I may in the first place observe that neglects of duty might be if there had been no Original corruption as was in Adam in Paradise and in the Angels where was no antecedent sinful inclination but they were only capable of sinning Yet I assert there is more danger by Original corruption and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding Now Christs Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this yet this is first where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained but not so that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians who had this Doctrine lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians Chap. 3.1 Who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth And we Protestants can discern nothing to shew that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church than in the Corinthian or Galatian Secondly where this Doctrine is retained it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin which may hinder right delivery of all truth for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors The Church of Rome as well as we own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr and yet acknowledge him to have erred and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptized by Hereticks ought to be rebaptized so that in following good men there may be mistake but they are more like to err if they be bad as many certainly are But concerning his last clauses it is no way necessary to suppose that to invalidate Tradition Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them we suppose very many may design truth and good who yet may be in error yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves may design to corrupt the truth and may teach their Children so and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives which is not a design to damn themselves but a design to gratifie their evil affections S. Paul 2. Cor. 2.17 speaks of many who corrupt the word of God and S. Peter foretells of others who shall bring in damnable Heresies and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim most probably this was not out of design to damn them however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally than Jews had or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger § 7. He thus proceeds If any object the fickle nature of the will he answers Good is the object of the will Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are
incomparably more powerfal causes to carry the will than temporal ones therefore a world of Believers cannot be willing to do that which would lose them and their Posterities infinite goods and bring them infinite harms To this I answer That if this be spoken of the generality of professed Christians these words would still as much plead against Adams fall and the corruptions of Gentiles and Jews as against defection in the Romish Church since all these had the greatest goods and harms proposed to them But I further answer That a considerable number in former Ages would indeavour to know and deliver ttuth aright but they still are liable to mistakes and others that hear them to misunderstandings and also it is possible that the subtilty of some Deceivers may take place and be received sooner than their delivery of truth by which means those truths may many of them be lost or perverted and even in these last Ages I doubt not but even in the Roman Church there are many who would desire good and love truth and therefore as they have discerned it many have forsaken the Romish way but they who most desire to find it can in the way of Tradition see no more than is there to be seen and if others by subtilty corrupt some of that it is not in the power of these honest meaning persons to hinder the prevalency of such corruptions if they be promoted by a more potent party and interest § 8. If any think the proposal of Sensible Objects more considerable than of Spiritual he indeavoureth to shew the excellent proposal of the truths of God and thereby evidenceth they may be applied This doth not much concern Protestants we acknowledge that there is nothing wanting as to the proposal of Gods truth but yet there was in many neglect of receiving what was sufficiently propounded whence followed all the abovementioned miscarriages And even God himself propounded his truths as he thought most meet that is he proposed such as were not so necessary for all to know more mysteriously whence many might be ignorant of them or misapprehend but other necessary truths he propounded with abundant evidence and plainness But in the present way of Tradition what this Authour observes to make the proposal evident is very imperfect for though they have obvious Metaphors daily Practices Language and Actions Sacraments and Ceremonies yet these things may themselves partake of corruptions and then may help to clear what is propounded that somewhat may be understood but not withal to secure that this is certainly from God and therefore is Divine truth Nor do most of these things reach all truth to be delivered nor secure from all misapprehension so far as they are intended to signifie truth in such matters as are more difficult and mysterious An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie § 1. HE observes That that which seems only and mainly to prejudice his Argument is that there have been Hereticks or deserters of Tradition but he saith it sufficeth that the Causes to preserve Faith intire are as efficacious as those laid for the Propagation of mankind the only subject of Faith and more particulars fail in propagating their kind than their Faith In answer to this I first observe that though it much destroyes the grounds laid by this Authour to observe that there have been Heresies and those much spread in the Church yet this is not the only prejudice against his Argument for if we had never heard of or could make no proof of any Heresies in the Christian Church yet from considering the very nature of Oral Tradition as hath been shewed in the former Discourse and from observing what great defects were in it both amongst Gentiles and Jews it is sufficiently manifest that it is not indefectible and hath not the certainty requisite to the Rule of Faith by which means if Heresies had not been they might begin But I further undertake to manifest that because it is certain that Heresies have spread in the Church from this consideration it is evidenceable that Oral Tradition is so defectible as that it cannot be a sure Rule of Faith His paralleling Tradition with the propagation of mankind is a meer piece of sophistry For if he indeed assert that the causes to preserve Faith intire in the way of Tradition are as sufficient as those to propagate mankind in the intire nature of man he must then either acknowledge that there have been oft Societies of persons of different natures both in themselves and from mankind who are brought up amongst men and call themselves men and propagate in their kind and cannot by the eye be distinguished from men and are capable of deceiving great multitudes by perswading them that they are the true men and that others are not or else he must deny that ever any such Hereticks have been in the Church who have declared themselves and have been owned by many others to be the true Christians and holders of the truth The case of Tradition and Propagation are wonderfully different also in that he who hath the nature of man in him by Propagation cannot alter this nature and make himself of another nature at his own pleasure whereas it is very possible for such as have imbraced the true Christian Doctrine to forsake it and fall aside into Heresies as hath been oft evidenced in the World and also in that those particular persons in mankind who do not propagate their kind are not capable at their pleasure of propagating any thing different from man but in the way of Christian Faith they who do not propagate the true Faith may and many of them do propagate error and that so subtilly that very many are oft deluded by it Yea this Discourser himself § 2. acknowledgeth that he knows the multitudes of Hereticks which have from time to time risen makes this his Position seem incredible and therefore I infer that unless his Reader can be assured that this Position is more true than it seems to be he must from his own words conclude it really incredible § 2. He comes to consider how an Heresie is bred where he tells us The Church is to be considered as a Common-wealth under Discipline having Officers to take care that all Motives be actually applied and because it is impossible the perfection of Discipline should extend it self to every particular some by pride ambition lust and itching desire of followers may propose new tenets which by their plausibleness and licentiousness if Governours be not watchful may suit with the humour of divers and draw them into the same faction Thus a body is made inconsiderable in respect of the whole The Church stands upon the uninterrupted succession of her Doctrine They cry the Church hath erred in Faith and disgrace Tradition A new Rule is sought for either by private inspiration or waxen natured words They study wordish Learning and Criticisms and whilst the Traditionary Christian hath the
appellation of Catholick they must be content with other names as Lutherans Zuinglians Protestants c. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application if Discipline be neglected and false tenets may be taking if Governours be not vigilant than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition must depend upon the supposed goodness and care of such persons as are to administer the Discipline of the Church and since there have been many bad Councils it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governours and there cannot any security be given that these Governours might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines and oppose the true and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition But though there may be defection from truth this Discourser here seems to venture to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known I will now examine all his Characters above recited First They who forsake truth are not alwaies an inconsiderable number in respect of the other When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem In Elijah's time it was in Israel but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh the Dissenters from the Scribes and Pharisees in their pernicious Doctrines were not the greater number and when Arianism most prevailed the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth so that if the greater number have oft imbraced false Doctrine in points of Faith there can be no evidence from such numbers which is the true Doctrine Secondly Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publickly attested if by this he understands as he must the Oral and not the Scriptural way of attesting though even in the latter some may stand upon having what they have not and so likewise in the former for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees and Talmudists who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra must be acknowledged to hold truth where they differ from and contradict the Apostles and Christians nor can there be any reason why standing upon Tradition from Christ should be a security for truth when standing upon Tradition from Moses who was a faithful deliverer was no security yea by this Rule as hath been before observed Paganism would be defended for a true Religion and the Jews worshipping of Baalim and in the Christian state the Heresie of Artemon denying the Divinity of Christ since all these pretended a right to the most publick and open way of Oral Tradition Thirdly Nor are they to be accounted for Hereticks who make use of Criticisms for though nothing more than common reason and capacity is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith were to be condemned for Hereticks then not only Learned Protestants but all the most eminent writers among the Papists must be accounted Hereticks yea and even all the Fathers who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness must be taken into the number Yea the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles in the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed that is Christ Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say that S. Paul was in the error or Heresie because he made use of Criticisms and his opposers in the truth who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews Fourthly Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine be known by being called Catholicks for first though the name of a Catholick be deservedly honoured by Christians and the persons who truly answer that name yet it was not the name whereby the Apostles did first call them who held the true Christian Faith but they were called Christians yea some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns assert that this name of Catholick was not at all in use in the Apostles daies however that which then was not the chief name commonly applied to them who hold the truth can by no shew of reason be proved to be now the Character to know which hold the true Faith Secondly is it necessary they must be called Catholicks by all men or only by themselves and men of their own way if it be sufficient that they of their own way call them Catholicks then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholick Faith as is asserted by Athanasius De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in but if this was enough who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men to evidence to the world that their Heresies are truths by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholicks But if it be necessary that they must be generally called Catholicks by them who differ from them then it would likewise follow that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth to take away from the holders of truth that certain Character whereby they may be known to hold truth if they refuse to call these holders of truth by the name of Catholick and it will likewise follow that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers and not from their own Doctrines and Positions And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holders of the truth for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholicks nor acknowledge them to be truly such but to be Schismaticks We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholicks or Pseudocatholicks and when ever any Protestants call them Catholicks they mean those who call themselves so and would be so owned in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders saying he was the stone which the builders refused Thirdly Nor is it possible there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholick to shew who hold the truth more than was in the Old Testament in being called the Children of the Prophets and the Covenant which God made with Abraham the followers of Moses and the Keepers of the Law which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews in and after the times of Christ Fifthly Nor is it the mark of an Heretick to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholick for if
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule that if any Christians should live under such a Power as this Author speaks of should be a self-condemning tyranny over mens consciences if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule they must live in patience meekness peace humility and subjection to the Higher Powers and it must be from pride wrath passion malice and refusing to be subject all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures that all Rebellion against Government must proceed Whence amongst the Primitive Christians where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Christ his Son with the holy Spirit which is the only God and the Christians knew there was none else and punished them for not worshipping as Gods them whom they knew were no gods yet in this case the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governours If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule both as to Faith and Life be prevalent as it will guide us aright into the truth so it will end all quarrels silence all animosities and contentions and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet peace friendship and love as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth § 5. He tells us The use of this Discourse is to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition to be very few to which he hath received our answer § 3. and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady than that laid to preserve mankind I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation § 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader that the way of Tradition is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind I would only advise him to be so ingenuous as to speak plainly out his meaning and say that as in mankind the causes for keeping intire the nature of man are such that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man who really were not so the way to preserve Tradition is such that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth when indeed they had it not and if he would thus do he might amuse his Reader but would never deceive him having before told him that there have been many Hereticks in the World and that even amongst these the way of continuing Heresie is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori § 1. HE declares That he will trie to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause § 2. he saith this seems needless against Protestants who yield the points of Faith we agree in to have come down by this way of Tradition He presseth therefore from Protestants a candid Answer to these Queries 1. Was not the Trinity Incarnation and all other Points in which we agree held in all Ages since Christ by Gods Church 2. Whether seeing those points were held ever of Faith Fathers did not actually teach Children so or the former Age the latter if so they came down by Tradition 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things had any such been 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause and its formal effect so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery But because he fears the Protestant will flie off here he will follow his designed method Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies than that he would flie from such shadows To the 1. Qu. I answer That if we indeed understand by Gods Church that number of Christians who have intirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion they must needs have held these great truths likewise But many have pretended to be Gods Church who held them not Nor hath this belief been alwaies preserved in the Churches who once imbraced it since the Eastern Churches who before received the true Doctrine of Christ were drawn aside by the Arian infection and denied those points which shews Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points in any particular Church To the 2. Qu. I answer That in the Church of God which ever held these points Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines yet were they not only nor chiefly continued by the way of Oral Tradition For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule as shall be after shewed from their Writings and Fathers taught Children chiefly then by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching but they had also the Scriptures read among them and perused by them and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church chiefly from the Scriptures Irenaeus testifies even of those Primitive times Adversus Haeres lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge which is come even unto us being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures That Christians then received their instruction in the Church chiefly from Scriptures he likewise sheweth lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to flie from the Opinion of the Hereticks and flie unto the Church and be brought up in its bosom and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures For saith he the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World therefore the Spirit of God saith Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise that is eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies and those very clear I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority Yea such was the esteem of the use of Scripture that in the Primitive times before their Children were taught matters of human literature they were instructed in the holy Scriptures Thus was Origen brought up Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures Sozom. Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only in the true Church of God as indeed they have not been yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition as would secure the right delivery of all other things For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition depending upon this supposal that in such a Society it hath alwaies been rightly delivered and rightly received which
is a contingency and notwithstanding the virtue of Tradition might have been otherwise as appeared in the Eastern Churches under Arianism Yea the reason why these Doctrines are preserved intire among the Romanists is probably this that as they have been and are delivered by them from the Scriptures they are also delivered in certain forms of words and in those Creeds which were received from those Ancient Churches and Councils who were not erroneous but agreed to the Scripture Now whereas their Tradition directs to receive what hath been delivered and the things delivered have been some by Councils truly Catholick and other things by erroneous Councils it may well be that Tradition may in some things deliver rightly and yet either omit the delivery of other things or deliver them amiss And if there had been nothing more to have preserved these Doctrines in the Western Church but what was in the necessary virtue of Tradition the Romish Church not here to mention any thing of Arian Popes might have lost these points as well as the Eastern long since did where Tradition lost this virtue of preserving them Now that it may appear how vainly this Discourser would conclude the certainty of Tradition from the things propounded in these Queries I shall mention some parallel Cases to which the substance of what is here questioned may be applied As 1. Concerning Gentilism To follow this Authour I would ask was not the Belief of a God and what things we agree in constantly preserved by Tradition among them now by what virtue did Tradition perform this may we not by the same virtue of Tradition receive what they delivered concerning the way of Gods Worship and would not this Tradition as well have continued all other things if any such had been delivered Thus it would plead for Gentilism 2. How would this plead for Judaism Did not Tradition amongst them continue till Christs time the Doctrine of Circumcision of the Sabbath of Sacrifices and of a Messias and must they not needs be in the right in all other matters of delivery though they were condemned by Christ and his Apostles 3. See how these Queries would plead against all possibility of forgetfulness When I have read a Book over and am certain I rightly remember some clauses in it may I thence conclude that by the same virtue of memory I remember these I should have remembred all other clauses if there had been any and therefore certainly there was no more in the Book than I can remember Or if I should conclude that because I am certain that I remember some passages which happened when I was a Child therefore by the same virtue that these things were delivered to my memory I also remember aright all things then done who would not see that this is a meer vain piece of Sophistry since some things may be more fully understood than others and more heedfully observed the impression upon many occasions more deeply imprinted and the remembrance of them more frequently repeated whence some things may be remembered and others not and the same causes may be assigned in matters of Religion To his 4. Qu. I answer Things may be received as delivered ever when yet there was no ever-delivery which I will manifest in answer to the following § where he would prove the contrary § 3. He layes down this effect The present perswasion of Catholicks that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly which must for its Cause have Traditions Ever-Indeficiency § 4. To prove this he layes his first Principle That Age which holds Faith so delivered cannot change nor know any change of it because no man much less a whole Age can hold contrary to knowledge nor here change without knowledge To this I answer That supposing the abovementioned perswasion this may rise from other causes besides Traditions indeficiency Yea this his first Principle to prove the contrary is very weak For first it is very easie to conceive that mistaken Explications of Points of Faith may be held by a present Generation as having been matters of Faith ever delivered and yet may be really different from the things delivered and so include a change This is the more apt to take place if such explicated points seem plausibly declared and are either abetted by men of great fame or serve an interest and this is as possible as it is for men to be deceived in their conceptions about things not in express terms delivered since it is certain that many points now owned as matters of Faith in the Romish Church were not expresly and in such terms delivered of old yea this Authour acknowledgeth as much p. 206 207. Many such explicated points have in Councils been declared to be de fide though not only against the minds of many who before asserted the contrary but of others who in the said Councils opposed it Secondly to deliver a Doctrine as from Christ where they change or know some change of it is much more probable in the Roman Church than in others if any ignorance possess the Leaders or any interest and private designs take place upon some few of them For since the Tradition which particular persons have received must submit to the determination of a Council◠or else must they be anathematized how easie is it for some point de fide to be innovated if the Bishop of Rome and some few other men of note and fame through mistaken zeal or out of design should indeavour the having such a Point declared as a matter of Faith when he can send what Bishops he please or create new ones and many others may for want of circumspection comply in order to peace as some well disposed Bishops did unadvisedly with some of the Arian devices And in this case though there may be some withstanders yet may they not be numerous and therefore must sit still being overpowerred and will think they ought in the end to consent if they have received this Principle which many Papists imbrace That the determinations of such a Council are to determine their private judgments what is the Doctrine of the Church § 5. His second Principle is No Age could innovate any thing and deliver that thing as received by constant succession For the end of delivering it as so received must be to make the following Generation believe it Now if a whole Age should conspire to tell such a lie yet it is impossible it should be believed since they cannot blot out all Monuments which might undeceive and therefore the following Generation cannot believe unless they will believe what they know to be otherwise This Second Principle is unsound upon the same grounds with the other For as hath been now shewed there may happen such an innovation by the mistake or non-attendance of a considerable number especially in Councils who sometimes are too readily guided by some few eminent leading men who may act either out of mistake or some of
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
that with many it doth not work its effect in the former it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter especially since there have been many Hereticks § 10. They who do not to others what they would have done to themselves this is because they are swayed by some temporal good but this cannot be in the Church supposing sanctity in it because in virtue and glory we have not the less when others have the more but rather we have the more also so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children without the least good to themselves if they should deceive them But alas Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world that when he hath proved as it is easie to do that it is highly irrational for any man to chuse any sin he would thence conclude for certain that there are no such sinners in the world How evident is it that there hath been so much want of Sanctity that many either to please their own fancies or to promote their own interests have depraved the true Religion or corrupted the Christian Doctrine But in these cases as in all acts of sin men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows but at the seeming good and delight § 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality wisdom and goodness of the recommenders § 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring but Christianity more and chiefly in matters of endless misery and happiness § 13. Consider credit he who will lie perniciously and to friends how ill is this esteemed Chiefly if this be against the highest Motives and with the greatest confidence and Oaths This is of all other cases most disgraceful in matters which concern Christs Doctrine chiefly if in a Pastor against his particular Oath to preach Christs Doctrine truly Nor can the world of Fore-Fathers all conspire to this villany Yet it is certain notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine it may be both mistaken and depraved Nor doth love of off-spring take place actually against all setting examples of sin nor against ignorance and mistakes nor in Jews and Hereticks did it take place against corrupting worship Nor have all men been so tender of their credit Many Hereticks have been self-condemned There were who said of Christ let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours Simon knew and was Baptized into the Christian Doctrine and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it Yea men gain credit at least with a party by their erring explications if they be plausible and take with the multitude and then alone can they become Traditions However some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world this Authour would conclude that Pastors can never deliver amiss and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches or any places whatever I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it they will still as Christians believe that S. Peters Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers who hath assured us 2 Pet. 2.1 2. That there shall be false Teachers who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their pernicious wayes § 14. He concludeth with a flourish That every virtue and Science would contribute to Traditions certainty which would require he saith a large Volume to shew But that we may judge what this large Volume would be he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words Arithmetick lends her numbring and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers Geometry her proportion to shew the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition c. But if such words as these were considerable this Discourser may receive a return more truly Arithmetick cannot number and determine the many possible and probable wayes of erring in Tradition Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear in the receiving the Body of Christs Doctrine by Tradition more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomets existence nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church who have delivered their own opinions and speculations to one who only testifieth what he received Logick will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition Nature will evidence the great possibility of mans mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition Morality will shew the great corruption of man whereby he is lyable every where to err and miscarry Historical prudence will shew the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles and many Christian Nations overspread with known and confessed errors and will thence conclude that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition to neglect the faithful preserving truth Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order than Tradition is Metaphysicks with its speculations will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christs Doctrine to this Age to be an aiery vanity Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition Controversie will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition without any written support So that after all the survey of his several Discourses where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition I may well conclude that this way of Tradition is defectible ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES AFter these several Discourses he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them all which must needs fall with the ruine of their foundation Yet that they may not pass without due Censure I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries and for the most part directly contrary to them from our Discourse Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith who hold not to Tradition since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture and Motives enough to believe Disc 2.3 4. But they have no sure-footing in the Faith who depend only on this Oral Tradition since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide Disc 5.6 8. Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church and a true Church who own not Oral Tradition because they may be a number of Faithful Cor. 1. but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition cannot
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
should not seem a sufficient answer without further proof of what is there intimated I shall undertake to evidence that the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the ancient Church against those Hereticks was such as was grounded upon Scripture as their Rule of Faith and that those Hereticks assertions were therefore rejected because they were contrary to these Scriptures Which I shall do in examining what were the grounds of Faith upon which the Catholick Fathers proceeded at the time of the four first General Councils in which were these Hereticks condemned as also Macedonius in the second Council SECT V. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council ARius being a Presbyter of Alexandria was for his Heretical Doctrine denying the eternal Godhead of the Son opposed and rejected by Alexander Bishop of that place and deposed from his Office by an Alexandrian Council Socr. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 6. upon which Alexander writes an Epistle to all his fellow Ministers wherein as he lays down many Scriptures which he declares to be full against the assertion of Arius so he there declares that the Arians when they had once determined to fight against Christ would not hear the words of our Lord. And he there likewise shews that whereas he had oftentimes overthrown them in unfolding the Divine Scriptures they as Chamaelions changed themselves The same Alexander of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople declares that the Arians assertion did tend to destroy the holy Scriptures and that in the Scriptures they pretended to urge they did offer violence to the holy Scriptures He likewise there urgeth the Scriptures against them with such expressions as these John is sufficient to instruct Paul doth declare manifestly But to leave this particular Bishop and come to the General Council When this famous Council of Nice was gathered together Constantine tells them Theodor. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 7. that they had the Doctrine of the holy Spirit in writing for saith he the Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently instruct us what we ought to think of Divine things wherefore rejecting all contentious strife let us receive a solution of such things as are questioned from the Divinely inspired speeches As this Council of Nice was put forth by Pisanus out of the Vatican Exemplar it is observable that they oft urge the same Scriptures which Alexander did urge against Arius and in the third Book of that Council The Bishops said by Eusebius In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That was rejects was not and God takes away that he was not God believe the things that are written neither think nor inquire after things that are not written So that Council After the decision of this Council Socr. lib. 1. c. 5. shews that Eusebius writing of the Nicene Confession saies The form of Execration which is set after the Creed we thought fit to be received because it prohibits the using of words not written from whence almost all the confusion and disorder of the Churches do arise Wherefore when no Scripture of Divine inspiration useth these words concerning the Son that he was of things that were not and that it was once when he was not it is no way fit to speak or teach such things That this Council made Scripture their Rule of decision will yet further appear from the words of Constantine in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria recorded Socr. lib. 1. c. 6. where he declared That the Council had diligently examined all things and writing of the Arians he adds some blasphemed speaking and professing to believe things contrary to the Divinely inspired Scriptures and the Faith And Athanasius ad Epictetum speaks how powerful the Faith of Nice might be expected to be against Heresies which was professed according to the holy Scriptures I shall hereafter observe somewhat more out of Athanasius which will further declare that at the time of this Nicene Council of which he was a Member Scripture was the Rule made use of against the Arians SECT VI. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople THis Council not being called against Arius Nestorius Dioscorus or Eutyches which are mentioned by this Discourser but against Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the holy Spirit and other Hereticks I shall but briefly observe That Evagrius Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. declares the design of that Council to be to make manifest by Scripture-testimonies what they conceived about the Holy Ghost against them who adventured to reject his Lordship And if the testimony of Evagrius being a private Historian be not sufficient this very same thing was before him attested and declared concerning this second General Council in the definition of the General Council of Chalcedon Act. 5. And in the seventh Canon of this second Council where they declare how they will receive those that return from Heresie amongst other things concerning some of them are those words We receive them as Greeks and the first day we make them Christians and the second Catechumens and so we Catechize them and make them continue a long time in the Church and hear the holy Scriptures and then we Baptize them Doth it not hence appear that this Council owned the Scriptures as the way to the true Faith and establishment in it in that they would not receive Hereticks until they had been long hearers of it But I will not here neglect to mention that at the time of this Council Pope Damasus gathers a Council at Rome hearing of that at Constantinople where they declare That after all the Prophetical Apostolical and Evangelical Scriptures by which the Catholick Church by the grace of God is founded the Church of Rome is by some Synodical Decrees above other Churches And Christ himself said Thou art Peter Is not this testimony to be seen in their own Collectors of the Councils plain enough to shew what was in those daies owned by the Church of Rome as the main ground and foundation of Faith SECT VII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus THis Council was gathered against Nestorius when Coelestine was Bishop of Rome whose place was here supplied by Cyril of Alexandria That the Nestorians then did not pretend to Scripture for their Rule is probable in that Socr. lib. 7. c. 32. relates that they indeavoured to falsifie the Copies of the Scriptures as likewise in that an Epistle of the Nestorians to the people of Constantinople begins thus The Law is not delivered in writing but is placed in the minds of the Pastors which Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 3. c. 7. And in the Epistle of Cyril to Comanus and Pontamion Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2.
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
every one of them must effect it by taking such assertions as he findeth in the Holy Scriptures or such as are consequent from them Where in the end of the same Prooem he declares in other words the Rule laid down not many Periods before in the beginning of it which is quite opposite to the design of Oral Tradition I shall yet further confirm this by two other passages out of those Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one lib. 1. c. 3. where when he had declared that some of the Greeks and Barbarians owned the Son of God he adds We according to the faith of his Doctrine which we have for certain divinely inspired do believe that it is no other wayes possible to expound the more eminent and more divine account of the Son of God and to bring this to the knowledge of men but only by that Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Ghost that is by the Evangelical and Apostolical as also that of the Law and the Prophets Now it is not conceivable that he who believed that without the Scriptures there could be no eminent Christian knowledge of Christ should lay any other Rule of Faith or exclude Scripture from being that Rule The other passage is lib. 4. c. 1. It is not enough he sayes for them who discourse of such and so great things to commit the matter to humane senses and the common understanding but we must take for the proof of the things we speak the testimonies also of the Divine Scriptures which testimonies that they may afford us certain and undoubted faith either in such things as are to be spoken by us or in those that are already spoken it seems necessary to show that they are the Divine Scriptures inspired by the Spirit of God which he there undertakes to prove What can be spoken more fully to make Scripture both the only Rule and a certain and undoubted Rule of Faith And if yet nothing will satisfie but the word Rule we shall find that also toward the end of his fourth Book immediately before his Anacephalaeosis where he saith our understanding is to be kept to the Rule of the Divine Letters Though enough hath been already observed to shew the great mistake of this Citation from Origen I shall yet farther take notice that the phrases which deceived this Author Ecclesiastica Traditio Ecclesiastica Praedicatio do both of them amongst the Fathers oft signifie the delivery in the Church by the holy Scriptures But to avoid multiplying instances concerning Ecclesiastical Tradition I shall refer to what shall be spoken concerning Clemens Alexandrinus whose Scholar Origen was and to what is hereafter cited from Athanasius against Samosatenus concerning the phrase of Ecclesiastical preaching we may observe a like phrase in Austin de Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 16. Let them shew their Church if they can in the prescript of the Law in the predictions of the Prophets in the Songs of the Psalms in the words of the Pastor himself in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical Authorities of the holy Books Somewhat alike expression is above cited from Irenaeus lib. 2. c. 46. and from Leo Ep. 10. in Sect. 8. n. 2. His other testimony from Origen is at the end of his 29 Hom. in Matt. We ought not to believe otherwise than as the Churches of God have delivered us by Succession Which words he there speaks to the same purpose with the former to assert the way of the Churches Tradition and that Scriptural against the Hereticks To understand Origen herein it is not amiss to observe a little before these words he expounds the abomination of desolation to be a word which stands in the place of the holy Scriptures and perswades to depart from the Creator who is the only and true God and to believe another God we know not whom above him to whom none is like In which words he evidently refers to the ancient Hereticks and in the beginning of his 30. Hom. names Basilides Marcion Valentinus and Apelles to whom he referred every one of which as the Church-History informs us brought in another God from the true Concerning these Heresies Hom. 29. at the end he exhorts that though they should pretend some Scriptures they should not believe them but keep to the Churches Tradition Why they are not to be believed in pretending to some places of Scripture he sheweth Because the light of truth doth not appear from any place of Scripture but from all Scripture that is of the Law Prophets Evangelists and Apostles That the Churches Tradition he recommends is that only which is grounded upon and according to Scripture is evident in that a little before he saies The abomination of desolation doth alwaies superadd something to what is in the Scriptures and the shortning those daies he expounds that the good God will cut off all those additaments to Scripture by whom he pleaseth Origen here all along agrees with the Protestants Rule but no way with Oral Tradition nor with any thing else that differs from Scripture or adds to it but he accounts all such as the abomination of desolation It were easie to observe many other testimonies from Origen which I omit as supposing I have from these two places chosen by this Authour shewed enough that Origen owned the Rule of Scripture Protestants as well as Origen would not have men be deluded by the subtilty of any Hereticks who pretend to urge Scripture and yet they no more thereby disown its being a Rule of Doctrine than our Saviour did disown it as a Rule of Life when he would not be tempted by the Devils citing the words of Scripture to act against its commands SECT XII What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian THree Discourses of Tertullian are referred to by this Discourser The first of which is de Praescriptione adversus Haereticos cited Corol. 15. where he will not allow Hereticks to argue out of Scripture The design of this Treatise of Tertullian is to evidence that the Doctrine professed in the Church of Christ was the true Christian Doctrine against such Hereticks which were of the same mold with them Irenaeus and Origen opposed who either would not admit the Scriptures cap. 17. or else changed the very proprieties of the words not allowing their known significations but imagining in them strange things which no way appear which was the way of the Valentinians c. 38. And these Hereticks were not satisfied with what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but produced other things c. 8. Against these he pleads prescription as to the true Christian Doctrine as being from the Apostles and having Communion with them He shews there is no disputing with such Hereticks from Scripture since they will not stand to it c. 17 18. And since these Hereticks did not own the only God and Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit c. 7. and 13 14. He urgeth That they were
not to be allowed to argue from the Scriptures against the Church since they were not Christians and owned them not c. 15 16 17. And therefore it must first be inquired from whom the Scriptures were and by whom and to whom and when delivered all which would shew that they were for them who followed Christ and his Apostles in the Doctrine by them publickly delivered which these Hereticks pretended not to do Hence it appears that what Tertullian here writes is no way against the Doctrine of Protestants but in such a case as this was they would themselves assert the same Now though it is impossible the Scriptures should be either a directing Rule or a convincing to those persons who reject them yet in this Treatise Tertullian owns them as such to Christians who receive them and withal asserts them as necessary to the Faith as may appear from these particulars c. 22. He declares That they who receive not that Scripture the Acts of the Apostles cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was sent to the Disciples nor can they prove how when and by what means the Body of Christs Church was instituted c. 33. He prescribes against the Hereticks from the Apostles Writings c. 36. He hath these words Run through the Churches of the Apostles amongst which their very Authentick Letters are recited sounding the voice and representing the face of every one of them What else is this but to equal the delivery by the Scriptures with that which was from the mouths of all the Apostles In the same Chapter he saith John the Apostle puts together the Law and the Prophets with the Evangelical and Apostolical Letters and thence tenders this Faith to us to drink in To add but one place more c. 38. He saith of the Hereticks As the corruption of the Doctrine could never succeed without the corruption of the instruments so we could not have the integrity of Doctrine without the integrity of those things by which the Doctrine is delivered then he adds What the Scriptures are we are we are from them from their beginning and then shews that the Church doth keep them perfect which the Hereticks do not Next he cites Tertullian de carne Christi where c. 2. He supposeth That upon this account Marcion did blot out so many original instruments that is Scriptures least the flesh of Christ should be proved By what Authority saith Tertullian I pray if thou be a Prophet foretel something if an Apostle preach it openly if an Apostolical man agree with the Apostles and then follow the words cited by this Author If thou be only a Christian believe what is delivered Where it is manifest these words referr not to recommend to us Oral Tradition but the Canon of Scripture Soon after he tells Marcion that he is not a Christian but once was and now hath rescinded what he then believed where follow the next words referred to by this Author By rescinding what thou hast believed thou provest that before thou didst rescind it that was otherwise which thou didst believe otherwise So it was delivered moreover what was delivered that was true as delivered by those whom it belonged to deliver c. which words are of the same nature with the former and further condemn his rescinding or cutting off from the Scriptures those things which he once believed and were faithfully delivered for rescindere is not here to renounce as this Discourser translates it but to cut off or mutilate which indeed proves that it was otherwise before and this is the same in sense with what he calls his rejecting some Scriptures c. 3. his blotting out ch 4. his taking them away c. 5. and the same with what in this 2. ch he a little before called his blotting out the instruments of Scripture where having propounded the question by what Authority he did it and continuing his Discourse on the same subject after these words of rescinding he gives this answer Thou hast done it by no right at all Yet further that in this Discourse de Carne Christi he intended the Scripture for his Rule of Faith may be proved from ch 6 where speaking of the Body which Angels appear in Whence it is saith he nothing is manifest concerning it because the Scripture doth not declare it c. 15. He urgeth against Valentinus seven Texts of Scripture all which declare Christ to be Man and saith these only ought to suffice for prescription to testifie his humane flesh and not spiritual c. c. 22. when he had used many other Scriptures he saith The Apostle determineth all this Controversie when he declares him to be Abrahams Seed and then cites Gal. 3. adding We who read and believe these things what kind of flesh may we or ought we to acknowledge in Christ surely none other than Abraham had In the last place this Discourser cites two passages of Tertullian against Marcion to prove that the present Church contains in it the true Doctrine of Christ Now if it did so in Tertullian's time it is no way consequent that any particular Church must do so now unless it be by delivery of the same Scriptures The first place he cites but names not the Book is lib. 4. cont Marc. l. 5. where Tertullian's design is to declare the Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Scriptures to be preferred before what Marcion tenders as his emending the Gospel and so confirms the Protestant Doctrine For having observed that Marcion rejects the other Evangelists and corrupteth Luke He saith in the end of the fourth ch From the times of Tiberius to Antonine we meet with Marcion as the first and only emender of the Gospel And he observes his emending confirms ours whilst he emends that which he found first then follow the words cited by this Authour In short If it be manifest that is the more true which was the former and that was the former which is from the beginning that from the beginning which is from the Apostles in like manner that will manifestly appear to be delivered from the Apostles which is accounted Sacred in the Churches of the Apostles In which words Tertullian designs to establish the Scripture-writings against the Heretical corruption Whence it follows Let us see what Milk the Corinthians drew from Paul to what Rule the Galatians were corrected What the Philippians Thessalonians and Ephesians read c. so that Tertullian sends to the Scriptures which may be read Another testimony he ventures at is lib. 1. cont Marc. and saith it is more express but indeed makes nothing at all for Oral Tradition For this first Book being written to prove one only God against Marcion who in a Treatise called his Antitheses endeavoured to shew that there was not the same God in the Old Testament and in the New He observes c. 20. that some said that Marcion did not innovate the Rule but set it right when it was corrupted c. 21. He sheweth the Apostles never delivered any such
thing as this but fully asserted one and the same God Nor was there ever any question about this in their daies for as there were questions about things offered to Idols about Marriage and Divorce about veiling Women and the hope of the Resurrection in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings so he saith if there had been any Question about this matter it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle that is the Apostles writings and then adds the words cited by this Discourser And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles than that which is this day published in their Churches In which words as Irenaeus and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general so he here establisheth the Churches Tradition against Marcions innovation or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ as his Church received it which principally included the Scriptures And that Tertullian chiefly designed against Marcion to establish the Scriptural Tradition may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed To see yet more of Tertullians mind in this case observe that known place against Hermogenes who asserted matter co-eternal with God Advers Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read Let Hermogenes his shop shew it written If it be not written let him fear that woe that is denounced against them who add or take away What can be more full to shew the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it and that it is full and compleat SECT XIII What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith FRom this Father he only cites one place and that so much contrary to the plain design which is obvious to any eye that it appears evidently he never took it from Clemens himself but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way or taking things upon hear-say For shewing which nothing more is needful than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely Strom. lib. 7. He saith In those who are indued with knowledge the holy Scriptures have conceived but the Hereticks who have not learned them have rejected them as if they did not conceive some indeed follow the truths saying and others wrest the Scriptures to their own lusts but if they had a Judgment of true and false they would have been perswaded by the Divine Scriptures Then follow the words cited If therefore any one of a man becomes a Beast like those inchanted by Circe so he hath lost his being a man of God and one remaining faithful to the Lord who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies Then his next words are but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures and commits his life to the truth of a man in a manner becomes as God We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine both by the Prophets and by the Gospel and by the Apostles He who is to be believed of himself is worthy of all belief when he speaks in the Lords voice and the Scriptures Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion to find out things And then he shews That we are not satisfied with what men say but inquire and believe what God saith which is the only demonstration according to which Science they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here is not to guide men to the Oral way this Discourser talks of but as Origen and Tertullulian do so also Clemens against the way of the ancient Hereticks who were opposers of the Scripture commendeth the Churches Tradition which was in the Scripture Much more might be observed to this purpose from this 7. Strom. of Clemens and several other places but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose is sufficient against him SECT XIV What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius OUr Discourser wisheth Protestants would seriously weigh the Sayings of this Father and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his daies This we assure him we will do and likewise highly honor that Rule of Faith which Athanasius made use of which we know was not Oral Tradition but Scripture The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice but sought after some other Synodical determination where they might have the Faith and therefore procured another Council to be called he saith Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers in seeking that which they have not which are part of the words cited by this Discourser his following words I think cannot be found either in that Book or elsewhere in Athanasius which are All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors that is from Christ by Fathers do not seek and therefore they only have Faith if thou comest to Faith by seeking thou wast before an Vnbeliever Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further saies If they had believed they would not have sought it as if they had it not and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe you are not Clergy-men but begin to be Catechumens Which words he writes upon occasion that the Arians Confession began not So believes the Catholick Church but the Catholick Faith was in the presence of Constantius put forth such a day as Athanasius there declares But that we may understand Athanasius his mind where they who are Believers must have Faith and not elsewhere seek it which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors if any such words be any where in Athanasius in this very Epistle he declares it thus It is a vain thing that they running about pretend to desire Synods for the Faith for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods And if for this there should be need of a Synod there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers they who came together in Nice wrote so well that whoever faithfully read their Writings may by them be remembred of that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition so they do advance Scripture The next testimony cited and vainly flourished over is from Athan. de Incarn against Paulus Samosatenus where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word shews That such great things and difficult to be apprehended cannot be attained to but by Faith And they who have weak knowledge if they here reject not curious questions and keep to the
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
the Wicked and Evil-doers Even in Aaron's blessing the People God declared that he himself would bless them And the whole intention of the Gospel is a Dispensation of God's Blessing which cometh upon them who serve him The Blessed Jesus was sent to Bless in turning Men from their Iniquities to such he begins his Sermon in the Mount with Blessing Mat. 5.3.4 Luke 24.50 51 and this also was the last action he perform'd immediately upon his Ascension into Heaven Most of the Apostolical Epistles both begin and end with Benedictions which persons partake of according to their pious qualifications For when not only the Apostles but also the Seventy were commanded to pronounce Peace to the House or Place where they came Mat. 10.12 13 Luke 10.5.6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Peace being according to the usual Jewish Phrase a comprehension of all Blessing our Saviour tells them that if the Son of Peace be there their Peace shall rest upon it if not it shall turn to them again The ancient Church to this end used particular Benedictions in Confirmation Ordination receiving Penitents Matrimony and to dying Persons but all these the Corruption of Times hath transformed into reputed proper Sacraments And those Blessings in Confirmation and Ordination are most Solemn the former of which was granted even by S. Hierome Hier. adv Luc. according to the custom of the Church all over the World to be performed by the Bishop only And in our Administration thereof the serious renewing the Baptismal Covenant which is a necessary duty of Christian Profession is a good disposition for receiving the Blessing of God and on this account Confirmation is not to be slighted or wilfully neglected by those who have a high esteem for the Blessing of God 3. They who receive this Ministry are to guide the Church and Christian Society that its Members may please God not forfeit his Favour or provoke his Displeasure The most things contained under this head will respect those Ministers of the Church who are the chief Governours thereof and the things established by their consent and agreement The Church of God is a most excellent Society and his Ministers are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those who are to have the care and ordering of this Family of God Titus 1.7 and such publick Worship as is ordered according to the Will of God being acceptable to him it belongs to them to take care of the performance thereof and also of establishing Order and Decency and the framing and executing such Rules and Canons for Government and Discipline as are meet And though the external Sanction of these things is well ordered by the Secular power yet the directive part and the spiritual Authority belongs to the Guides of the Church who by the Gospel are appointed therein Rulers and Presidents Hence Inferiours are required to obey them that are over them and submit themselves and Titus was sent to Crete to order the things that were wanting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 13.7 17.24 Tit. 1.5 1 Tim. 3.5 1 Pet. 5.2 and Bishops in general stand charged by S. Paul and St. Peter to take care of the Church of God And as that is a requisite to Order and due Reverence in Religious Worship to them also belongs the setting apart and consecrating Places for the publick Service of God But because there can be no security for Order where every Officer may act independently at his own Pleasure therefore they have Authority to order Uniformity which is in it self desirable and ought to be observed not only with respect to the secular Sanction but together therewith in compliance also with the Ecclesiastical Authority invested in Synods which hath in all Ages from the Apostles been honoured in the Christian Church of which the observation of the Canons of the several Councels and Codes is an experimental Evidence And as the mutual Consent of Pastors in Synods is according to natural Prudence directly pursueth the great ends of Peace and Unity and by their agreement addeth Weight to their Authority so this Case is eminently included in that Promise of our Saviour Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Mat. 18.20 Act. 16.4 5. Act. 21.18 24 26. Act. 8.14 And St. Paul himself yielded manifest Obedience both to the Decrees of the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. And to that other Council Act. 21. And so did S. Peter and S. John to another Council And since Christians being established in the Truth is of great use both to their own and the Churches Peace in order hereunto the Pastors of the Church in Councils have power to abandon Heretical and dangerous Doctrines and to require submission to the Truth they declare This was done in the Synod of the Apostles against the necessity of Circumcision and in the four first general Councils concerning the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of the Mediator And such Decisions concerning matters of Doctrine when managed aright have been deservedly reverenced in the Church since one end of God's appointing these Officers is that we should be no more Children tossed to and fro with every wind of Doctrine Eph. 4.14 And upon this account a particular Honour is due to the established Doctrine of our Church which hath a high agreement with the Rule of Scripture and the Catholick and Primitive Church Besides these things all particular Officers of the Church in their charge are to watch over those committed to them as much as in them lies with special regard to the Sick and to those also who need to be Catechised in the Principles of Religion John 21.15 it being our Saviour's first charge to S. Peter to feed his Lambs with earnest Prayer for the Grace and Blessing of God upon them all 4. The Ministry of Reconciliation includeth an Authority of rebuking and admonishng Offenders of casting them out of the Church and of restoring them again upon Repentance This hath been the ordinarily received sense of those great words of our Saviour Mat. 18.18 Whatsoever ye shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven There is indeed a late Objection made that these words speak not of binding and loosing Persons but Things and that it is usual with the Jewish Writers to express the binding and loosing of Things not of Persons meaning thereby the declaring or judging such things prohibited or allow'd But besides what may be otherwise said I think it sufficient at present to observe that the admitting this notion may well enough consist with the true sense of these words which if interpreted by it will import 1. That the power of binding and loosing hath a considerable respect to such things as the Cases Offences and Penitent Performances of persons
and sutably our Saviour after his Resurrection gave his Apostles the authority of remitting and retaining Sins which phrase also immediately respecteth not Persons but Things but yet binding in this sense must include an authoritative declaring the Practices of Men to be so far Evil as to deprive the offending Persons of their Christian Priviledges 2. These words will also imply that the Officers of the Church are intrusted to bind and continue or to loose and discharge the observation of Penitential Rules and accordingly the Apostle saith to whom you forgive any thing I forgive it also in the Person of Christ 2 Cor. 2.10 And even this severe part of Ecclesiastical Power is for Edification not Destruction both to the whole Church and to the Offender that through Repentance his Spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord and so is properly included under the Ministry of Reconciliation The general result of all I have said is That the Office of the Ministry is of very high and great importance and such persons who have a low esteem thereof if they have any reverence for their Saviour let them seriously consider whether he who is Truth and Goodness can be thought to use such high expressions in this case as to declare his giving them the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and that what they bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and such like to impose upon the World which he came to guide and save and upon his Church which he so dearly loves with empty sounds of great things which signify little or nothing What a mighty sense had the Primitive Christians of this power of the Keys when the Penitent Offenders under censure undertook according to some Canons the strict observation of Penance Conc. Ancyr c. 16. Elib c. 2 7 47 63. Valent. cap. 3. sometimes for 20 or 30 years and even to the end of their Life that they might obtain Absolution and the Peace of the Church and its Communion And under this severe Discipline as Tertullian describes it by the name of their Exomologesis de Poenit. c. 9. they did ly in Sackcloth and Ashes they never used such Cloaths or Diet as might appear pleasant they frequently exercised themselves in Fasting Prayers and Tears crying to God day and night and among other things they made humble Supplication even upon their Knees unto the Members of the Church and fell down prostrate before its Officers it being their custom Presbyteris advolvi charis Dei adgeniculari And all this was done in the greatest degree while the Church was under persecution from the Civil Power But that which they apprehended and which I doubt not to be true Exam. Conc. Trid. de Poeni is that as Chemnitius expresseth it Christus est qui per ministerium absolvit peccata remittit it is Christ who gives Absolution by his Ministry viz. where they proceed according to his Will And as under the Law he who trespassed beside the amendment of his fault and restitution either in things Sacred or Civil was to have recourse to the Trespass-Offering for obtaining the Mercy of God even so under the Gospel he who performs the other conditions of Christianity ought where it may be had to apply himself also to the Ministerial power of remitting Sin and the receiving this Testimony together with that of a good Conscience upon a Christian Penitent Deportment is next to the great Absolution by Christ the greatest encouragement for Peace and Comfort Only I must here add which I desire may be particularly observed that the principal way of ministerial dispensing Remission of Sins and other Blessings of the Gospel to them who fall not under gross enormities and the censures of the Church though performed also in its degree in Doctrine and other Benedictions and Absolutions is chiefly done by Administring the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to persons duly qualified And it is one of the miscarriages of the Roman Church that they take too little notice of this advantage in receiving the Holy Eucharist and do inordinately advance their Sacrament of Penance so far into its place as to be esteemed the only Sacrament after Baptism wherein may be obtained remission of Sins Wherefore I conceive that as that Man who being converted to Christianity doth profess the Doctrine and embrace the practice thereof in other things but wholly omitteth Christian Baptism doth thereby deprive himself of the ordinary visible Testimony of God's favour and runs himself upon the needless hazard of hoping to find acceptance by extraordinary Grace in the neglect of the ordinary means thereof even so is it with those adult persons who being otherwise piously disposed do ordinarily neglect the attendance upon the Lord's Supper which is particularly appointed of God to be a means of conveying and applying the benefits of Christ's Holy Sacrifice for remission of Sins and other blessings of the Covenant to them who are worthy and meet to receive the same And if this which to me seemeth a great Truth was duly heeded the frequent attendance upon the Holy Communion and other Services of God would be as it was in the Primitive Times generally looked on as a Duty of very great importance in Persons adult and resolving upon a true Christian course of life Having asserted the nature and excellency of the Ministerial Power it will be necessary also to disclaim and reject from it these two things 1. That the Ministry of Reconciliation is not appointed to offer in the Mass a Propitiatory Sacrifice to God for the Quick and the Dead and herewith must be rejected also the Power of effecting Transubstantiation St. Chrysostom truly asserteth Chrysost in 2 Cor. 2.5 That it is not the same thing which is done by Christ i. e. in reconciling us by his Sacrifice and by his Ministry But the Priestly Authority according to the Romish Ordination Pontif. Rom. is chiefly placed in this proper Power of Sacrificing their Form being Accipe potestatem offerre Sacrificium Deo c. And all the Orders of their Ministry have some proper thing appointed for them which relateth to this Sacrifice of the Mass That is properly Ordo Th. Mor. l. 5. Tr. 9. c. 1. saith F. Layman where there is gradus potestatis ad peragendum Missae Sacrificium or a degree of Power to perform something about the Sacrifice of the Mass Much to the same purpose is in many other Writers and even in the Roman Catechism ad Parcchos in which as also in the Council of Trent it self Cat. ad Par. de Ord. Sacr. Concil Trid. Sess 23. cap. 2. their Priesthood is reckoned as the highest of their seven Orders partly upon this account and partly because this Notion serveth further to advance the Dignity and Eminency of the Pope But there is no such Sacrifice of the Mass in the Religion of our Saviour Indeed here it must be granted and asserted that the
real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and
the great Folly of Evil Men whilst hereby under the appearances of trifling Pleasures great Cheats are imposed upon Men who should be wiser than to be thus decoyed into Temporal Evils and Eternal Miseries Now in turning to God there must be a breaking off from Sin by Repentance or a Care to depart from Evil and to do Good Nor is it enough that there be a mere restraint upon outward Actions of Evil but there must be also an hearty Resolution and inward Hatred against Sin and a sincere Love of what is Good And that this may be effectual it must be set upon timely and presently as a Wise Man will use his utmost diligence to put a stop to a dangerous Disease before it be too late and it become incurable To this purpose let these three things be considered First Consider how all Vice and Wickedness of Life is contrary to the nature of God Such is the Purity of the Divine Being that Sin is more opposite and hateful unto God than to the most Vertuous Man that lives in the World God is Light and in him is no Darkness at all and it is as possible for the black Darkness to stand before the brightness of the Sun 's Light as for the workers of Iniquity to be approved by the Holy God The singular purity of his Laws and the exceeding dreadfulness of his Threats against Wickedness are intended to deter Men from the commission thereof And if we take notice of the instances and examples of God's displeasure against Sin these are very numerous It was Disobedience that turned Adam out of Paradise Debauchery and Wickedness was that which unpeopled the old World and caused them to be destroy'd by a Deluge and Sodom and Gomorrah to be consumed by Fire and Brimstone from Heaven By the like sinful practices the Jews who were God's peculiar People and to whom he was as an Husband were divorced from him and divers Calamities have been brought down upon other Persons and Nations And yet all these things come far short of what will be manifested at the great Day when the terrible Sentence of Eternal Perdition will be pronounced against all Evil-doers who shall perish with everlasting Destruction from the Presence of the Lord. Secondly Consider how much wicked works are peculiarly opposite to Christianity Sin is of the nature of the Devil he is the Spirit that worketh in the Children of Disobedience but the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the Devil 1 Joh. 3.8 The Life of Christ was such that thereby he left us an example that we should follow his Steps who did no Sin and his Doctrine teacheth us that we should deny Ungodliness and Worldly Lusts Even our Baptism is an undertaking to Renounce the Devil and become dead unto Sin And it is more unaccountable for Debauchery to be in a Christian than for the brutish nature to inhabit the Soul and Body of a Man because this not only opposeth our Profession of Christianity but the designs of our Redeemer also His coming into the World and his Death and Passion was that he might redeem us from all Iniquity and purify to himself a People zealous of good Works But that the Works of Darkness should be embraced by the Children of Light that they should yield up themselves to the Evil one who have plentiful Aids and Assistances of Divine Grace to withstand and overcome him is a thing altogether inexcusable Thirdly Consider that Viciousness is the more intolerable when God's hand appears to be lifted up Corrections and Judgments are some of the last and most powerful means which God makes use of for Man's amendment By these Pharaoh was brought to Submission and Ahab to Humiliation And it hath been observed that the Israelites after the Seventy years Captivity in Babylon were never prone to follow after other Gods as they had frequently done before notwithstanding their Instructions from the Prophets for towards a Thousand years and it is then expected that when God's Judgments are in the Earth the Inhabitants of the World will learn Righteousness for there must be great obstinacy and hardness where the fears or strokes of the hand of God make no Impression Now we have heard of the Calamities of Neighbour Countreys and God hath exercised us with severe Chastisements not many years since his hand is now stretched out if we heartily turn to him we have reason to hope it will be for our help but if not we have cause to fear it will be to our hurt III. The third and last thing I shall mention to be done in hearty turning to God is To reject all Irreligion and neglect of the Worship of God and to be exercised in the Religious Service of God with true Piety and hearty Devotion Wherefore 1. Let no neglect of Religion have any place amongst us or let all miscarriages herein be carefully amended The Worship of God and the Institutions of our Blessed Saviour are by too many disregarded But yet the Love and Fear of God the serving him and walking in all good Conscience before him is greatly needful to be undertaken with serious Diligence This is a very great Duty of Man for if a Child be obliged to give Honour and Reverence to his Father or a Servant to his Master or a Subject to his Prince much more must Man stand engaged to worship and serve his Creator The Precepts in the Holy Scripture to this purpose are so plain and frequent that no Man who reads the Scriptures can be ignorant of them and they who never read them do acknowledg this Duty by the evidence of the light of Nature it self Our owning Christianity is not only a Name or Profession but is an undertaking to mind that Piety which is suitable to Religion In this Profession St. Paul declares his own great care to have been to worship the God of his Fathers after the way which the Jews called Heresy that is according to the true Rules and Doctrine of Christianity And the whole multitude of the Christian Church is represented by St. John as standing before the Throne and crying with a loud voice Salvation be to God and to the Lamb Rev. 7.9 10. and therefore they are not worthy to be accounted any part of the Christian Church who neglect the Worship of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ This also is our interest and benefit For the most noble and excellent employment of Man is in those things which relate to God and Goodness when otherwise in the neglect of this he is taken up either about empty Vanities mean Earth or sordid Filth But the Service of God is both his Honour and his Advantage and the Promises which are made to Religious Piety are great and sure but because they are proposed under the terms of a Covenant there can be no security of enjoying the present Blessings of God and no possibility of attaining endless Felicity
of God in it that all his Revelations to the Patriarchs and Prophets and especially that by the Holy Jesus to the Christian Church do greatly insist upon it When the Gentile World went greatly astray by their abominable Idolatries and their gross Impurities even in their pretendedly Religious Rites the Doctrine of the Gospel appears to turn them from the Power of Satan unto God When the Jews had been under a lower Dispensation our Lord gives his Disciples more excellent Rules and enlargeth the Precepts of the Moral Law as was truly asserted by Irenaeus Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus St. Augustine and other ancient Writers And why should it be thought strange that Lawgiver should add to the Precepts already given and extend them further who established many new Duties such as to believe the peculiar Doctrines of the Christian Faith to perform many religious Services in his Name and with an eye to him to attend on the Gospel-Sacraments to reverence the Christian Ministry and the Power of the Keys and to own and embrace Communion with the diffusive Catholick Church in all Nations He laid new Obligations upon his Disciples concerning Divorce and the changing the Zeal of Elias into Christian Meekness And it is but reasonable to expect that under the Instructions and Motives of Christianity there should be required greater Measures of the Love of God and Goodness But when the Jewish Church had in their Principles and Practices grosly degenerated from the great Design of the Law and many Corruptions were introduced our Lord protests against them and gives his Disciples this Admonition That their Righteousness must exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees The Pharisees were the strictest Sect of the Jews at that time the Scribes were their chief Teachers and Guides their Righteousness here intended was what was according to the Rules and Doctrines they delivered and received Against that Leaven of Doctrine our Lord warned his Disciples Mat. 16.12 The out-doing and exceeding this Righteousness is so necessary that it is enjoined under this severe Sanction That otherwise we can in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven The Kingdom of Heaven is a Phrase peculiar to St. Matthew among all the Penmen of the Scripture but hath been observed not to be unusual in the Talmud Hor. Hebr. in Mat. 3.3 and other Jewish Writers It sometimes expresseth in this Evangelist the Kingdom of Christ in his Church on Earth but in this place and others the Kingdom of Glory and eternal Happiness But if any should think these Words directly to assert that none whose Righteousness exceeds not that of the Pharisees and their Teachers the Scribes can be true Members of the Christian Church and Christ's Kingdom upon Earth he must consequently acknowledg that they cannot be Heirs of Heaven Yet these Pharisees were not so wholly irreligious but that they attended the Temple and Synagogues made many Prayers seem'd to have a great Veneration for the Law and a Zeal for the Honour of the God of Israel They were not so grosly dissolute and debauched as to give themselves up to Uncleanness Intemperance and all Unmercifulness but they condemned Adultery fasted and gave Alms. Wherefore it may be needful to enquire I. What were the Miscarriages in their Righteousness and wherein must we exceed them if ever we attain to Happiness II. How stands the Case of those Societies who chiefly pretend to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees III. What is the Result of these Enquiries I. Touching their Miscarriages and Defects 1. They placed much Righteousness in their being a peculiar Party and maintaining a kind of Separation They were a particular Sect having and needlesly affecting singular Practices and Opinions different from the other Jews and such as were not enjoined in the Law of Moses The Name Pharisee is from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to separate and divide and themselves were distinguished into seven sorts as the Jewish Writers tell us They did not indeed withdraw themselves from the Synagogue or Temple Publick-Worship since as Josephus saith Antiq. Jud. l. 18. c. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever referred to God both Prayer and other parts of Worship were much ordered by their Model But concerning the Synagogue-Worship there is probable Evidence that the several chief Sects among the Jews and therefore the Pharisees as one of them had their distinct Assemblies And it is certain the Pharisees did reject the best of Men from their Synagogue-Communion meerly for doing their necessary Duty in professing upon the fullest Divine Testimony that Jesus was the Christ and becoming his Followers And in the Temple-Worship the Pharisees were guilty of a kind of Separation under an appearance of Communion For since the daily Sacrifice in the Temple was a Burnt-Offering and therefore appointed for Expiation and Atonement Num. 28.3 the Devotions of them who attended at the Temple at the Hours of Prayer and Sacrifice ought to be conformable thereunto but the Pharisees Prayer there as our Saviour describes it had nothing in it of humble Supplication for God's Mercy and Favour but he thanks God he was not as other Men. And this Spirit of Division was so much the worse in them because it was founded in an high Conceit and great Confidence of their own Righteousness though they had little reason for it and in a contempt of others But now such a proud Temper is inconsistent with Christianity which makes Humility a necessary Qualification for the obtaining everlasting Life And Divisions and Separations are so unaccountable for the Members of the same Body the Church to be engaged in that the Doctrine of Christ gives us frequent Precepts earnest Exhortations and pressing Arguments to Peace and Unity and plainly expresseth the great Danger of Misery in the neglect thereof When 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Contests fierce Heats and Divisions are reckoned among those Works of the Flesh which exclude from the Kingdom of God Gal. 5. can any think the great Discords in the Church unconcerned herein when the Concord of Christians is here chiefly enjoined and the Neglect thereof is every way exceeding hurtful and when all these very Expressions are used by St. Paul to set forth the Divisions of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 3.3 And therefore where-ever Rents or Schisms in the Church are Works of the Flesh as they must be when they are the Product of Pride Self-will or voluntary Disobedience to or Neglect of the Precepts of Peace and Unity they are destructive The Ancient Church charged an high Guilt upon these Practices Cypr. ep 76. ◠St. Cyprian accounts Schism greatly to deprive Men of the Hope of Christianity And St. Austin maintains against the Donatists that their Separation was as great a Sin as that of the Traditores who gave up the Scriptures into the hands of their Persecutors with which Crime the
and spake evil of their Governours And they were frequently turbulent and tumultuous But by the Evangelical Doctrine only the Humble and Lowly can enter into Heaven The Son of God himself so far promoted Submission to all in Authority that he was obedient to his Parents was himself baptized of John And the New Testament earnestly enjoins upon us Obedience to them who have the Rule over us and denounceth Damnation to those who resist the higher Powers 6. And lastly They left themselves and their Followers at a licentious Liberty in many weighty Matters of Doctrine and Practice They could suffer their Hands to be Polluted by devouring Widows Houses and their Tables by Extortion and Excess They made void the Commands of God by their Traditions and were such Casuists as to allow Swearing by Heaven and Earth and to account such Oaths as those by the Temple and the Altar to leave no Obligation when Swearing by the Gold of the Temple or the Gift upon the Altar did oblige And it is manifest from this fifth chapter of St. Matthew that according to their strictest Rules they gave allowance to inward Wrath and Hatred and Lust if it did not break forth in open Murther or Adultery as was noted by Tertullian Tert. de Idolat c. 2. who also observeth how strictly extensive our Saviour's Doctrine is even against the unchast Eye and inward Wrath or in the phrase of St. John That he that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer But the excellent Christian Rules of Life which command the inward Man and far out-do the loose Principles of the Pharisees are many of them proposed by the Blessed Jesus in this and the following Chapters and are included under that Sanction at the close of this Sermon on the Mount that he that hears these words of his and doth them not is likened to him who builds his House on the Sand which ends in a dreadful fall And Vertuous Practices are so far from pleading any allowance from Christianity that Whosoever breaks the least Commandment and teacheth Men so shall be called least or not be accounted of in the Kingdom of Heaven These things I have discoursed of are sufficient to shew the gross miscarriages of the Pharisaical Righteousness in opposing the necessary Duties of Unity Meekness Sincerity true Religious Piety Obedience and Universal Holiness and therefore this could be no safe way to the Kingdom of Heaven I now come to the second Enquiry How stands the case of those Societies who lay the chief claims to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees in these particulars And here I shall not ransack the remote and distant parts of the World but take notice only of those with which we are concerned as the Church of England the present Roman Church and the Dissenting Parties among us Nor shall I strain resemblances to make the Cases appear Parallel but shall take notice of things as they really are to observe how far there is a likeness to or compliance with the Spirit of Pharisaism And here I profess that I seriously wish well to all Men of what Party soever and therefore whatever I shall say that speaks the error or danger of any of them is not out of design to cast reproach upon them but out of this true Charitable End to warn others to take heed thereof and I should be glad if it might make any of them consider of the error of their way 1. Concerning Separation and Division This was esteemed by the ancient Church as an heinous Crime St. Chrysostom equals it with Heresy Chr. in Eph. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. and St. Cyprian makes it a greater offence than that of the Lapsi The Church of England is clear herein it owns and professeth the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and Doctrine and none other and appoints a way of Worship agreeable thereto and so gives no cause to warrant any Separation from her Our Case with respect to the Romish Church is in part like that of the Apostles with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees whilest they professed the true Christian Doctrine and worshipped God after the way which was unjustly called Heresy Joh. 12.42 the Pharisees sentenced such to be put out of the Synagogue And the Talmud of the Venice Edition hath been observed to affirm That Jesus himself was Excommunicated with the Shammatha or great Excommunication And because we as we ought reject the evil and corrupt Romish Doctrines and Practices they censure us as Hereticks and let fly their Anathema's in various Canons of Trent and yearly denounce their Excommunications in the Bull in Coena Domini And besides this we cannot join in the main part of the Romish Worship without embracing their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices Nor have they any Right of Jurisdiction over us And all this acquits us from the Crime of Schism in our Reformation But they at Rome though they keep to their publick Worship as the Pharisees did are yet grossly guilty of Schism by unjustly rejecting all other Christian Churches who make use of their own just Rights and are not more ready to submit to St. Peters pretended Successor and his Impostures than to the Precepts and Doctrines of his and our Lord and Master And herein they pass Sentence as the Pharisee did against the Publican upon them who are better than themselves Other Parties at home practise Divisions in an higher degree than the Pharisees did openly separating themselves from the publick Assemblies of our Christian Worship 2. Concerning fierceness and furiousness of Zeal Our Church entertains no Bloody nor Uncharitable Doctrines or Tenents its Rules concerning Government contain as much mildness as can consist with Peace and Order and its Practice rather more by reason of the distemper and disorder of the minds of Men. But such is the Romish fierceness that in the highest violation of Charity they exclude other Churches from Salvation And their furious Zeal appears by Fire and Faggot by bloody Inquisitions Massacres and Rebellions by Horrid Treasons and cruel Conspiracies of which the World hath had and we have abundant Evidence These things are so unlike Christianity and Jesus the Saviour that they betray themselves to be from the Abaddon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Espencoeus a learned Doctor of Paris Esp in 1. T◠Digr l. 2. had observed how the ancient Canons obliged all the Clergy against engaging in War and Blood he acknowledgeth and smartly taxeth the contrary practice of the late Romish Church and her Bishops as herein degenerating from the Spirit of Christianity veteris Gentilismi ritu with a greater suitableness to the temper of Pagans And in other Dissenting Parties it is too manifest how prone their forward and leading Men are to censorious Uncharitableness and rash Judging and how ready they have been unjustly to take up the Sword and pursue the Interest of their Party with War and Blood with
such circumstances as I forbear to mention And the consideration of this temper may give us some account of the great eagerness and restless earnestness of these erring Parties in propagating their particular Interests 3. Concerning the aiming to gain the applause and favour of Men in the neglect of Duty Our Church in its Rules of Doctrine lays the same stress upon all Duties to God or Man that the Gospel of our Saviour doth without yielding to the Humours of the Profane the Debauched or the Turbulent and Unruly The Romanists suit themselves to all Dispositions they have severe Rules in some of their Regular Societies for the more Serious but they take great care to gratify Wicked and Debauched Persons also with as much Liberty as they can well desire Their Casuists generally declare That an act of Attrition or such Sorrow for Sin as is not accompanied with hatred against it or the true Love of God is at last sufficient with Absolution to remove the guilt of Sin and secure them from Eternal Death But if temporal Punishment remains for them this can only bring them to Purgatory and here they may have considerable help from Indulgences and the Treasury of the Church which are dispensed for Ave-Maries and other Prayers visiting certain places having Masses said for their Souls and by other works without their becoming really holy and good And besides this their feigned Miracles and Revelations their pretended power of Transubstantiating of dispensing the Treasury of Merits in the Church and of justifying them who are not contrite by Absolution seem methods contrived to gain admiration from the People And other Sects make their Interests and seek Reputation by popular Arts and often by promoting or conniving at Uncharitableness Mens high Conceits of themselves and a Temper averse from Unity and Obedience which are things of a very evil Nature And some of their chief Teachers acknowledg that in some things they act against their own Judgments in compliance with their People 4. Concerning Superstitious urging those things as parts of Religion which are not such Our Church owneth no necessary Article of Faith but what is in our Creed nor any Doctrines of Christianity but what are deducible from the Holy Scriptures Our Constitutions for Decency and Rules of Order are established only as such and are withal innocent useful few and agreeing to Primitive Christianity But at Rome a great part of their Religion as they make it consists in acknowledging many things to be de Fide which are neither contained in the Scriptures agreeing with them nor acknowledged in the ancient Church in entertaining various false Doctrines and pretended Traditions with equal reverence to the Holy Scriptures and in using divers Rites as operative of Divine Aid and Grace which God never appointed to that end Our other dividing Parties are too nigh the Pharisaical Doctrine concerning the Obligation of their voluntary Vow against their Duty to Superiours And many of them lay a Doctrinal Necessity either upon disowning Episcopal Authority which hath so great a Testimony of Apostolical Appointment Or in being against Forms of Prayer at least such wherein the People vocally join or in condemning as sinful innocent Appointments decent Ceremonies and suitable Gestures And those who own not these Positions nor condemn our Worship as sinful and yet divide from us must assert other Positions for Doctrines which are equally erroneous and dangerous For if their Principles be agreeable to their Practice they must assert that Men may break the Churches Peace and expose it to the greatest hazards gratify its Enemies and disobey Authority which are great Sins to maintain an opposition to those things which themselves dare not charge with any Sin But this is to aver such Doctrine to be from God which is contrary to his Religion his Nature and his Will and are but the Precepts of Men and it is to strain at a Gnat but swallow a Camel Now if to counterfeit the Seal or Coin or falsely to pretend to the Authority of an Earthly Prince be greatly culpable can it be otherwise to stamp a Divine Impression on things which God disowns 5. Concerning Obedience and Submission to Superiors this Duty is regularly enjoined in our Church both with respect to Private Relations Spiritual Guides and Civil Rulers In the Romish Church there is strict Obedience required in their several Orders to the Superiors thereof in the Laiety to the Clergy and in all to the Pope But this is so irregular that thereby the natural Honour to Parents is much discharged and St. Peter's Precept of Honouring the King is under the name of his Vicar changed into such Positions as when occasion serves may encourage the Deposing and Murdering him And among other Dissenters their Divisions as they are circumstantiated are ipso facto such visible Testimonies of their want of Submission to their Ecclesiastical and Civil Governours that nothing need be added And it is known there were some of these Parties whose Principles allowed them to take Arms against their King and who exposed his Royal Person to Violence and Death 6. Concerning a loose and licentious Life Our Church requires a Sincere Holy Exercise and presseth all the Precepts of our Saviour and the Motives and Arguments of the Gospel and enjoineth the careful observation of our Baptismal Vow But in the Romish Church he that considers the immoral looseness of the Jesuits and other Casuists may wonder that such things should be owned by Men of any Religion much more of them who profess the Christian Religion For instance By our Saviour's Doctrine to love God with all the heart is the great and first Commandment But Azorius asserts Azor. Tom. 1. l. 9. c. 4. That it is hard to fix any time when this Precept of Loving God doth oblige to any exercise thereof with respect to it self but only when it is necessary to Repentance And he roundly saith We are not obliged to any exercise of Love to God when we attain to the use of Reason nor at the receiving any Sacrament not at Confession nor at the approach of Death Filiuc Tr. 22. c. 9. Filiucius thinks this Opinion probable and therefore safe by their Doctrine of Probability but prefers another Opinion which is but little better That we are bound to act Love to God at the time of Death and in some other extraordinary cases if they happen and that ordinarily Men ought to exercise an act of Love to God at least once in five years But I am amazed to think how sparing such Men were of inward Religious Devotion and what Strangers to it And for the practice of Repentance which is another great Duty of our Religion Though Contrition which includes an hating and forsaking Sin and turning to God be acknowledged of good use by them yet Filiucius saith Fil. Tr. 6 c 8. n. 196 197 and 208. Men are not obliged to acts of Contrition every year but once in
better State for such charitable Hopes And whosoever are engaged in any of those Evils which were included in Pharisaism and condemned in Christianity had need carefully to reflect on themselves and heartily and timely to amend But if any should be offended at a Discourse that represents to them the Danger of their Practices and should be more ready to censure it as uncharitable than to weigh and consider it they may know that as this speaks a very bad Temper of Mind prevailing in them so the letting Men alone in their sinful Actions is so far from being any part of that Charity which our Saviour practised or enjoined that it is more agreeable with the Temper of the Evil One who is willing that they who do amiss should continue in their Evil be flattered therein and not so consider thereof as to forsake it Secondly Let all who are of our Church and whoever embrace the true Catholick Communion be careful and serious in practising Holiness and Righteousness Our Doctrine and Profession condemneth and disowneth all unsound Principles and corrupt Practices And as the more devout Jews daily blessed God that they were born Jews and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles so have we great reason to praise God that we live in this excellent Church and are thereby free from various Snares to which many others are exposed But if amongst us Debauchery Profaneness or Irreligion prevail upon any Persons whomsoever such Wickedness of Life will exclude Persons of the purest Profession and Belief from ever entring into Heaven St. Austin sometimes warns against this Aug. de Civ Dei l. 20. c. 9. de fid oper as a considerable Defect in the Pharisees Righteousness that while they sate in Moses's Chair our Lord tells us they say but do not If ever we will be happy our Practice must answer our Profession the Doctrine of Christianity is a Doctrine according to Godliness and must be improved to that End An Heretical or Schismatical Life as some ancient Writers call that vicious Conversation which separates the Man from the Ways of God and Religion is the more unaccountable and inexcusable when it contradicteth and crosseth the most Catholick Profession and the best Rules of Duty clearly proposed Wherefore let us be careful that as the Righteousness required in the Doctrine of our Church in conformity to the Gospel of our Saviour doth greatly exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees so may that of our Lives also in conformity to that Doctrine Which God of his Mercy grant through the Merits of our holy and blessed Saviour To whom c. FINIS BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Ric. Chiswell SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland and of Foreign Parts Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers in 2 Vol. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia c. B. Wilkin's real Character or Philosophical Language Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Guillim's Display of Heraldry with large Additions Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England in 2 Vol. Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion Herodoti Historia Gr. Lat. cum varils Lect. Bishop Sanderson's Sermons with his Life Fowlis's History of Romish Conspir Treas and Usurpat Dalton's Office of Sheriffs with Additions Office of a Justice of Peace with Additions Lord Cook 's Reports in English Edmunds on Caesar's Commentaries Sir John Davis's Reports Judge Yelverton's Reports The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits Seminary Priests Recusants the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgments and Resolutions of the Judges with other Observations thereupon by Will. Cawley Esq Josephus Antiquities and Wars of the Jews with Figures QVARTO DR Littleton's Dictionary Latin and English Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism History of the late Wars of New-England D. Outram de Sacrificiis Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Parkeri Disputationes de Deo The Magistrates Authority asserted in a Sermon By James Paston Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the Commons 1679. Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon April 9. 1671. Mr. John Cave's Fast Sermon on 30 of Jan. 1679. Assize Sermon at Leicester July 31. 1679. Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor 1679. History of the Powder Treason with a vindication of the proceedings relating thereunto Speculum Baxteriunum or Baxter against Baxter Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections Bibliotheca Norfolciana sive Catalogus Lib. Manuscript impress in omni Arte Lingua quos Hen. Dux Norfolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro scientiae naturali promovenda donavit OCTAVO BIshop Wilkin's Natural Religion Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy Lord Hollis's Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers in the Case of Skinner Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Appeals Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Impositions Letters about the Bishops Votes in Capital Cases Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History on Roots Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice Dr. Brown's Religio Medici with Digby's Observations Dr. Sympson's Chymical Anatomy of the York-shire Spaws with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains Hydrological Essays with an Account of the Allum Works at Whitby and some Observations about the Jaundice Organon Salutis or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach With divers new Experiments of the Vertue of Tobacco and Coffee with a Preface of Sir Henry Blunt Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity in three parts Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness Dr. Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists Record of Urines The Tryals of the Regicides in 1660. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil Moral Natural c. with a large account of all his Works by Dr. Tho. Tennison Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England Sir John Munson's Discourse of Supreme Power and Common Right Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts Mr. Seller's Remarks relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries The Country-man's Physician Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-Lands Markham's Perfect Horseman Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob about Catholick Communion The History of the House of Estee the Family of the Dutchess of York Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha or Natural Power of Kings Mr. John Cave's Gospel to the Romans Lawrence's Interest of Ireland in its Trade and Wealth stated DVODECIMO HOdder's Arithmetick Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christiana Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations An Apology for a Treatise of Humane Reason Written by M. Clifford Esq VICESIMO QVARTO VAlentine 's Devotions Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell AN Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author and divers other English-men now living there and of the Author 's miraculous Escape Illustrated with Fifteen Copper Figures and an exact Map of the Island By Capt. Robert Knox a Captive there near 20 years Folio Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation Octavo Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons never before Extant Mr. John Cave's two Sermons of the Duty and Benefit of Submission to the Will of God in Afflictions Quarto Dr. Crawford's serious Expostulation with the Whigs in Scotland 4o. A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome to which is added The Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy and their Protestation Published by Dr. Burnet Sir James Turner's Pallas Armata or Military Essays of the ancient Grecian Roman and Modern Art of War Folio Mr. Tanner's Primordia Or The Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described Octavo A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet Octavo Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the ancient Church by Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and the Encroachments of that upon other Sees especially Constantinople Octavo Dr. John Lightfoot's Works in English in two Volumes Folio Mr. Selden's Janus Anglorum Englished with Notes To which is added his Epinomis concerning the ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom never before Extant Also two other Treatises written by the same Author One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods Now the first time published Folio Jus Regium or the Foundations of Monarchy in general and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland maintain'd against Buchanan Napthali Dolman Milton c. By Sir George Mackenzie His Majesties Advocate in Scotland Octavo Several Discourses viz. Of Purity and Charity Of Repentance Of seeking first the Kingdom of God By Hezekiah Burton D.D. Published by John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo FINIS
TWO TREATISES The First Concerning Reproaching Censure The Second An ANSWER to Mr SERjEANT's Sure-footing To which are annexed THREE SERMONS Preached upon several Occasions and very useful for these Times By the late Learned and Reverend WILLIAM FALKNER D. D. LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard and sold by William Oliver in Norwich MDCLXXXIV TO THE Most Reverend FATHER in GOD WILLIAM By DIVINE PROVIDENCE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY HIS GRACE Primate of all ENGLAND and Metropolitan and one of the Lords of His Majestie 's Most Honourable Privy Council May it please Your GRACE I Humbly present to your Grace's Patronage some Remains of an excellent Person for whom Your Grace was pleased to express a great value while he lived and whom You are still pleased upon all occasions to mention with great kindness Had he lived to have published any of these Discourses himself he would have chosen no other Patron and had he lived a little longer he would have found that he had needed no other For since some may wonder that so great a Man should go off the Stage with no greater Character than one of the Town-Preachers at Lyn Regis it is fit the World should know that Your Grace who is the peculiar Patron of modest and neglected Worth designed better things for him That great honour I have for Dr. Falkner's Memory to whose wise instructions I owe that little Knowledge I have attained to would easily have perswaded me to have given the World a more particular account of his Life which was adorned with as many eminent Vertues as I believe this last Age can shew in any one man But though distance of place could not interrupt our Correspondence nor our Friendship yet it has for many years deprived me of the familiarities and intimacies of his conversation which give the truest Character of any man and I dare not undertake a work wherein I can neither serve my Friend nor satisfie the World As for these posthumous Treatises he designed only the first of them for the Press which concerns Reproaching and Censures which he observed was grown so common a fault that it is generally thought to be none and therefore in the first Part he shews the great Evil and Sinfulness of it and how irreconcileable it is with a true Christian Spirit But then he considered that as men who are most guilty of this vice have no sense of it themselves so they are very apt to charge those with it who are not guilty Whoever has had the courage and honesty to reprove the Schisms and Factions that are among us and to censure the errors and miscarriages of the several Sects and Parties of Christians have been branded with the ignominious name of Railers and Revilers and Accusers of the Brethren and therefore in his Second Part he shews that such just and sober Censures as these which are designed to convince men of their errors and mistakes are so far from being a fault that they are a necessary duty And because some men are transported with such an intemperate zeal that they do not impartially consider what is truly blame-worthy in those who differ from them but censure and condemn at all adventures whatever is said or done by men of such a Party or Character He proposed to himself particularly to consider the several Sects and Professions of Christians and what it is which deserves reproof and Censure in them which he has done with great Candour and Judgement but did not live to perfect it For we have no reason to doubt but the Presbyterians should have had their share too as well as the other Sects amongst us but either that Part was not done or it was lost for no Remains could be found of it As for his Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Sure-Footing that was written many years since and designed by him for the Press but by that time he had finished it he found that work done to his hand by a very excellent Pen which put an end to that Controversie and therefore he laid it by without any intention to make it publick But since his Death some of his Friends have had other thoughts of it and indeed it is so useful a Discourse that though there is no need of a new Answer to Serjeant since the Publication of Dr. Tillotson's Rule of Faith yet I believe it will not be unacceptable to Learned men He penn'd very few Sermons in long hand which I suppose is the reason why there are no more published These that are besides the usefulness of the several Subjects may serve as a specimen of his plain and pious way of instructing the people My Lord I should be very ungrateful should I neglect this opportunity to make my publick acknowledgements to Your Grace for those extraordinary favours I have so lately received from You on which the ease and comfort of my life does so much depend that I am for ever bound to implore the Divine Majesty to bless Your Grace with all happiness and prosperity in this life and with the rewards of an exemplary Piety and Vertue in the next which is the hearty Prayer of My LORD Your Grace's most dutiful Servant William Sherlock A TABLE OF THE AUTHOR's CONTENTS OF REPROACHING CENSURE The First Part Concerning the irregular Excesses and great Sinfulness of uncharitable Evil-speaking especially of Superiours CHAP. I. SOME preparatory considerations concerning the evil of Reproaching Page 1 CHAP. II. The excessive disorders and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent Sect. 1. The best deserving persons are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure p. 12 Sect. 2. Who are apt to be prevailed with to be guilty of the sinful reproaching others and how far this sin becomes spreading and contagious p 24 Sect. 3. The monstrous and unreasonable strangeness of those censures which have been unjustly charged on the most innocent and excellent men and particularly on our blessed Lord and Saviour himself p. 32 CHAP. III. The manifold sinfulness and severe punishment of reproaching and speaking evil especially against Superiors p. 56 CHAP. IV. Contumelious evil-speaking in general and all irreverent and disrespectful behaviour towards Rulers and Governours is contrary to the life of Christ in those things wherein we are particularly commanded to imitate his Example and S. Pauls carriage Acts 23.3 4 5. considered p. 76 The Second Part Concerning the usefulness of a sober Censure of such Parties or persons who practise evil or propagate falshood with an enquiry into some different parties who make profession of Christianity CHAP. I. TO speak against evil persons and practices duly and discreetly and to the just discrediting and disparaging bad Principles and Doctrines is reasonable and good with an account of what Rules are here to be observed p. 121 CHAP. II. The Principles and Practices maintained