fallen into Heresie since that time is now not worth inquiring but yet how reasonable that old doctrine is is very fit to consider 4. Of necessity it must be true because what ever kind of absolution or binding it is that the Bishops and Priests have power to use it does it's work intended without any real changing of state in the penitent The Priest alters nothing he diminishes no man's right he gives nothing to him but what he had before The Priest baptizes and he absolves and he communicates and he prays and he declares the will of God and by importunity he compells men to come and if he find them unworthy he keeps them out but it is such as he finds to be unworthy Such who are in a state of perdition he cannot he ought not to admit to the Ministeries of life True it is he prays to God for pardon and so he prays that God will give the sinner the grace of Repentance but he can no more give Pardon than he can give Repentance he that gives this gives that And it is so also in the case of Absolution he can absolve none but those that are truly penitent he can give thanks indeed to God on his behalf but as that Thanksgiving supposes pardon so that Pardon supposes repentance and if it be true Repentance the Priest will as certainly find him pardon'd as find him penitent And therefore we find in the old Penitentials and Usages of the Church that the Priest did not absolve the penitent in the Indicative or Judicial form To this purpose it is observed by Goar Pag. 676. in the Euchologion that now many do freely assert and tenaciously defend and clearly teach and prosperously write that the solemn form of reconciling Absolvo te à peccatis tuis is not perhaps above the age of 400 years and that the old form of Absolution in the Latin Church was composed in words of deprecation so far forth as we may conjecture out of the Ecclesiastical history ancient Rituals Tradition and other Testimonies without exception And in the Opuscula of Thomas Aquinas Opusc. 22. he tells that a Doctor said to him that the Optative form or deprecatory was the Usual and that then it was not thirty years since the Indicative form of Ego te Absolvo was us'd which computation comes neer the computation made by Goar And this is the more evidently so in that it appears that in the ancient Discipline of the Church a Deacon might reconcile the penitents if the Priest were absent Aleuin de Divini Offic. cap. Deâ—jejunio Si autem necessitas evenerit Presbyter non fuerit praesens Diaconus suscipiat poenitentem ac det Sanctam Communionem And if a Deacon can minister this affair then the Priest is not indispensably necessary nor his power judicial and pretorial But besides this the power of the Keys is under the Master in the hands of the Steward of the house who is the Minister of Government and the power of remitting and retaining being but the verification of the Promise of the Keys is to be understood by the same analogy and is exercised in many instances and to many great purposes though no man had ever dreamt of a judicial power of absolution of secret sins viz. in discipline and government in removing scandals in restoring persons overtaken in a fault to the peace of the Church in sustaining the weak in cutting off of corrupt members in rejecting hereticks in preaching peace by Jesus Christ and repentance through his name and ministering the word of reconciliation and interceding in the ministery of Christ's mediation that is being God's Embassadour he is God's Messenger in the great work of the Gospel which is Repentance and Forgiveness In short Binding and Loosing remitting and retaining are acts of Government relating to publick discipline And of any other pardoning or retaining no Man hath any power but what he ministers in the Word of God and prayer unto which the Ministery of the Sacraments is understood to belong For what does the Church when she binds a sinner or retains his sin but separate him from the communication of publick Prayers and Sacraments according to that saying of Tertullian Apolog. c. 39. Summum futuri judicii praejudicium est si quis ita deliquerit ut à communicatione orationis conventus omnis sancti commercii relegetur Homil. 50. c. 9. And the like was said by S. Austin Versetur ante oculos imago futuri judicii ut cum alii accedunt ad altare Dei quo ipse non accedit cogitet quà m sit contremiscenda illa poena qua percipientibus aliis vitam aeternam alii in mortem praecipitantur aeternam And when the Church upon the sinner's repentance does restore him to the benefit of publick Assemblies and Sacraments she does truly pardon his sins that is she takes off the evil that was upon him for his sins For so Christ prov'd his power on Earth to forgive sins by taking the poor man's palsie away and so does the Church pardon his sins by taking away that horrible punishment of separating him from all the publick communion of the Church and both these are in their several kinds the most material and proper pardons But then is the Church gives pardon propertionable to the evil she inflicts which God also will verifie if it be done here in truth and righteousness so there is a pardon which God onely gives He is the injured and offended Person and he alone can remit of his own right But yet to this pardon the Church does co-operate by her Ministery Now what this pardon is we understand best by the evils that are by him inflicted upon the sinner For to talk of a power of pardoning sins where there is no power to take away the punishment of sin is but a dream of a shadow sins are only then pardoned when the punishment is removed Now who but God alone can take away a sickness or rescue a soul from the power of his sins or snatch him out of the Devils possession The Spirit of God alone can do this It is the spirit that quickneth and raiseth from spiritual death and giveth us the life of God Man can pray for the spirit but God alone can give it our Blessed Saviour obtain'd for us the Spirit of God by this way by prayer I will pray unto the Father and he shall give you another Comforter even the spirit of truth and therefore much less do any of Christ's Ministers convey the spirit to any one but by prayer and holy Ministeries in the way of prayer But this is best illustrated by the case of Baptism Summ. part 4. q. 21. memb 1. It is a matter of equal power said Alexander of Ales to baptize with internal Baptism and to absolve from deadly sin But it was not fit that God should communicate the power of baptizing internally unto any lest we
P. sub Helena Constantino filio ejus congregata ab ipsis non tantum septima verum etiam Universalis est appellata ut nec septima nec Universalis diceretur habereturque quasi supervacua in totum ab omnibus abdicata est 3. Now for the third thing which the Dissuasive said that they published a book under the name of the Emperor I am to answer that such a book about that time within three or four years of it was published in the name of the Emperor is notoriously known and there is great reason to believe it was written three or four years befor the Synod and sent by the Emperor to the Pope but that divers of the Church of Rome did endeavour to perswade the world that the Emperor did not write it but that it was written by the Synod and contains the acts of the Synod but published under the Emperors name Now this the Dissuasive affirm'd by the authority of Hincmarus who does affirm it Vide supra Sect. primò quia and of the same opinion is Bellarmine Scripti videntur in Synodo Francofordiensi acta continere synodi Francofordiensis enim asserit Hincmarus ejus temporis Author So that by all this the Reader may plainly see how careful the Dissuasive was in what was affirm'd and how careless this Gentleman is of what he objects Only this I add that though it be said that this book contained the acts of the Synod of Francfurt though it might be partly true yet not wholly For this Synod did indeed do so much against that of the Greeks and was so decretory against the worship of images quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur A. D. 793. said Hoveden and Matthew of Westminster that it is vehemently suspected that the Patrons of Images the objector knows whom I mean have taken a timely course with it so that the monuments of it are not to be seen nor yet a famous and excellent Epistle of Alcuinus written against the Greek Synod though his other works are in a large volume carefully enough preserved It was urg'd as an argument a minori ad majus Of making of images that in the Primitive Church it was accounted unlawful to make images and therefore it was impossible that the worship of images should then be the doctrine or practice of the Catholic Church A. L. p. 27. To this purpose Clemens Alexandrinus Tertullian and Origen were alledged First for Tertullian of whom the Letter says that he said no such thing sure it is this man did not care what he said supposing it sufficient to pass the common Reader to say Tertullian did not say for what he is alledged for more will believe him than examine him But the words of Tertullian shall manifest the strange confidence of this person The Quotations out of Tertullian are only noted in the Margent but the words were not cited but now they must to justifie me and themselves Cap. 3. 1. That reference to Tertullians book of idolatry the objector takes no notice of as knowing it would reproach him too plainly see the words the artificers of statues and images and all kind of representations Diabolum soeculo intulisse artifices statuarum imaginum omnis generis simulachrorum the Devil brought into the world and when he had given the Etymology of an Idol saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is formula he adds Igitur omnis forma vel formula idolum se dici exposcit Inde omnis Idoli artifex ejusdem Unius est criminis And a little before Exinde jam caput facta est Idololatriae ars omnis quae Idolum quoquo modo edit And in the beginning of the fourth chapter Idolum tam fieri quam coli Deus prohibet Quanto praecedit ut fiat quod coli possit tanto prius est ne fiat si coli non licet And again toto mundo ejusmodi artibus interdixit servis Dei And a little after he brings in some or other objecting Sed ait quidam adversus similitudinis interdictae propositionem cur ergo Moses in eremo simulachrum serpentis ex aere fecit To this at last he answers Si eundem Deum observas habes legem ejus ne feceris similitudinem si praeceptum factae postea similitudinis respicis tu imitare Moysen Ne facias adversus legem simulachrum aliquod nisi tibi Deus jusserit Now here is no subterfuge for any one For Tertullian first fays the Devil brought into the world all the artists and makers of statues images and all sorts of similitudes 2. He makes all these to be the same with Idols And 3. that God as well forbad the making of these and the worship of them and that the maker is guilty of the same crime and lastly I add his definition of Idolatry Idololatria est omnis circa omne idolum famulatus servitus Every image is an idol and every service and obeysance about any or every idol is idolatry I hope all this put together will convince the Gentlemen that denied it that Tertullian hath said some such thing as the Dissuasive quoted him for Now for the other place quoted Lib. 2. advers Marc. c. 22. the words are these proinde similitudinem vetans fieri omnium quae in coelo in terra in aquis ostendit causas idololatriae scilicet substantiam exhibentes God forbidding all similitude to be made of things in Heaven and Earth and in the Waters shews the causes that restrain idolatry the causes of idolatry he more fully described in the fore-cited place Quando enim sine idolo idololatria fiat for he supposes the making of the images to be the cause of their worshipping and he calls this making statues and images Daemoniis corpora facere Lib. 4. c. 22. But there is yet another place in his books against Marcion where Tertullian affirming that S. Peter knew Moses and Elias on Mount Tabor by a spiritual extasie says it upon this reason Nec enim imagines eorum aut statuas populus habuisset aut similitudines lege prohibente The same also is to be seen in his book De spectaculis c. 23. Jam vero ipsum opus personarum quaero an Deo placeat qui omnem similitudinem vetat fieri quanto magis imaginis suae By this time I hope the Gentleman thinks himself in some shame for denying that Tertullian said the making of images to be Unlawful Now let us see for the other two Authors quoted by the Dissuasive Pag. 27. The objector in the Letter says they only spake of making the Images of Jupiter and the other heathen Gods but E. W. says he cannot find those quotations out of Clemens Alexandria Pag. 54. 55. because the books quoted are too big and he could not espy them The author of the Letter never examined them but took them for
remaining miracle and intail of infallibility in the Church to go on in the delivery of this for by that time that all the Apostles were dead and the infallible spirit was departed the Scriptures of the Gospels were believed in all the world and then it was not ordinarily possible ever any more to detract faith from that book and then for the transmitting this book to after ages the Divine providence needed no other course but the ordinaary ways of man that is right reason common faithfulness the interest of souls believing a good thing which there was and could be no cause to disbelieve and an Uniuersal consent of all men that were any ways concern'd for it or against it and this not only preach'd upon the house tops but set down also in very many writings This actually was the way of transmitting this book and the authority of it to after ages respectively These things are of themselves evident yet because I. S. still demands we should set down some first and self evident principle on which to found the whole procedure I shall once more satisfie him And this is a first and self evident principle whatsoever can be spoken can be written and if it he plain spoken it may be as plain written I hope I need not go about to demonstrate this for it is of it self evident that God can write all that he is pleased to speak and all good scribes can set down in writing whatsoever another tells them and in his very words too if he please he can as well transcribe a word spoken as a word written And upon this principle it is that the Protestants believe that the words of Scripture can be as easily understood after they are written in a book as when they were spoken in the Churches of the first Christians and the Apostles and Evangelists did write the life of Christ his doctrines the doctrines of faith as plain as they did speak them at least as plain as was necessary to the end for which they were written which is the salvation of our souls And what necessity now can there be that there should be a perpetual miracle still current in the Church and a spirit of infallibility descendant to remember the Church of all those things which are at once set down in a book the truth and authority of which was at first prov'd by infallible testimony the memory and certainty of which is preserved amongst Christians by many unquestionable records and testimonies of several natures 2. As there was no necessity that an infallible Oral tradition should do any more but consign the books of Scripture so it could not do any more without a continual miracle That there was no continued miracle is sufficiently prov'd by proving it was not necessary it should for that also is another first and self-evident principle that the All wise God does not do any thing much less such things as miracles to no purpose and for no need But now if there be not a continued miracle then Oral tradition was not fit to be trusted in relating the particulars of the Christian Religion For if in a succession of Bishops and Priests from S. Peter down to P. Alexander the seventh it is impossible for any man to be assured that there was no nullity in the ordinations but insensibly there might intervene something to make a breach in the long line which must in that case be made up as well as they can by tying a knot on it It will be infinitely more hard to suppose but that in the series and successive talkings of the Christian religion there must needs be infinite variety and many things told otherwise and somethings spoken with evil purposes by such as preach'd Christ out of envy and many odd things said and doctrines strangely represented by such as creep into houses and lead captive silly women It may be the Bishops of the Apostolical Churches did preach right doctrines for divers ages but yet in Jerusalem where fifteen Bishops in succession were circumcis'd who can tell how many things might be spoken in justification of that practice which might secretly undervalue the Apostolical doctrine And where was the Oral tradition then of this proposition If ye be circumcis'd Christ shall profit you nothing But however though the Bishops did preach all the doctrine of Christ yet these Sermons were told to them that were absent by others who it may be might mistake something and understand them to other senses than was intended And though infallibility of testifying might be given to the Church that is to the chief Rulers of it for I hope I. S. does not suppose it subjected in every single Christian man or woman yet when this testimony of theirs is carried abroad the reporters are not always infallible And let it be considered that even now since Christianity hath been transmitted so many ages and there are so many thousands that teach it yet how many hundreds of these thousands understand but very little of it and therefore tell it to others but pitifully and imperfectly so that if God in his Goodness had not preserv'd to us the surer word of the prophetical and Evangelical Scriptures Christianity would by this time have been a most strange thing litera scripta manet As to the Apostles while they lived it was so easie to have recourse that error durst not appear with an open face but the cure was at hand so have the Apostles when they took care to leave something left to the Churches to put them in minde of the precious doctrine they put a sure standard and fixt a rule in the Church to which all doubts might be brought to trial and against which all heresies might be dashed in pieces But we have liv'd to see the Apostolical Churches rent from one another and teaching contrary things and pretending contrary traditions and abounding in several senses and excommunicating one another and it is impossible for example that we should see the Greeks going any whither but to their own superiour and their own Churches to be taught Christian Religion and the Latins did always go to their own Patriarch and to their own Bishops and Churches and it is not likely it should be otherwise now than it hath been hitherto that is that they follow the religion that is taught them there and the tradition that is delivered by their immediate superiours Now there being so vast a difference not only in the Great Churches but in several ages and in several Dioceses and in single Priests every one understanding as he can and speaking as he please and remembring as he may and expressing it accordingly and the people also understanding it by halves and telling it to their Children sometimes ill sometimes not at all and seldom as they should and they who are taught neglecting it too grosely and attending to it very carelesly and forgeting it too quickly and which is worse yet men expounding it according to
Religion when he weakly forsook it Protestants are not renouncers of tradition for we allow all Catholic traditions that can prove themselves to be such but we finding little or nothing excepting this that the Bible is the word of God and that the Bible contains all the will of God for our salvation all doctrines of faith and life little or nothing else I say descending to us by an Universal tradition therefore we have reason to adhere to Scripture and renounce as I. S. is pleased to call it all pretence of tradition of any matters of faith not plainly set down in the Bible But now since we renounce no tradition but such as is not and cannot be prov'd to be competent and Catholic I hope with the leave of I. S. we may discourse out of Scriptures and Councils Fathers and reason history and instances For we believe tradition when it is credible and we believe what two or three honest men say upon their knowledge and we make no scruple to believe that there is an English Plantation in the Barbadoes because many tell us so who have no reason to deceive us so that we are in a very good capacity of making use of Scriptures and Councils c. But I must deal freely with Mr. S. though we do believe these things upon credible testimony yet we do not think the testimony infallible and we do believe many men who yet pretend not to infallibility And if nothing were Credible but what is infallible then no man had reason to believe his Priest or his Father We are taught by Aristotle that that is credible Quod pluribus quod sapientibus quod omnibus videtur and yet these are but degrees of probability and yet are sufficient to warrant the transaction of all humane affairs which unless where God is pleased to interpose are not capable of greater assurance Even the miracles wrought by our Blessed Saviour though they were the best arguments in the world to prove the Divinity of his person and his mission yet they were but the best argument we needed and understood but although they were infinitely sufficient to convince all but the malicious yet there were some so malicious who did not allow them to be demonstrations but said that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub Here we live by faith and not by knowledge and therefore it is an infinite goodness of God to give proofs sufficient for us and fitted to our natures and proportion'd to our understanding but yet such as may neither extinguish faith nor destroy the nature of hope which although it may be so certain and sure as to be a stedfast anchor of the soul yet it may have in it something of Natural uncertainty and yet fill us with all comfort and hope in believing So that we allow tradition to be certain if it be universal and to be credible according to the degrees of its Universality and disinterested simplicity and therefore we have as much right to use the Scriptures and Fathers as I. S. and all his party and all his following talk in the sequel of this second way relying upon a ground which I have discovered to be false must needs fall of it self and signifie nothing But although this point be soon washt off yet I suppose the charge which will recoyle upon himself will not so easily be put by For though it appears that Protestants have right to use Fathers and Councils Scriptures and reason yet I. S. and his little convention of four or five Brothers of the tradition have clearly disintitled themselves to any use of these For if the oral tradition of the present Church be the infallible and only rule of faith then there is no Oracle but this one and the decrees of Councils did bind only in that age they were made as being part of the tradition of that age but the next age needed it not as giving testimony to it self and being it 's own rule And therefore when a question is to be disputed you can go no whither to be tried but to the tradition of the present Church and this is not to be proved by a series and order of records and succession but if you will know what was formerly believed you must only ask what is believed now for now rivers run back to their springs and the Lamb was to blame for troubling the Wolf by drinking in the descending river for the lower is now higher and you are not to prove by what is past that the present is right but by the present you prove what was past and Harry the seventh is before Harry the sixth and Children must teach their Parents and therefore it is to be hop'd in time may be their Elders But by this means Fathers and Councils are made of no use to these Gentlemen who have greatly obliged the world by telling us a short way to Science and though our life be short yet art is shorter especially in our way in Theology Concerning which there needs no labour no study no reading but to know of the present Church what was always believed and taught and what ought to be so Nay what was done or what was said or what was written is to be told by the present Church which without further trouble can infallibly assure us And upon this account the Jesuits have got the better of the Jansenists for though these men weakly and fondly deny such words to be in Jansenius yet the virtual Church can tell better whether they be or no in Jansenius or rather it matters not whether they be or no for it being the present sense of the Pope he may proceed to condemnation But I. S. offers at some reason for this For saith he Fathers being eminent witnesses to immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received and Councils representatives of the Church their strengths as proofs nay their very existence is not known till the notion of the Church be known which is part of their definition and to which they relate This is but part of his argument which I yet must consider apart because every proposition of his argument hath in it something very untrue which when I have remark'd I shall consider the whole of it altogether And here first I consider that it is a strange proposition to say that the existence of the Fathers is not known till the notion or definition of the Church be known For who is there of any knowledge in any thing of this nature that hath not heard of S. Austin S. Jerom S. Ambrose or S. Gregory The Spaniards have a proverb There was never good Oglio without Bacon nor good Sermon without S. Austin and yet I suppose all the people of Spain that hear the name of S. Austin it may be five hundred times every Lent make no question of the Existence of S. Austin or that there was such a man as he and yet I believe not very many of them can tell
posterity and consequently the very ground of I. S. his demonstration is digg'd up for it was very possible the Fathers might teach something that contradicts the present oral tradition of the Church because when they were alive they believed the contradictory But further yet can I S. affirm that by the oral tradition of the present Church we can be infallibly taught which books were written by the Fathers and which not If he can how haps it that the Doctors of his Church are not agreed about very many of them some rejecting that as spurious which others quote as Genuine If he cannot then we may have a title to make use of the Fathers though we did renounce tradition because by tradition certain and infallible they do not know it and then if either they do not know it at all or know it any others ways than by tradition we may know it that way as well as they and therefore have as good a title to make use of them as themselves But the good man proceeds Since pretended instances of traditions failing depend on history and historical certainty cannot be built upon dead characters but on living sense in Mens hearts deliver'd from age to age that those passages are true that is on Tradition it follows that if the way of tradition can fail all history is uncertain and consequently all instances as being matters of fact depending on history To this I answer that it is true that there are many instances in which it is certain that tradition hath fail'd as will appear in the following Section and it is as true that the record of these instances is kept in books which are very Ancient and written by Authors so credible that no man questions the truth of these instances Now I grant that we are told by the words deliver'd by our Forefathers that these books were written by such men but then it may be our Forefathers though they kept the books safe yet knew not what was written in them and if all the contents of the book had been left only to rely upon the living sense in their hearts and the hearts of their posterity we should have had but few books and few instances of the failing of tradition only one great one would have been left that is the losing of almost all that that is now recorded would have been a fatal sign that Traditions fail was the cause of so sad a loss It is well tradition hath help'd us to the dead characters they bear their living sense so within themselves that it is quickly understood when living men come to read them But now I demand of I. S. whether or no historical certainty relies only on certain and indefectible tradition If it does not then a man may be certain enough of the sacred history though there be no certain oral tradition built on living sense in mens hearts delivered from age to age If he does then I must ask whether I. S. does believe Tacitus or that there was such a man as Agricola or that the Senate decreed that Nero should be punish'd more majorum If he does believe these stories and these persons then he must also conclude that there is an Oral indefectible tradition that Tacitus wrote this book and that every thing in that book was written by him and it remains at this day as it was at first and that all this was not convey'd by dead and unfens'd characters but by living sense in our hearts But now it will be very hard for any man to say that there is such an infallible Tradition delivering all that Roman story which we believe to be true No man pretends that there is and therefore 1. History may be relied on without a certain indefectible oral tradition And 2. The tradition that consigns history to after ages may be and is so most commonly nothing but of a fame that such a book was written by such a famous person who liv'd in that age and might know the truth of what he wrote and had no reason to lie but was in all regards a very worthy and a credible person Now here is as much certainty as need to be the thing it self will bear no more and almost all humane affairs are transacted by such an Oeconomy as this and therefore it is certain enough and is so esteemed because it does all it's intentions and loses no advantage and perswades effectually and regularly engages to all those actions and events which history could do if the certainty were much greater For the certainty of persuasion and prevailing upon the greatest parts of mankind may be as great by history wisely and with great probability transmitted as it can be by any imaginary certainty of a tradition that any dreamer can dream of Nay it may be equal to a demonstration I mean as to the certainty of prevailing For a little reason to a little understanding as certainly prevailes as a greater to a deep and inquisitive understanding and mankind does not need demonstrations in any case but where reason is puzled with an aequilibrium and that there be great probabilities hinc inde And therefore in these cases where is a probability on one side and no appearance of reason to the contrary that probability does the work of a demonstration For a reason to believe a thing and no reason to disbelieve it is as proper a way to persuade and to lead to action as that which is demonstrated And this is the case of history and of instances which though they cannot no not by an Oral tradition be so certain as that the thing could not possibly have been otherwise yet when there is no sufficient cause of suspicion of fraud and imposture and great reason from any topic to believe that it is true he is a very fool that will forbear to act upon that account only because it is possible that that instance might have been not true though he have no reason to think it false And yet this foolish sophisme runs mightily along in I. S. his demonstrations he cannot for his life distinguish between credible and infallible Nothing by him can make faith unless it demonstrate that is nothing can make faith but that which destroys it by turning it into Science His last argument for his second way of mining is so like the other that it is the worse for it Since reasons are fetch'd from the Natures of things and the best nature in what it is abstracting from disease and madness unalterable is the ground of the humane part of Christian tradition and most incomparable strength is supperadded to it as it is Christian by the supernatural assistances of the Holy Ghost It is a wild conceit to think any peice of nature or discourse built on it can be held certain if Tradition especially Christian tradition may be held uncertain In this Jargon for I know not what else to call it there are a pretty company of nothings put
Sermon without meaning my book for that came out a pretty while after he does like the two penny Almanack-makers though he calculated it for the meridian of the Court Sermon as he calls it yet without any sensible error it may serve for Ireland It may be I. S. had an oral tradition for this way of proceeding especially having followed so authentic a president for it as the Author of the two Sermons called the Primitive rule before the reformation who goes upon the same infallible and thrifty way saying These two tracts as they are named Sermons are an answer to Dr. Pierce but as they may better be styled two common places so they are a direct answer to Dr. Taylon So that here are two things which are Sermons and no Sermons as you please not Sermons but common places and yet they are not altogether common places but they in some sense are Sermons unless Sermon and common place happen to be all one but how the same thing should be an answer to Dr. P. as he gives them one name and by giving them another name to the same purpose should be a direct answer to me who speak of other matters and by other arguments and to other purposes and in another manner I do not yet understand But I suppose it be meant as in I. S. his way and that it relies upon this first and a self evident principle That the same thing when called by another name is apt to do new and wonderful things It is a piece of Mr. White 's and I. S. his new Metaphysics which we silly men have not the learning to understand But it matters not what they say so they do but stop the mouths of the people that call upon them to say something to every new book that they may without apparent lying telling them the book is answered For to answer to confute means nothing with them but to speak the last word Well! but so it is I. S. hath ranged a great many of my quotations under heads and says so many are confuted by the first Corollary and so many by the second and so on to the ninth and tenth and some of them are raw and unapplyed some set for shew and some not home to the point and some wilfully represented and these come under the second or third head and perhaps of divers of the others To all this I have one short answer that the quotations which he reduces under the first head or the second or the third might for ought appears be rank'd under any other as well as these For he hath prov'd none to belong to any but Magisterially points with his finger and directs them to their several stations of confutation Thus he supposes I am confuted by an argument of his next to that of Mentiris Bellarmine And indeed in this way it were easie to confute Bellarmines three Volumes with the labour of three pages writing But this way was most fit to be taken by him who quotes the Fathers by oral tradition and not ocular inspection however if he had not particularly considered these things he ought not generally to have condemned them before he tried But this was an old trick and noted of some by S. Cyprian Corneliâ— Fr. epist. 42. edit Viderint autem qui vel furori suo Rigalt Paris 1648. vel libidini servientes divinae legis ac sanctitatis immemores jactitare interim gestiunt quae probare non possunt cum innocentiam destruere atque expugnare non valeant satis habent fama mendacii falsorum ore maculas inspergere I have neither will nor leisure to follow him in this extravagancy it will I hope be to better purpose that in the following Sections I shall justifie all my quotations against his and the calumnies of some others and press them and others beyond the objections of the wiser persons of his Church from whence these new men have taken their answers and made use of them to little purposes and therefore I shall now pass over the particulars of the quotations referring them to their places and consider if there be any thing more material in his eighth Way by which he pretends to blow up my grounds and my arguments deriv'd from reason The eighth Way THe eighth Way is to pick out the principles I rely on and to shew their weakness It is well this eighth Way is a great distance off from his first way or else I. S. would have no excuse for forgetting himself so palpably having at first laid to my charge that I went upon no grounds no principles But I perceive principles might be found in the Dissuasive if the man had a mind to it nay maine and fundamental principles and self evident to me And yet such is his ill luck that he picks out such which he himself says I do not call so And even here also he is mistaken too for the first he instances is Scripture and this not only I but all Protestants acknowledge to be the foundation of our whole faith But of this he says we shall discourse afterwards The second principle I rely upon at least he says I seem to do so is We all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the faith intire and transmitted faithfully to after ages the whole faith Well what says he to this principle He says this principle as to the positive part is good and assertive of tradition It is so of the Apostolical tradition for they deliver'd the doctrine of Christ to their Successors both by preaching and by writing And what hath I. S. got by this Yes give him but leave to suppose that this delivery of the doctrine of Christ was only by oral tradition for the three first ages for he is pleas'd so to understand the extent of the primitive Church and then he will infer that the third age could deliver it to the fourth and that to the fifth and so to us If they were able there is no question but they were willing for it concern'd them to be so and therefore it was done Though all this be not true for we see by a sad experience that too few in the world are willing to do what it concerns them most to do Yet for the present I grant all this And what then therefore oral tradition is the only rule of faith Soft and fair therefore the third age deliver'd it to the fourth and so on but not all the particulars by oral tradition but by the holy Scriptures as I shall largely prove in the proper place But to I. S. the Bells ring no tune but Whittington A third principle he says is this The present Roman doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard of in the first and best antiquity I know not why he calls this one of my principles unless all my propositions be principles as all his arguments are demonstrations It is indeed a conclusion which I have
heretic or his tenet as heresy But this is so notoriously false as nothing is more and it is infinitely confuted by all the Catalogues and books of the fathers reckoning the heresies where they are pleased to call all opinions they like not by the names of heresy Haeres 90. Philastrius writes against them as heretics and puts them in his black Catalogue who expounds that of making man in the image and likeness of God spoken of in Genesis to signifie the reasonable soul and not rather the Grace of the Holy Spirit He also accounts them heretics who rejected the LXX and followed the translation of Aquila which in the Ancient Church was in great reputation Some there were who said that God hardned the heart of Pharaoh Haeres 77. and these he calls heretics and yet this heresy is the very words of Scripture Haeres 71. and some are reckon'd heretics for saying that the Deluge of Deucalion and Pyrrha was before Noahs flood But more consider able is that heresy Haeres 74. which affirm'd that Christ descended into hell and there preach'd to the detained that they who would confess him might be sav'd Now if Philastrius or any other writer of heretics were in this case infallible what shall become of many of the Orthodox fathers who taught this now condemned doctrine So did Clemens Alexandrinus Anastasius Sinaita S. Athanasius S. Hierom S. Ambrose and divers others of the most eminent fathers and S. Austin affirm'd that Christ did save some but whether all the damned then or no he could not resolve Euodius who ask'd the question * Vide Jacob. Vsser primat Hibern cap. de limbo PP That it was not lawful for Christians to swear at all upon any account was unanimously taught by S. Hilary and S. Hierom S. Chrysostom S. Ambrose and Theophylact * Vide Erasmum in declarat ad Censuras Facult Thed Paris p. 52. edit Froben A. D. 1532 no not cum exigitur jus-jurandum aut cum urget necessitas and that it is crimen Gehenna dignum a damnable sin Whether that was the doctrine of the Church of Rome in those days I say not but if it were why is the Church of Rome of a contrary judgement now If it were not then a consenting testimony of many fathers even of the greatest ranke is no irrefragable argument of the truth or Catholic tradition and from so great an union of such an authority it was not very hard to imagine that the opinion might have become Catholic from a lesser spring greater streams have issued but it is more than probable that there was no Catholic oral tradition concerning this main and concerning article and I am sure I. S. will think that all these fathers were not only fallible but deceiv'd actually in this point By these few instances we may plainly see what little of infallibility there is in the fathers writings when they write against heretics or heresies or against any article and how then shall we know that the fathers are at all or in any case infallible I know not from any thing more that is said by I. S. But this I know that many chief men of his side do speak so slightly and undervalue the fathers so pertly that I fear it will appear that the Protestants have better opinion of them and make better use of the Fathers than themselves Praefat. in Pentateuch What think we of the saying of Cardinal Cajetan If you chance to meet with any new exposition which is agreeable to the Text c. although perhaps it differ from that which is given by the whole current of the Holy Doctors I desire the Readers that they would not too hastily reject it And again Let no man therefore reject a new exposition of any passage of Scripture under pretence that it is contrary to what the Ancient Doctors gave In Epiph. p. 244. What think we of those words of Petavius There are many things by the most Holy Fathers scattered especially S. Chrysostom in his Homilies which if you would accommodate to the rule of exact truth they will seem to be void of good sense P. 110. And again there is cause why the authority of certain Fathers should be objected for they can say nothing but what they have learned from S. Luke neither is there any reason why we should rather interpret S. Luke by them than those things which they say by S. Luke And Maldonate does expresly reject the exposition which all the Authors In Matth. 16. 18. which he had read except S. Hilary give of those words of Christ The gates of hell shall not prevail against it De sacr tom orig continentiâ apud Bellar. de Cler. lib. 1. cap. 15. vide etiam hist. Conc. Trident l. 7. Michael Nedina accuses S. Hierom as being of the Aerian heresy in the Qu. of Episcopacy and he proceeds further to accuse S. Ambrose S. Austin Sedulius Primasius Chrysostom Theodoret Oecumenius and Theophylact of the same heresy And Cornelius Mussus the Bishop of Bitonto expresly affirms that he had rather believe one single Pope In Epist. ad Rom. c. 14. than a thousand Augustines Hierom's or Gregories I shall not need any further to instance how the Council of Trent hath decreed many things against the general doctrines of the fathers as in the placing images in Churches the denying of the Eucharist to Infants the not including the Blessed Virgin Mary in the general evil of Mankind in the imputation of Adams sin denying the Chalice to the Laity and Priests not officiating the beatification and Divine vision of Saints before the day of judgment If it were not notorious and sometimes confessed that these things are contrary to the sense of a troop of fathers there might be some excuse made for them who give them good words and yet reject their authorities so freely that it sometimes seems to pass into scorn But now it appears to be to little purpose Sess. 4. that the Council of Trent enjoyns her Clergy that they offer not to expound Scripture against the unanimous consent of the fathers for though this amounts not to the height of I. S. his saying it is their avowed and constant doctrine that they are infallible but ad coercenda petulantia ingenia the contrary is done and avowed every day And as the fathers prov'd themselves fallible both as such in writing against heretics and in testifying concerning the Churches doctrine in their age so in the interpretations of Scripture in which although there be no Universal consent of Fathers in any interpretation of Scripture concerning which questions mov'd so the best and most common consent that is men of great note recede from it with the greater boldness by how much they hope to raise to themselves the greater reputation for wit and learning Sess. 11. And therefore although in the sixth General Council the Origenists were condemned for bringing
they confuted hereticks and they made them the measures of right and wrong all that collective body of doctrines of which all Christians consentingly made publick confessions and on which all their hopes of salvation did relye were all contain'd in them and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture And all this is so certain that we all profess our selves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove it self thus prov'd thus descended For we know a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten that 's but accidental and extrinsecal to it for it was first unwritten and then the same thing was written onely when it was written it was better conserv'd and surer transmitted and not easily altered and more fitted to be a rule And indeed onely can be so not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God but we are sure that what is so written and so transmitted is Gods Word whereas concerning other things which were not written we have no certain records no evident proof no sufficient conviction and therefore it is not capable of being own'd as the rule of faith or life because we do not know it to be the Word of God If any doctrine which is offer'd to us by the Church of Rome and which is not in Scripture be prov'd as Scripture is we receive it equally but if it be not it is to be received according to the degree of its probation and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men if it came in after the Apostles if it rely but upon a few Testimonies or is to be laboriously argued into a precarious perswasion it cannot be the true ground of faith and salvation can never rely upon it The truth of the assumption in this argument will rely upon an Induction of which all Churches have a sufficient experience there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life that can pretend to a clear universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches but onely the doctrine contain'd in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament And in the matter of good life the case is evident and certain which makes the other also to be like it for there is no original or primary Commandement concerning good life but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture Now faith being the foundation of good life upon which it is most rationally and permanently built it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure and yet be defective in the foundation Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written and yet those few onely that were written are by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholick Church of the first and all descending ages preserv'd to us and made our Gospel So that as we do not dispute whether the words which Christ spake and the Miracles he did and are not written be as holy and as true as those which are written but onely say they are not our rule and measures because they are unknown So there is no dispute whether they be to be preferr'd or relied upon as the written or unwritten Word of God for both are to be relied upon and both equally always provided that they be equally known to be so But that which we say is That there are many which are called Traditions which are not the unwritten Word of God at least not known so to be and the doctrines of men are pretended and obtruded as the Commandments of God and the Testimonie of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony and particular traditions are equall'd to universal the uncertain to the certain and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient and if they come from we know not whom they are said to come from the Apostles and if postnate they are call'd primitive and they are argued and laboriously disputed into the title of Apostolical traditions by not onely fallible but fallacious arguments as will appear in the following numbers This is the state of the Question and therefore 1. It proves it self because there can be no proof to the contrary since the elder the tradition is the more likely it can be prov'd as being nearer the fountain and not having had a long current which as a long line is always the weakest so in long descent is most likely to be corrupted and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world it follows that nothing can now because nothing of Faith yet hath been sufficiently prov'd 2. But besides this consideration the Scripture it self is the best testimony of it's own fulness and sufficiencie I have already in the Introduction against I. S. prov'd from Scripture that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contain'd that is I have prov'd that Scripture says so Neither ought it to be replyed here that no man's testimony concerning himself is to be accepted For here we suppose that we are agreed that the Scripture says true that it is the word of God and cannot be deceived and if this be allow'd the Scripture then can give testimony concerning it self and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible and all that he says to be true which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversie And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to it self who shall give testimony to it Shall the Church or the Pope suppose which we will But who shall give testimony to them Shall they give credit to Scripture before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible If they be not credible of themselves we are not the neerer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures But if it be said that the Church is of it self credible upon it's own authority this must be prov'd before it can be adâ—itted and then how shall this be proved And at least the Scripture will be pretended to be of it self credible as the Church And since it is evident that all the dignity power authority office and sanctity it hath or pretends to have can no other way be prov'd but by the Scriptures a conformity to them in all Doctrines Laws and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims it must needs be that Scripture hath the prior right and can better be primely credible than the Church or any thing else that claims from Scripture Nay therefore quoad nos it is to be allowed to be primely credible because there is no Creature besides it that is so Indeed God was pleas'd to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word his immediate Word by miraculous consignations and
did mean so But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightned what is to be done with them S. Austin says Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16. that in such places let every one abound in his own sense and expound as well as he can quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure and there is no other viz. so apt and certain And after all this I deny not but there are many other external helps God hath set Bishops and Priests Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can and it is to be suppos'd they can do it best but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now describ'd out of the Fathers and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us he will very much oblige the world by declaring it and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes But because no man and no company of men hath yet expounded all hard places with certaintie and without error it is an intolerable vanitie to pretend to a power of doing that which no charitie hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church and the glory of God and the rest of inquiring Souls I end this tedious discourse with the words of S. Austin De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. Nolo humanis documentis sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari If you enquire where or which is the Church from humane teachings you can never find her she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles 1 Pet. 4. 1. Therefore if any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God SECTION III. Of Traditions TRadition is any way of delivering a thing or word to another and so every doctrine of Christianity is by Tradition 1 Thes. 2. 15. I have deliver'd unto you saith S. Paul that Christ died for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Jude the faith deliver'd is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the traditions that is the doctrines ye were taught And S. * Lib. 3. c. 4. Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup and said it was his bloud and to believe in one God and in Christ who was born of a Virgin was the old tradition that is the thing deliver'd not at first written which the Barbarians kept diligently But Tradition signified either Preaching or Writing as it hapned When it signified Preaching it was only the first way of communicating the Religion of Jesus Christ and untill the Scriptures were written and consign'd by the full testimony of the Apostles and Apostolical Churches respectively they in the Questions of Religion usually appeal'd to the tradition or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apostles first preach'd and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches who without variety or change had still remembred and kept the same doctrine which at first was deliver'd by the Apostles So Irenaeus If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us Ibid. must not we viz. in this case have followed the order of tradition which they deliver'd to them to whom they intrusted the Church to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent And that which was true then is also true now for if the Apostles had never written at all we must have followed tradition unless God had provided for us some better thing But it is observable that Irenaeus says That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture But since God hath supplied not only the principal Churches with the Scriptures but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans call'd Barbarous now to run to Tradition is to make use of a staff or a wooden Leg when we have a good Leg of our own The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear evident recent remembred talk'd of by all Christians in all their meetings publick and private and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endeavour'd to remember them was not easie and if there had been a mistake there was an Apostle living or one of their immediate Disciples to set all things right And therefore untill the Apostles were all dead Hegâ—sip apud Eccles. liâ— 38. c. 32. Grec 26. Latin there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians but what was instantly determin'd or suppress'd and the Heresies that were did creep and sting clancularly but made no great show But when the Apostles were all dead then that Apostasie foretold began to appear and Heresies of which the Church was warned began to arise But it is greatly to be remark'd There was then no Heresie that pretended any foundation from Scripture Acts 20. 29. 30. but from tradition many 1 Tim. 4. 1. c. for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle 2 Tim 3. â— c. 4. 3. that even good men were willing to believe any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach 2 Thes. 2. 3. and too many were forward to say 2 Pet. 2. â— c. they heard them teach what they never taught 1 Joh. 2. 18. 19. and the pretence was very easie to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles Jude 4. v. c. and now that they were dead it was so difficult to confute them that the Hereticks found it an easie game to play to say They heard it deliver'd by an Apostle Many did so and some were at first believed and yet were afterwards discovered some were cried down at first and some expir'd of themselves and some were violently thrust away But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custome were of a true and Apostolical original and how many were not so it will be impossible to find now only because we are sure there was some false dealing in this matter and we know there might be much more than we have discover'd we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith any more than we could do upon Scripture if one
and explicitely did teach much more is every Gospel But when all the four Gospels and the Apostolical Acts and Epistles and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume by the counsel of God by the dictate of the Holy Spirit and by the choice of the Apostles it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Will and Testament Contre le Roy Jaq. p. 715. And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknowledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christianity as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence as the Institutions of Justinian is of the study of the law as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it It is not in his sense the foundation of Christian doctrine but it contains it all not onely in general but in special not onely virtual but actual not mediate but immediate for a few lines would have serv'd for a foundation General virtual and mediate If the Scripture had said The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholick Church and the foundation of faith she shall be infallible and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determination of their Questions this had been a sufficient virtual and mediate foundation But when four Gospels containing Christs Sermons and his Miracles his Precepts and his Promises the Mysteries of the Kingdom and the way of Salvation the things hidden from the beginning of the world and the glories reserv'd to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus to say that yet all these Gospels and all the Epistles of S. Paul S. Peter S. James and S. John and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles in the first establishing the Church are all but a foundation virtual and that they point out the Church indeed by saying she is the pillar and ground of truth but leave you to her for the foundation actual special and immediate is an affirmation against the notoreity of fact Add to this that S. Irenaeus spake these words concerning the Scriptures Lib. 3. cap. 2. in confutation of them who leaving the Scriptures did run to Traditions pretendedly Apostolical And though it be true that the traditions they relyed upon were secret Apocryphal forg'd and suppos'd yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded and even then the Hereticks could not want pretences sufficient to deceive and hopes to prevail How is it to be imagined that in the descent of sixteen ages the cheat might not be too prevalent when if the traditions be question'd it will be impossible to prove them and if they be false it will except it be by Scripture be impossible to confute them And after all if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contain'd in Scripture and yet were preach'd by the Apostles let that be prov'd let the traditions be produc'd and the records sufficient primely credible and authentick and we shall receive them So vain a way of arguing it is to say The Traditions against which S. Irenaeus speaks were false but ours are true Theirs were secret but ours were open and notorious For there are none such And Bellarmine himself acknowledges that the necessary things are deliver'd in Scriptures and those which were reserv'd for tradition were deliver'd apart that is secretly by the Apostles Now if they were so on all sides what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script l. 4. and why shall we believe these more than those since all must be equally taken upon private testimony at first And although it will be said That the Roman Traditions were receiv'd by after-ages and the other were not yet this shews nothing else but that some had the fate to prevail and others had not For it is certain that some were a long time believ'd even for some whole ages under the name of Apostolical Tradition as the Millenary opinion and the Asiatick manner of keeping Easter which yet came to be dis-believ'd in their time and also it is certain that many which really were Apostolical Traditions perished from the memory of men and had not so long lives as many that were not So that all this is by chance and can make no difference in the just authority And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron That the case is not the same because theirs are wrong and ours are right For this ought not to have been said till it were prov'd and if it were prov'd the whole Question were at an end for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical But in this there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus his words concerning the fulness of Scripture as to the whole doctrine of Christ being so clear and manifest as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will l. 5. contr Parmer biblioth Patrum per Binium â—om 4. Paris 1589. pag. 510. If there be a controversie amongst the descendants of the house run to the Scriptures see the Original will The Gospels are Christ's Testament and the Epistles are the Codicils annex'd and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once nor at once communicated nor at once receiv'd therefore the Churches of God at first were forc'd to trust their memories and to try the doctrines by appealing to the memories of others that is to the consenting report and faith deliver'd and preach'd to other Churches especially the chiefest where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent The mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood the perfection of his sacrifice and the unity of it Christ's advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven might very well be accounted traditions before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for Canonical but now they are written truths and if they had not been written it is likely we should have lost them But this way could not long be necessary and could not not long be safe Not necessary because it was supplied by a better and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk because at first in his infancy it was fit he should Not safe because it grew worse and worse every day And therefore in a little while even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touch-stone of true doctrine that themselves were brought to the stone of trial And the Tradition would not be admitted unless it were in Scripture By which it appears that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith distinct from the Scriptures but it self was a part of it that
is whatsoever was deliver'd and preach'd was recorded which they so firmly believed that they rejected the Tradition unless it were so recorded and 2. It hence also follows that Tradition was and was esteemed the worse way of conveying propositions and stories because the Church requir'd that the Traditions should be prov'd by Scriptures that is the less certain by the more Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani That this was so S. Cyprian is a sufficient witness For when Pope Stephen had said Let no thing be chang'd only that which is deliver'd meaning the old Tradition that was to be kept S. Cyprian enquires from whence that Tradition comes Does it come from the Gospels or the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles So that after the writing and reception of Scriptures Tradition meant the same thing which was in Scripture or if it did not the Fathers would not admit it Damasc. de orthod fide c. 1. All things which are deliver'd to us by the Law and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists we receive and know and reverence But we enquire not further Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing beyond them If the Traditions be agreeable to Scripture said S. Irenaeus that is if that which is pretended to be taught at first be recorded by them who did teach it then all is well And this affair is fully testified by the words of Eusebius Lib. 5. cap. 8. which are greatly conclusive of this Inquiry We have saith he promis'd that we would propose the voices of the old Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Writers by which they declared the traditions by the authority witnessed and consign'd of the approv'd Scriptures Amongst whom was Irenaeus says the Latin version But I shall descend to a consideration of the particulars which pretend to come to us by tradition and without it cannot as it is said be prov'd by Scripture 1. It is said that the Scripture it self is wholly deriv'd to us by tradition and therefore besides Scripture Tradition is necessary in the Church And indeed no man that understands this Question denies it This tradition that these books were written by the Apostles and were deliver'd by the Apostles to the Churches as the word of God relies principally upon Tradition Universal that is it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consign'd Now then this is no part of the word of God but the notification or manner of conveying the word of God the instrument of it's delivery So that the tradition concerning the Scripture's being extrinsecal to Scripture is also extrinsecal to the Question This Tradition cannot be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation but must go before this question For no man inquires Whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation unless he believe that there are Scriptures that these are they and that they are the word of God All this comes to us by Tradition that is by universal undeniable testimony After the Scriptures are thus receiv'd there is risen another Question viz. Whether or no these Scriptures so deliver'd to us do contain all the word of God or Whether or no besides the Tradition that goes before Scripture which is an instrumental Tradition onely of Scripture there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consign'd by Tradition as well as the Scripture and of things as necessary or useful as what is contain'd in Scripture and that is equally the Word of God as Scripture is The Tradition of Scripture we receive but of nothing else but what is in Scripture And if it be ask'd It is therefore weakly said by E. W. pag 5. If he says that he impugns all tradition in General all doctrine not expressly contain'd in Scripture forced he is to throw away Scripture it self c. Why we receive one and not the rest we answer because we have but one Tradition of things necessary that is there is an Universal Tradition of Scripture and what concerns it but none of other things which are not in Scripture And there is no necessity we should have any all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men being plainly contain'd in Scriptures and this sufficiency also being part of that Tradition as I am now proving But because other things also are pretended to be E. W. ibid. He is forc'd not onely to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicene definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of persons in one Divine essence Baptizing of children c. but every tenet of Protestant religion as Protestantism E. g. The belief of two Sacraments onely c. or are necessary and yet are said not to be in Scripture it is necessary that this should be examin'd 1. First all the Nicene definitions Trinity of persons in one Divine essence This I should not have thought worthy of considering in the words here expressed but that a friend The same also he says concerning the Nicene and the other three Councils and S. Athanasius Creed p. 8. it seems of my own whom I know not but yet an adversary as he who should know him best that is himself assures me is pleas'd to use these words in the objection To this I answer first that this Gentleman would be much to seek if he were put to it to prove the Trinity of persons in one Divine essence to be an express Nicene definition and therefore if he means that as an instance of the Nicene definitions he will find himself mistaken Indeed at Nice the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was determin'd but nothing of the Divinity of the holy Ghost That was the result of after-Councils But whatever it was which was there determin'd I am sure it was not determin'd by tradition but by Scripture So S. Athanasius tells us of the faith which was confess'd by the Nicene Fathers Epist. ad Epictet Corinth Episc. it was the faith confess'd according to the holy Scriptures and speaking to Serapion of the holy Trinity Lib. 3. ad Serap de Spir. S. Id. de Incarnat he says Learn this out of the holy Scriptures For the documents you find in them are sufficient And writing against Samosatenus he proves the Incarnation of the Son of God out of the Gospel of S. John saying It becomes us to stick close to the word of God Theodoret. l. 1. c. 7. And therefore when Constantine the Emperour exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be disputed they being Divine matters he would they should be ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures For saith he the books of the Evangelists and Apostles Et apud Gelas. Cyzicen in actis Concil Nicen. l. 2. c. 7. as also the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Deity Therefore all seditious contention being laid
it is now If he can prove it was so at first he may be justified but else at no hand And I and all the world will be strangely to seek what the Church of Rome means by making conformity to the Primitive Church a note of the true Church if being now as it is be the rule for what it ought to be For if so then well may we examine the primitive Church by the present but not the present by the primitive 5. 5. If the present Catholick Church were infallible yet we were not much the nearer unless this Catholick Church could be consulted with and heard to speak not then neither unless we know which were indeed the Catholick Church There is no word in Scripture that the testimony of the present Church is the infallible way of proving the unwritten word of God and there is no tradition that it is so that I ever yet heard of and it is impossible it should be so because the present Church of several ages have had contrary traditions And if neither be why shall we believe it if there be let it be shewed In the mean time it is something strange that the infallibility of a Church should be brought to prove every particular tradition and yet it self be one of those particular traditions which proves it self But there is a better way Vincentius Lerinensis his way of judging a traditional doctrine to be Apostolical and Divine is The consent of all Churches and all Ages It is something less that S. Austin requires Lib. 2. de doct Christiana c. 8. Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quamplurimùm sequatur authoritatem inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere Epistolas accipere meruerunt He speaks it of the particular of judging what Books are Canonical In which as tradition is the way to judge so the rule of tradition is the consent of most of the Catholick Churches particularly those places where the Apostles did sit and to which the Apostles did write But this fancy of S. Austin's is to be understood so as not to be measur'd by the practise but by the doctrine of the Apostolical Churches For that any or more of these Churches did or did not do so is no argument that such a Custom came from the Apostles or if it did that it did oblige succeeding ages unless this Custom began by a doctrine and that the tradition came from the Apostles with a declaration of it's perpetual obligation And therefore this is only of use in matters of necessary doctrine But because there is in this question many differing degrees of authority he says that our assent is to be given accordingly Those which are receiv'd of all the Catholick Churches are to be preferr'd before those which are not receiv'd by all and of these those are to be preferr'd which have the more and the graver testimony but if it should happen which yet is not that some are witnessed by the more and others by the graver let the assent be equal This indeed is a good way to know nothing for if one Apostolical Church differ from another in a doctrinal tradition no man can tell whom to follow for they are of equal authority and nothing can be thence proved but that Oral tradition is an uncertain way of conveying a Doctrine But yet this way of S. Austin is of great and approved use in the knowing what Books are Canonical and in these things it can be had in some more in some less in all more than can be said against it and there is nothing in succeeding times to give a check to our assents in their degrees because the longer the Succession runs still the more the Church was established in it But yet concerning those Books of Scripture of which it was long doubted in the Church whether they were part of the Apostolical Canon of Scripture there ought to be no pretence that they were deliver'd for such by the Apostles at least not by those Churches who doubted of them unless they will confess that either their Churches were not founded by an Apostle or that the Apostle who founded them was not faithful in his Office in transmitting all that was necessary or else that those Books particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews c. were no necessary part of the Canon of Scripture or else lastly that that Church was no faithful keeper of the Tradition which came from the Apostle All which things because they will be deny'd by the Church of Rome concerning themselves the consequent will be that Tradition is an Uncertain thing if it cannot be intire and full in assigning the Canon of Scripture it is hardly to be trusted for any thing else which consists of words subject to divers interpretations But in other things it may be the case is not so For we find that in divers particulars to prove a point to be a Tradition Apostolical use is made of the testimony of the three first Ages Indeed these are the likest to know but yet they have told us of some things to be Traditions which we have no reason to believe to be such Onely thus far they are useful If they never reported a doctrine it is the less likely to descend from the Apostles and if the order of succession be broken any where the succeeding ages can never be surer If they speak against a doctrine as for example against the half-Communion we are sure it was no Tradition Apostolical if they speak not at all of it we can never prove the Tradition for it may have come in since that time and yet come to be thought or call'd Tradition Apostolical from other causes of which I have given account And indeed there is no security sufficient but that which can never be had and that is the Universal positive testimony of all the Church of Christ which he that looks for in the disputed Traditions pretended by the Church of Rome may look as long as the Jews do for their wrong Messias So much as this is can never be had and less than this will never do it I will give one considerable instance of this affair The Patrons of the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin-mother Salmeron disp 51. in Rom. 5. allege that they have the consent of almost the Universal Church and the agreeing sentence of all Universities especially of the chief that is of Paris where no man is admitted to be Master in Theology unless he binds himself by oath to maintain that doctrine They allege that since this question began to be disputed almost all the Masters in Theology all the Preachers of the Word of God all Kings and Princes republiques and peoples all Popes and Pastors and Religions except a part of one consent in this doctrine They say that of those Authors which are by the other side pretended against it some are falsly cited others are wrested and brought in against their
at Nice they procur'd great authority to the Nicene faith which was not onely the truth but a truth deliver'd and confirm'd by the most famous and excellent Prelates that ever the Christian Church could glory in since the death of the Apostles But yet that the inconvenience might be cut off which came in upon the occasion of the Nicene addition for it produc'd thirty explicative Creeds more in a short time as Marcus Ephesius openly affirm'd in the Council of Florence in the Council of Ephesus which was the third general it was forbidden that ever there should be any addition to the Nicene faith Concil Ephes. Can. 7. That it should not be lawful from thence forward for any one to produce to write or to compose any other faith or Creed besides that which was defin'd by the Holy Fathers meeting at Nice in the Holy Spirit Here the supreme power of the Church a General Council hath declar'd that it never should be lawful to adde any thing to the former confession of faith explicated at Nice and this Canon was renewed in the next General Council that of Chalcedon That the faith formerly determin'd should at no hand in no manner be shaken or moved any more The Author of the Letter p. 7. meaning by addition or diminution There are some so impertinently weak as to expound these Canons to mean onely the adding any thing contrary to the Nicene faith which is an answer against reason and experience for it is not imaginable that any man admitting the Nicene Creed can by an addition intend expressly to contradict it and if he does not admit and believe it he would lay that Confession aside and not meddle with it but if he should design the inserting of a clause that should secretly undermine it he must suppose all men that see it to be very fools not to understand it or infinitely careless of what they believe and profess but if it should happen so then this were a very good reason of the prohibition of any thing whatsoever to be added lest secretly and undiscernably the first truth be confuted by the new article And therefore it was a wise caution to forbid all addition lest some may prove to be contrary And then secondly it is against the experience of things for first the Canon was made upon the occasion of a Creed brought into the Council by Charisius but all Creeds thereupon were rejected and the Nicene adhered to and commanded to be so for ever In Can. 7. vide Balsam in â—unâ— For as Balsamon observes there were three things done in this Canon 1. There was an Edict made in behalf of the things decreed at Ephesus 2. In like manner the holy Creed being made in the first Synod this Creed was read aloud and caution was given that no man should make any other Creed upon pain of deposition if he were an Ecclesiastick of excommunication if he were a Laick 3. The third thing he also thus expresses The same thing also is to be done to them who receive and teach the decrees of Nestorius So that the Creed that Charisius brought in was rejected because it was contrary to the Nicene faith but all Symbols were for ever after forbidden to be made not onely lest any thing contrary be admitted but because they would admit of no other and this very reason S. Athanasius assign'd why the Fathers of the Council of Sardis denyed the importunity of some Epist ad Epict. who would have something added to the Nicene confession they would not do it lest the other should seem defective And next to this it was carefully observed by the following Councils 4. 5. 6. and 7. and by it self in a great Affair for 1. though this Council determin'd the Blessed Virgin Mary to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Mother of God against Nestorius yet 2. the Fathers would not put the Article into the Creed of the Church but esteemed it sufficient to determine the point and condemn Nestorius And 3. the Greek Church hath ever since most religiously observ'd this Ephesine Canon And 4. upon this account have vehemently spoken against the Latines for adding a clause at Gentilly in France Epist ad Epict. 5. S. Athanasius speaking of the Nicene Faith or Creed says It is sufficient for the destruction of all impiety and for the confirmation of all the Holy Faith in Christ and therefore there could be no necessity of adding any thing to so full so perfect an Instrument and consequently no reasonable cause pretended why it should be attempted especially since there had been so many so intolerable inconveniencies already introduc'd by adding to the Symbols their unnecessary Expositions 6. The purpose of the Fathers is fully declar'd by the Epistle of S. Cyril Cyril Alex. ad Johan Antioch Sess. 5. in which he recites the Decree of the Council and adds as a full explication of the Council's meaning We permit neither our selves nor others to change one word or syllable of what is there The case is here as it was in Scripture to which no addition is to be made nothing to be diminished from it But yet every Doctor is permitted to expound to inlarge the expressions to deliver the sense and to declare as well as they can the meaning of it And much more might the Doctors of the Church do to the Creed To which although something was added at Nice and Constantinople yet from thence forward they might in private or in publick declare what they thought was the meaning and what were the consequents and what was virtually contain'd in the Articles but nothing of this by any authority whatsoever was to be put into the Creed For in Articles of Belief simplicity is part of it's excellency and sacredness and those mysteriousnesses and life-giving Articles which are fit to be put into Creeds are as Philistion said of Hellebore medicinal when it in great pieces but dangerous or deadly when it is in powder And I remember what a Heathen aid of the Emperour Constantius who troubled himself too much in curiosities and nice arguings about things Unintelligible and Unnecessary Christianam religionem absolutam simplicem anili superstitione confudit In qua scrutandâ perplexiùs quà m in componendâ graviùs excitavit dissidia quae progressa fusiùs aluit concertatione verborum dum ritum omnem ad suum trahere conatur arbitrium Christian Religion is absolute and simple and they that conduct it should compose all the parts of it with gravity not perplex it with curious scrutinies not draw away any word or Article to the sense of his own interest For if it once pass the bounds set by the first Masters of the Assemblies and lose that simplicity with which it was invested there is no term or limit which can be any more set down Exempla non consistunt sed quamvis in tenuem recepta tramitem latissimè evagandi sibi faciunt potestatem The
devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith is like removing the ancient Land-mark you cannot tell by the mark in what Countrey you are in whether in your own or in the Enemies And in the world nothing is more unnecessary For if that faith be sufficient if in that faith the Church went to Heaven if in that she preserv'd unity and begat Children to Christ and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ and kept her self pure from Heresie and unbroken by Schism whatsoever is added to it is either contain'd in the Article virtually or it is not If not then it is no part of the Faith and by the laws of Faith there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it But if it be then he that believes the Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand that wrote the Original for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it from an infallible Spirit but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is an Unerring Logician for which because God hath given me no command and himself can give me no security if I can defend my self from that man's pride God will defend me from Damnation But let us see a little further with what constancy That and The following Ages of the Church did adhere to the Apostles Creed as the sufficient and perfect Rule of Faith There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium in eâ volumus religione versari quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum virum Apostolicae sanctitatis hoc est ut secundum Apostolicam disciplinam Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem sub pari majestate sub piâ Trinitate credamus Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere divina primùm vindictâ pòst etiam motu animi nostri quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione plectendos Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive to prove that in the early Ages of the Church the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church The Letter to a friend p. 4. and that upon easier terms men might then be Catholick It was replied by some one of the Opponents That by this law was not meant that all who believ'd the Trinity were Catholicks absolutely but only as to those points and the Reason given is this Because after this law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head But this thing was spoken without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made that was the Rule of Catholicism as appears by the words of the law and if afterward it became alter'd and the Bishops became too opinionative or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards It might as well have been said the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zuinglians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio says the law But for the true understanding of this Imperial law we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity was not set down there as a single Article but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed the three parts of which have for their heads The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity And this appears by the relation the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome and to the Creed of Damasus which may be seen in Saint Hierom who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate in the second Tome of his Works in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated that what relates to the Trinity and Unity spoken of in the Imperial Law or Rule of Catholicks and Christians is set down in it's full purpose and design And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed he is taught to summe it up in this manner First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God This is the Summary of the Creed and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete and integrating the Christian Faith but as a breviary of that Faith to which in the same place it is made to relate just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter and the Creed of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria Concerning which he that says much says no more and he that says little says no less for the Faith is the same as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks it follows that the Roman Church Catholick signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church S. Ambrose says Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed all Faith lies in that as the Child in the Mother's Womb and he compares it to a Key because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd that the light of Christ might come upon us and the hidden sins of conscience are opened that the manifest works of righteousness may shine This Key is to be shown to our Brethren that by this as Scholars of S. Peter they may shut the gates of Hell and open the doors of Heaven He also calls it The Seal of our Heart and the Sacrament of our Warfare S. Hierom speaking of it Epist. ad Pammach contra â—rro es Johan Hierosolymit Exp siâ— Symbol c. 2 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9. says The Symbol of our Faith and Hope which was deliver'd by the Apostles is not written in Paper and Ink but in the fleshy tables of our hearts After the confession of the Trinity and Vnity of the Church the whole or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh Which words are intimated and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil.
all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
If the Catholicks sometimes say That the Scriptures depend upon the Church or a Council they do not understand it in respect of authority or in themselves but by explication and in relation to us * Bellarm. de Concil author lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus Which is too crude an affirmative to be believ'd for besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms that the whole authority of the Scripture depends upon the Church and the Testimonies above cited doe in terms confute this saying of his the distinction it self helps not all for if the Scriptures have quoad nos no authority but what the Pope or the Church is pleas'd to give them then they have in themselves none at all For the Scriptures were written for our learning not to instruct the Angels but to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church and they have no other use or design And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great authority he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos that is that we are bound to believe them for their own truth and excellency And if a man shall say They have no authority quoad nos but what the Church gives them he says They are not credible in themselves and in se have no authority so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider And he that says one says the other or as bad under a thin and transparent cover The Church gives testimony external to the Scripture but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God But let the witness of the Church be of as perfect force as can be desir'd I meddle not with it here but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors is that they give to their Church a power of introducing and imposing new Articles of Belief and pretending that they have power so to do and their definitions are of authority equal if not superiour to the Scriptures And this I have now prov'd by many testimonies to all which I add that of the Canon Law it self Dist. 19. Can. in Canonicis In which Gratian most falsly alledges pretended words of Saint Austin which Bellarmine * De Concil authorit lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respondâ—o ad Graâ—ianum calls a being deceiv'd by a false Copy and among the Canonical Scriptures reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes inter quas sanè illae sunt quas Apostolica Sedes habere ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin or heard of any in which these words were seen Certainly no man alive but if Gratian was deceiv'd the deceivers were among themselves and yet they lov'd the deception or else they might have expung'd those words when Gregory the 13th appointed a Committee of learned men to purge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it yet remains and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words yet they are good Law at Rome 10â— Com. tit 1. de Ecclesiâ ejus authorit And Hereticks indeed talk otherwise said Eckius Objiciunt Haeretioi Major est authoritas Scripturae quam Ecclesiae but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument The Church using bloud and strangled hath by authority chang'd a thing defin'd by the Scripture Behold says he the power of the Church over Scripture I love not to take in such polluted channels he that is pleased with it may find enough to entertain his wonder and his indignation if he please to read a fol. 126. 1. b. 104. b. 133. b. Capistrano b pag. 42. n. 15. p. 11. n. 18. 124. n. 9. Cupers c defens Trid. l. 1. l. 2. explic orthod l. 2. Andradius d pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3. Antonius e de fide justif 74. 6. hierarch Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. in praefatione ad Paulum terâ—ium Pighius f Contr. Luthâ— Concl. 56. Sylvester Prierias g dis contr Luther 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit 1554. Johannes Maria Verratus h Encherid cap. 1. Coster i in 3. l. decâ—etal de convers conjug c. ex publico n. 16. Zabarel and k de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum Bellarmine himself who yet with some more modesty of expression affirms the same thing in substance which according as it hath been is and is still likely to be made use of is enough to undo the Church The word of the Pope teaching out of his Chair is non omnino not altogether or not at all the word of man that is a word liable to error but in some sort the word of God c. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say that the Canon Law is the Divine Law so said * Super. 2. decret de jurejur c. Nimis n. 1. Hostiensis I hope I shall not be esteemed to slander her when these writers think they so much honour the Church of Rome in these sayings In pursuance of this power and authority Pope Pius the 4th made a new Creed and putting his power into act did multiply new Articles one upon another And in the Council of Trent amongst many other new and fine Doctrines this was one That it is Heresie to say That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Ecclesiastical Judges and yet we in England owe this priviledge to the favour and bounty of the King and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperour and if it were so or not so it is but matter of Discipline and cannot by a simple denial of it become an Heresie So that what I have alledged is not the opinion of some private Doctors but the publick practise of the Roman Church Lib. Benedicti de Benedict Bon niae excusus A. D. 1600. Commissum ei Papae munus non modò articulos indeterminatos determinandi sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agnovisse palam confessos esse it was said to Paulus Quintus in an address to him And how good a Catholick Baronius was in this particular An. Dom. 373. n. 22. we may guess by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists in which the Pope did and undid Vt planè appareat says Baronius ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis Decreta sancire sancita mutare 2. That which I am next to represent is that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles for they having in the body of their Articles and in the publick Doctrines allowed by them and in the profession and practises of their Church so many new things
any thing so well as by writing what was to be kept inviolate especially in the propositions of Faith relying oftentimes upon a word and a phrase and a manner of expression which in the infinite variety of reporters might too easily suffer change Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of Rome and to this not we but the Fathers add a severe Censure And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning not of judgment and final sentence it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion Letter and Truth will out c. that wrote against the Book should recite all these terrible sayings out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contain'd in Scriptures and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations and never be smitten with a terror of the judgment which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound and never regard his own danger 2. The same is the case in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping of consecrated Bread in which if they be not deceiv'd all the reason and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceiv'd and if they be deceiv'd then it is certain they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink and how great a provocation of God that is they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament and even by natural reason it self and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts On the other side if we consider that if the Divine worship they intend to Christ were pass'd immediately to him sitting in Heaven and not thorow that blessed thing upon the Altar but directly and primarily to him whose passion there is represented and the benefits of whose death are there offer'd and exhibited there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consider that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles Christ's body was still whole and unkroken and separate from the Bread and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from it self into what it was not before and yet remain still it self what it was before and that neither Christ did command the Apostles to worship neither did they worship any thing but God the Father at that time it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls to change that action into a needless and ungrounded superstition especially since after Christ's ascension his body is not only in Heaven which must contain it until his coming to judgment but is so chang'd so immaterial or spiritual that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth In not adoring that which we see to be Bread we can be as safe as the Apostles were who that we find did not worship it but in giving Divine honours to it we can be no more safe in case their proposition be amiss than he that worships the Sun because he verily believes he is the God of Heaven A good meaning in this case will not justifie his action not only because he hath enough to instruct him better and to bring him to better understanding but especially because he may mean as well if he worships Christ in Heaven Ad sua templa oculis animo ad sua numina spectans yea and better when he does actually worship Christ at that time directing the worship to him in Heaven and would terminate his worship on the Host if he were sure it were Christ or were commanded so to do Add to this that to worship Christ is an affirmative praecept and so it be done in wisdom and holiness and love in all just ways of address to him in praying to him reciting his prayers giving him thanks trusting in him hoping in him and loving him with the best love of obedience not to bow the knee hîc nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing cannot be a sin because for that hîc nunc there is no commandement at all And after all if we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have receiv'd invalid Orders or have evil Intention or there may be some undiscernable nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration so that no man of the Roman Communion can say that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated but onely hath conjectures and ordinary suppositions that it is so and that he does not certainly know the contrary He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ runs into a danger too great to promise to himself he shall be safe Some there are who go further yet and consider that the Church of Rome say onely that the bread is chang'd into the body of Christ but not into his soul for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immaterial and that if it were that to give honours absolutely Divine to the humanity of Christ abstracted from consideration of his Divinity into which certainly the bread is not transubstantiated is too neer the doctrine of the Socinians who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name But if they say that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses And therefore that is the safe way and that 's the way of the Church of England The other way viz. of the Church of Rome at the best is full of dangers and qui amat periculum peribit in illo was the wise mans caution 3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels which as it is no where commanded in the New Testament so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice Revel 22. to S. John adding an unalterable reason for I am thy fellow-servant worship God or as some Ancient Copies read it worship Jesus meaning that although in the Old Testament the Patriarchs and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appear'd to them as God's Embassadors and in the Person of God and to which they were greatly inclined because their law was given by Angels yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels we are all fellow-servants and they are not to receive religious worship as before nor we to pay it them And by
times visiting the Altar aforesaid fourteen or fifteen plenary pardons Certainly the Popes suppose these persons to be mighty Criminals that they need so many pardons so many plenaries But two All 's of the same thing is as much as two Nothings But if there were not infinite causes of fear that very many of them were nullities and that none of them were of any certain avail there could be no pretence of reasonableness in dispensing these Jewels with so loose a hand and useless a freedom as if a man did shovel Mustard or pour Hogsheads of Vinegar into his friends mouth to make him swallow a mouthful of Herbs 7. What is the secret meaning of it that in divers clauses in their Bulls of Indulgences Bull. Julii 3. de an Jubilii they put in this clause A pardon of all their sins be they never so heinous The extraordinary cases reserved to the Pope and the consequent difficulty of getting pardon of such great sins because it would cost much more mony was or might be some little restraint to some persons from running easily into the most horrible impieties but to give such a loose to this little and this last rein and curb and by an easie Indulgence to take off all even the most heinous sins what is it but to give the Devil an argument to tempt persons that have any conscience or fear left to throw off all fear and to stick at nothing 8. It seems hard to give a reasonable account what is meant by giving a plenary pardon of all their sins and yet at the same time an Indulgence of 12000. years and as many Quarentaines it seems the bounty of the Church runs out of a Conduit though the Vessels be full yet the water still continues running and goes into wast 9. In this great heap of Indulgences and so it is in very many other power is given to a Lay Sister or Brother to free a soul from Purgatory But if this be so easily granted the necessity of Masses will be very little what need is there to give greater fees to a Physician when a sick person may be cur'd with a Posset and Pepper The remedy of the way of Indulgences is cheap and easie a servant with a Candle a Pater and an Ave a going to visit an Altar wearing the Scapular of the Carmelites or the Chord of S. Francis but Masses for souls are a dear commodity five pence or six pence is the least a Mass will cost in some places nay it will stand in nine pence in other places But then if the Pope can do this trick certainly then what can be said to John Gersons question Arbitrio Papa proprio si clavibus uti Possit cur sinit ut poena pios cruciet Cur non evacuat loca purgandis animabus Tradita The answer makes up the Tetrastic sed servus esse fidelis amat The Pope may be kind but he must be wise too a faithful and wise Steward he must not destroy the whole state of the purging Church if he takes away all the fuel from the fire who shall make the Pot boyl This may not be done Ut possint superesse quos peccasse poeniteat Sinners must pay for it in their bodies or their purses SECTION II. Of Purgatory THat the doctrine of Purgatory as it is taught in the Roman Church is a Novelty and a part of their New Religion is sufficiently attested by the words of the Cardinal of Rochester and Alphonsus a Castro whose words I now add that he who pleases may see how these new men would fain impose their new fancies upon the Church under pretence and title of Ancient and Catholic verities The words of Roffensis in his eighteenth article against Luther are these * A letter to a friend touching Dr. Taylor Sect. 4. n. 26. p. 10. which if the Reader please for his curiosity or his recreation to see he shall find this pleasant passage of deep learning and subtle observation Dr. Tay. had said that Roffensis and P. V. affirm that who so searcheth the Writings of the Greek Fathers shall find that none or very rarely any one of them ever makes mention of Purgatory Whereas Pol. Virgil affirms no such thing nor doth Roffensis say That very rarely any one of them mentiâ—ns it but only that in thâ—se Ancient Writers he shall find none or but very rare mention of it If this man were in his wits when he made this answer an answer which no man can unriddle or tell how it opposes the objection then it is very certain that if this can pass among the answers to the Protestants objections the Papists are in a very great strait and have very little to say for themselves and the letter to a friend was written by compulsion and by the shame of confutation not of conscience or ingenuous persuasion No man can be so foolish as to suppose this fit to be given in answer to any sober discourse or if there be such pittiful people in the Church of Rome and trusted to write Books in defence of their Religion it seems they care not what any man says or proves against them if the people be but coâ—â—n'd with a pretended answer for that serves the turn as well as a wiser Legat qui velit Graecorum veterum commentarios nullum quantum opinor aut quam rarissimum de purgatorio sermonem inveniet Sed neque latini simul omnes at sensim hujus rei veritatem conceperunt He that pleases let him read the Commentaries of the Old Greeks and as I suppose he shall find none or very rare mention or speech of Purgatory But neither did all the Latins at one time but by little and little conceive the truth of this thing And again Aliquandiu incognitum fuit sero cognitum Universae Ecclesiae Deinde quibusdam pedetentim partim ex Scripturis partim ex revelationibus creditum fuit For somewhile it was unknown it was but lately known to the Catholic Church Then it was believ'd by some by little and little partly from Scripture partly from revelations And this is the goodly ground of the doctrine of Purgatory founded no question upon tradition Apostolical delivered some hundreds of years indeed after they were dead but the truth is because it was forgotten by the Apostles and they having so many things in their heads when they were alive wrote and said nothing of it therefore they took care to send some from the dead who by new revelations should teach this old doctrine This we may conjecture to be the aequivalent sense of the plain words of Roffensis But the plain words are sufficient without a Commentary Lib. 8. cap. 1. de inven rerum Now for Polydore Virgil his own words can best tell what he says Ego vero Originem quod mei est muneris quaeritans non reperio ante fuisse quod sciam quum D. Gregorius ad suas stationes id praemii
in this affair Epiphanius is the first I mentioned as a witness Haeres 75. but because I cited no words of his and my adversaries have cited them for me but imperfectly and left out the words where the argument lies I shall set them down at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We make mention of the just and of sinners for sinners that we may implore the mercy of God for them For the just the Fathers the Patriarchs the Prophets Evangelists and Martyrs Confessors Bishops and Anachorets that prosecuting the Lord Jesus Christ with a singular honour we separate these from the rank of other men and give due worship to his Divine Majesty while we account that he is not to be made equal to mortal men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 although they had a thousand times more righteousness than they have Now first here is mention made of all in their prayers and oblations and yet no mention made that the Church prays for one sort and only gives thanks for the other Letter pag. 10. Truth will out pag. 25. as these Gentlemen the objectors falsely pretend But here is a double separation made of the righteous departed one is from the worser sort of sinners the other from the most righteous Saviour True it is they believ'd they had more need to pray for some than for others but if they did not pray for all when they made mention of all how did they honour Christ by separating their condition from his Is it not lawful to give thanks for the life and death for the resurrection holiness and glorification of Christ And if the Church only gave thanks for the departed Saints and did not pray for mercy for them too how are not the Saints in this made equal to Christ So that I think the testimony of Epiphanius is clear and pertinent In Psal. 36. Conc. 2. To. 8. p. 120. To which greater light is given by the words of S. Austin Who is he for whom no man prays but only he who interceeds for all men viz. our Blessed Lord. And there is more light yet by the example of S. Austin who though he did most certainly believe his Mother to be a Saint and the Church of Rome believes so too yet he prayed for pardon for her Now by this it was that Epiphanius separated Christ from the Saints departed for he could not mean any thing else and because he was then writing against Aerius who did not deny it to be lawful to give God thanks for the Saints departed but affirm'd it to be needless to pray for them viz. he must mean this of the Churches praying for all her dead or else he had said nothing against his adversary or for his own cause S. Cyril though he be confidently denied to have said what he did say yet is confessed to have said these words A. L p. 11. Then we pray for the deceased Fathers and Bishops and finally for all who among us have departed this life Believing it to be a very great help of the souls Mysta Catech. 5. for which is offered the obsecration of the holy and dreadful sacrifice If S. Cyril means what his words signifie then the Church did pray for departed Saints for they prayed for all the departed Fathers and Bishops it is hard if amongst them there were no Saints but suppose that yet if there were any Saints at all that died out of the militant Church yet the case is the same for they prayed for all the departed And 2. They offered the dreadful sacrifice for them all 3. They offered it for all in the way of prayer 4. And they believed this to be a great help to souls Now unless the souls of all Saints that died then went to Purgatory which I am sure the Roman Doctors dare not own the case is plain that prayer and not thanksgivings only were offered by the Ancient Church for souls who by the Confession of all sides never went to Purgatory and therefore praying for the dead is but a weak argument to prove Purgatory Nicolaus Cabasilas hath an evasion from all this as he supposes for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the word us'd in the memorials of Saints does not alwayes signifie praying for one but it may signifie giving of thanks This is true but it is to no purpose for when ever it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we pray for such a one that must signifie to pray for and not to give thanks and that 's our present case and therefore no escape here can be made the words of S. Cyril are very plain The third allegation is of the Canon of the Greeks which is so plain evident and notorious and so confess'd even by these Gentlemen the objectors that I will be tried by the words which the Author of the letter acknowledges So it is in the Liturgy of S. James Remember all Orthodox from Abel the just unto this day make them to rest in the land of the living in thy Kingdom and the delights of Paradise Thus far this Gentleman quoted S. James and I wonder that he shall urge a conclusion manifestly contrary to his own allegation Did all the Orthodox from Abel to that day go to Purgatory Certainly Abraham and Moses and Elias and the Blessed Virgin did not and S. Stephen did not and the Apostles that died before this Liturgy was made did not and yet the Church prayed for all Orthodox prayed that they might rest in the land of the living c. and therefore they prayed for such which by the confession of all sides never went to Purgatory In the other Liturgies also the Gentleman sets down words enough to confute himself as the Reader may see in the letter if it be worth the reading But because he sets down what he list and makes breaches and Rabbet holes to pop in as he please I shall for the satisfaction of the Reader set down the full sense and practice of the Greek Canon in this question And first for S. James his Liturgy Biblioth Sanct. 1. 6. Annot. 345 Sect. Jacob. Apostolus which being merrily disposed and dreaming of advantage by it he is pleased to call the Mass of S. James Sixtus Senensis gives this account of it James the Apostle in the Liturgy of the Divine sacrifice prays for the souls of Saints resting in Christ so that he shews they are not yet arriv'd at the place of expected blessedness But the form of the prayer is after this manner Domine Deus noster c. O Lord our God remember all the Orthodox and them that believe rightly in the faith from Abel the just unto this day Make them to rest in the region of the living in thy Kingdom in the delights of Paradise in the bosom of Abraham Isaac and Jacob our Holy Fathers from whence are banished grief sorrow and sighing where the light of thy countenance is president and perpetually
These words from the Scripture Adimantus propounded Yet remember not only there but also here concerning the zeal of God he so blames the Scriptures that he adds that which is commanded by our Lord God in those books concerning the not worshipping of images as if for nothing else he reprehends that zeal of God but only because by that very zeal we are forbidden to worship images Therefore he would seem to favour images which therefore they do that they might reconcile the good will of the Pagans to their miserable and mad sect meaning the sect of the Manichees who to comply with the Pagans did retain the worship of images And now the three testimonies are verified and though this was an Unnecessary trouble to me and I fear it may be so to my Reader yet the Church of Rome hath got no advantage but this that in S. Austins sense that which Romanists do now the Manichees did then only these did it to comply with the Heathens and those out of direct and meer superstition But to clear this point in S. Austins doctrine the Reader may please to read his 19. book against Faustus the Manichee cap. 18. and the 119. Epistle against him chap. 12. where he affirms that the Christians observe that which the Jews did in this viz. that which was written Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is one God thou shalt not make an idol to thee and such like things and in the latter place he affirms that the second Commandment is moral viz. that all of the Decalogue are so but only the fourth I add a third as pregnant as any of the rest for in his first book de consensu Evangelistarum speaking of some who had fallen into error upon occasion of the pictures of S. Peter and S. Paul he says Sic nempe errare meruerunt qui Christum Apostolos ejus non in sanctis condicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesiverunt The Council of Eliberis is of great concern in this Question and does great effort to the Roman practices E. W. pag. 57. E. W. takes notice of it and his best answer to it is that it hath often been answered already He says true it hath been answered both often and many ways The Council was in the year 305. of 19. Bishops who in the 36. Canon decreed this placuit picturas in Ecclesiis esse non debere It hath pleas'd us that pictures ought not to be in Churches That 's the decree The reason they give is ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur lest that which is worshipped be painted on the walls So that there are two propositions 1. Pictures ought not to be in Churches 2. That which is worshipped ought not to be painted upon walls Pag. 57. E. W. hath a very learned Note upon this Canon Mark first the Council supposeth worship and adoration due to pictures ne quod colitur adoratur By which mark E. W. confesses that pictures are the object of his adoration and that the Council took no care and made no provision for the honour of God who is and ought to be worshipp'd and ador'd in Churches illi soli servies but only were good husbands for the pictures for fear 1. they should be spoiled by the moisture of the walls or 2. defaced by the Heathen the first of these is Bellarmines the latter is Perrons answer But too childish to need a severer consideration But how easie had it been for them to have commanded that all their pictures should have been in frames upon boards or cloth as it is in many Churches in Rome and other places 2. Why should the Bishops forbid pictures to be in Churches for fear of spoiling one kind of them they might have permitted others though not these 3. Why should any man be so vain as to think that in that age in which the Christians were in perpetual disputes against the Heathens for worshipping pictures and images they should be so curious to preserve their pictures and reserve them for adoration 4. But then to make pictures to be the subject of that caution ne quod colitur adoratur and not to suppose God and his Christ to be the subject of it is so unlike the religion of Christians the piety of those ages the Oeconomy of the Church and the analogy of the Commandment that it betrays a refractory and heretical spirit in him that shall so perversely invent an Unreasonable Commentary rather than yield to so pregnant and easie testimony But some are wiser and consider that the Council takes not care that pictures be not spoil'd but that they be not in the Churches and that what is adorable be not there painted and not be not there spoiled The not painting them is the utmost of their design not the preserving them for we see vast numbers of them every where painted on walls and preserved well enough and easily repair'd upon decay therefore this is too childish to blot them out for fear they be spoiled and not to bring them into Churches for fear they be taken out Agobardus Bishop of Lions above 800. years since cited this Canon in a book of his which he wrote de picturis imaginibus which was published by Papirius Massonus and thus illustrates it Recte saith he nimirum ob hujusmodi evacuandam superstitionem ab Orthodoxis patribus definitum est picturas in Ecclesia fieri non debere Nec quod eolitur adoratur in parietibus deping atur Where first he expresly affirms these Fathers in this Canon to have intended only rooting up this superstition not the ridiculous preserving the pictures So it was Understood then But then 2. Agobardus reads it Nec not Ne quod colitur which reading makes the latter part of the Canon to be part of the sanction and no reason of the former decree pictures must not be made in Churches neither ought that to be painted upon walls which is worshipped and adored This was the doctrine and sentiment of the wise and good men above 800. years since By which also the Unreasonable supposition of Baronius that the Canon is not genuine is plainly confuted this Canon not being only in all copies of that Council but own'd for such by Agobardus so many ages before Baronius and so many ages after the Council And he is yet farther reproved by Cardinal Perron who tells a story that in Granada in memory of this Council they use frames for pictures and paint none upon the wall at this day It seems they in Granada are taught to understand that Canon according unto the sense of the Patrons of images and to mistake the plain meaning of the Council For the Council did not forbid only to paint upon the walls for that according to the common reading is but accidental to the decree but the Council commanded that no picture should be in Churches Now-then let this Canon be confronted with the Council