found in them And it is considerable that the ancient Bishops of Rome owned not nor claimed any such Authority nor was any such given to them by the Primitive Church To this purpose it may be observed from (l) Epiph. Her 42. Epiphanius that when Marcion being excommunicated by his own Father a pious Bishop for his debauchery went to Rome and desired there to be received into Communion he was told there by those Elders yet alive who were the Disciples of the Apostles that they could not receive him without the permission of his Reverend Father there being one Faith and one Concord they could not act contrary to their Fellow Ministers And this was agreeable to the Rules and Canons of the ancient Church whereby it was ordained (m) Can. Ap. 12. that if any excommunicate person should be received in another City whither he should come not having commendatory Letters he who received him should be himself also under excommunication And the novel Romish Notion of all other Bishops so depending on the Roman as to derive their power and authority from him is so contrary to the sense of the ancient Church that (n) Hieron Ep. ad Evagrium S. Hierome declares ubicunque fuerit Episcopus five Romae five Eugubii ejusdem meriti ejusdem est sacerdotii omnes Apostolorum successores sunt wheresoever there was a Bishop whether at Rome or at Gubio he is of the same worth and the same Priesthood they are all Successors of the Apostles 20. and prejudicial to other Churches and to Religion it self However the Romish Church upon this encroachment and false pretence claims a power to receive appeals from any other Churches And this oft proves a great obstacle to the Government and discipline of those Churches and an heavy and burdensome molestation to particular persons by chargeable tedious and dilatory prosecutions and is a method also of exhausting the treasures of other Churches and Kingdoms to gratifie ambitious avarice But even the (o) c. 6. qu. 3. scitote Canon Law declares the great reasonableness that every Province where there is ten or eleven Cities and a King should have a Metropolitan and other Bishops and that all causes should be judged and determined by them among themselves and that no Province ought to be so much debased and degraded as to be deprived of such a Judicature Indeed the Canon Law doth here for the sake of the Roman See exempt such cases from this judgement where those who are to be judged enter an appeal which is much different from the appeal the ancient Church allowed (p) Conc. Constant c. 6. to a more General Council after the insufficient hearing of a Provincial one But in truth this right of ordering and judging what is fit in every Province is not only the right of that particular Church or Country or Kingdom but where they proceed according to truth and goodness it is the right of God and the Christian Religion which is above all contrary authority of any other and ought not to be violated thereby And appeals from hence (pp) Cod. ean Eccl. Afr. c. 28. The Romanists Schismatical even to Rome were anciently prohibited in Africa 21. And the Schismatical uncharitableness of them at Rome towards other Churches deserves here to be mentioned This widens divisions and discords and perpetuates them by declaring an irreconcileable opposition to peace and truth They excommunicate them as Hereticks who discerning their right and their duty will not submit themselves to their usurpations and embrace their errors and to them they hereupon deny the hopes of Salvation Thus they deal with them who stedfastly hold to the Catholick faith and to all the holy rules of the Christian life and practice delivered by the Apostles and received by the Primitive Church and who also embrace that Catholick charity and Unity that they own Communion with all the true and regular members of the Christian Church and would with as much joy communicate with the Roman Church her self if she would make her Worship and Communion and the terms of it free from sin as the Father in the Gospel embraced his returning Son But this is the crime of such Churches that while they hold fast the Apostolical Faith and Order they reject the novel additional doctrines introduced by the Church of Rome and they submit not to her usurped authority in not doing what in duty to God they ought to do in imbracing the right wayes of truth 22. Their unjust excommunications hurt not others But the excommunicating such persons and Churches doth no hurt to them who undeservedly lie under this unjust censure but the effect of the censure may fall on them who thus excommunicate For they who reject the Communion of them who are true and orderly Members of the Church Catholick do divide themselves from that Communion To this sense is that received rule (q) c. 24. qu. 3. c. si habes c. certum illicita excommunicatio non laedit eum qui notatur sed eum à quo notatur and this was declared by (r) in Balsamon p. 1096. Nicon to be agreeable to the Canons And the excellency and power of the true Catholick Doctrine and the purity thereof is so much to be preferred before the authority of any persons whomsoever who oppose it that that which the ancient Canons (ſ) Conc. Sardic c. 17. established was very fit and just that if any Bishops and consequently any other persons were ejected from their own Churches or suffered any censures unjustly for their adhering to the Catholick Faith and profession they ought still to be received in other Churches and Cities with kindness and love And whereas there were Canons of the Church which allowed not Bishops to reside in other Churches and Dioceses these Fathers at Sardica dispense with that Rule in such a case as this and thereby declare their fense to be That the observation of Canonical establishments must give place where the higher duties of respect to the Christian Faith and Charity were concerned 23. but only themselves When the Scribes and Pharisees condemned the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles for Heresie and cast them who received it out of the Church the Christians were nevertheless the true members of the Church but they who rejected them were not so And when the Donatists would allow none but their own party to belong to the Church they thereby cast themselves out of the Catholick Communion as Schismaticks And when they at Rome so far follow their steps as to confine the Christian Communion to themselves or to a particular Church especially such an one as so greatly swerves from the truth and purity of the Christian Religion Sect. II. this is in effect to deny that Article of our Creed concerning the Holy Catholick Church And since Charity and Vnity are of so great concernment in Christianity on that account also they are none
of the Apostles and Evangelists the common delivery by word of mouth which Theophilus had heard of concerning matter of Christian Religion was not so certain as the Evangelical writing and therefore this Gospel was written that Theophilus might know the certainty of those things S. John would not have written his Gospel to this end that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God Joh. 20.31 if he did not think this writing should direct and rule our Faith S. Paul would not have told his Philippians Phil. 3.1 To write the same things for you is safe unless notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth they stood in need of this advantage of the Apostles writing for their safety and establishment nor yet would this be safe for them unless this writing was sufficient to effect this establishment which could not be unless it was a Rule of Faith Yea that the writing of Scripture was the way by which the spirit of God intended to preserve the Doctrine of Faith in after times when the Apostles were deceased S. Peter declares 2 Pet. 1.12 I will not be negligent to put you alwaies in remembrance of these things though you know them v. 15. I will indeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things alwaies in remembrance And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostle useth signifies to make a short comprisal of things for the help of memory Now if this was the design of S. Peters Epistle it will necessarily follow that the preserving Christian Doctrine in memory is best secured by the Written Word of God otherwise possibly they could not have been able to have these things in remembrance And lest if this Apostle had said no more of this subject any might have objected that he endeavoured they might be able to have these things in remembrance by Tradition he himself directly shews that this is the advantage of his writing and the end of both his Epistles 2 Pet. 3.1 This second Epistle beloved I write unto you in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance So that notwithstanding the force of delivery by word of mouth he thought writing necessary to keep these things in their remembrance And Jesus himself said to the Jews If you believe not Moses writings how shall you believe my words John 5.47 SECT II. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith NExt his search after Scriptures this Author pretends to give the Judgement of some few Councils which he asserts to own Oral Tradition for the Rule of their Faith I might here mind him that others of his Church have delivered that Councils owned Scripture as their Rule Nicol. de Cusa a Cardinal of the Roman Church lib. 2. de Concordant Cath c. 6. sayes That the manner of the General Councils was to have the holy Gospels placed in the middle where they were assembled And a little after he adds Matters of Faith were first treated of The Synod decreed according to the testimonies of the Scriptures But to examine his Testimonies The first is from the Synod of Lateran which was no ancient Synod being above six hundred and forty years after Christ They say We all confirm unanimously and consonantly consonanter not consequently with one heart and mouth the Tenets and Sayings of the holy Fathers adding nothing to those things which were delivered by them and we believe so as the Fathers have believed we preach so as they have taught These words are delivered indeed by that Synod but if that Synod be enquired into this will make little for Oral Tradition This Synod of Lateran was held under Pope Martin against the Monothelites in which were read the Testimonies of several Fathers S. Ambrose Austin Basil Cyrill Hippolytus Epiphanius Chrysostom Justine Athanasius Hilary Nyssen Nazianzen Leo and others with reference to whose words the Synod added We all confirm c. Where it is observable they proceeded upon the written Testimonies read out of the Fathers to determine what was the Doctrine of the Fathers and this is no way of Oral Tradition nor any thing rejected but highly approved by Protestants Yea here the Bishop of Rome and his Roman Council own that as Catholick Doctrine which was delivered in the Writings of the Fathers and eminent Writers in other Churches which is not this Discoursers way And it is further observable that these sayings of the Fathers no way appear to be the Rule of their Faith but are owned by them as Truths unto which they all agree whence these words Dogmata patrum omnes firmamus we all confirm their Doctrines cannot signifie that they make these their Rule but that they consent with them in the things alledged and confirm their saying to be truth And this Protestants will do as well as the Synod of Lateran But that we may enquire what appears to have been the Rule of this Synod it is observable that none of the Fathers Testimonies here cited against the Monothelites who denyed two wills in Christ refer to any Oral Tradition but very many to several grounds of Scripture For instance Leo Bishop of Rome is by Pope Martin produced in the opening that Synod that Christ said According to the form of God I and my Father are one but according to the form of a servant I came not to do my own will but his who sent me where he plainly manifests two wills Again from Leo He who was incarnate for us by his uncreated will and operation of his Divinity of his will wrought Miracles whence he testifies saying As the Father raiseth the dead and quickens them so the Son quickneth whom he will by his created will and operation he who is God above nature as man willingly underwent hunger thirst reproach sorrow and fear and this again the Evangelist testifies saying he went into an house and would have none know but could not lye hid and again They went through Galilee and he would not that any should know And again he would go into Galilee also they gave him Wine mingled with Gall and when he had tasted thereof he would not drink So S. Austin Ambrose Cyril c. in their testimonies read in this Council to prove the humane will of Christ urge farther If it be possible let this cup pass from me nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt My soul is sorrowful to death Now is my soul troubled And Deus-dedit Bishop of Sardinia declared in this Council that the testimony of Cyrill of urging those Texts was for the perfect refuting those Hereticks S. Austin is likewise produced thus glossing concerning Christs Humane Nature If we say he was not sorry when the Gospel saith My soul is exceeding sorrowful if we say he did not eat when the Gospel saith he did eat the worm of rottenness creepeth in and there will be nothing left sound then his body was not real nor his flesh real but
the Doctrine delivered by this Discourser or by Protestants Yet further these words of Tharasius confirming the Letters of Adrian then read we may observe how those Letters also as they were recorded by that Council agree with the Protestant Doctrine Now Adrian in that Epistle to Constantine and Irene which Tharasius refers to exhorts them to acquiesce in the Tradition of the Orthodox Faith in the Church of Blessed Peter and Paul the chief of the Apostles and to imbrace it as it hath been done by other Emperours honouring their Vicar with all their heart For these chief of the Apostles who did begin the Catholick Orthodox Faith did command their Faith to be preserved by writing as by Laws enacted even to all them who should succeed them in their Seats and so saith he our Church doth keep it Yea as to the Question in hand then about Images Adrian there urgeth Arguments from Scripture with such expressions as this As the holy Scripture hath it so let us have it and after his arguments from Scripture adds wherefore it is not to be doubted and then indeavours to shew the consent of Fathers Whence it is evident Adrian urged the Emperors to close with the delivery of the Church of Rome because then that Church did keep to the written Laws of the Apostles and by this means preserved their Faith and Scripture he follows to put things out of doubt this was then as appears the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and if that be it which will please this Discourser let him take it and follow it In Act. 3. of this Council this Discourser cites these words We receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church But is this enough for this Authors purpose 1. Is every thing that is received and venerated made a Rule of Faith 2. Must these Apostolical Traditions needs be Oral Tradition Or did the Apostles deliver nothing in Writing These words are in an Epistle of Theodore of Jerusalem to that Council which was by it approved but in that Epistle as throughout this Council they pretended to the Scriptures and Doctrine of the Fathers cited from their Writings to ascertain them of the Doctrine of the Apostles as to the then disputed point concerning Images Yea that we may know what in that Epistle was meant by Apostolical Tradition it is more plain in the end of that Epistle in these words Whereas therefore it is sufficiently plain that the Scripture receiveth them wherefore it is lawful Whence though this Council was erroneous in the decision of the Controversie then in the World for ought hath been yet produced it doth not appear to have been in the same error with this Discourser concerning the Rule of Faith His next testimony from this Council is Act. 7. where the Council have these words We walking in the Kings High-way and insisting upon the Doctrine of our holy and Divine Fathers and observing the Tradition of the Catholick Church in which the holy Spirit dwells do define But what if the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church meant by them was not Oral but written As for the Fathers testimonies its plain they were not received by Oral Tradition but were such as were found in their Writings and were thence cited both in the Letter of Adrian in the second action of that Council and in the testimonies produced Act. 4. As for Tradition it is observable that in the definition of this Council in which are the forecited words they declare that they receive the Churches Traditions whether in Custome or in Writing but then they declare things so received by them to agree to the Gospel and all such customs of the Church if truly such will Protestants as heartily receive as this Council These things they might observe though they did not make them a Rule of Faith And that the Tradition they relied on as the ground of their Faith was chiefly the holy Scriptures may appear probably because in the beginning of the fourth Action where they produce the grounds of their Tradition they first urge several Scriptures Exod. 25. Numb 7. Ezek. 41. Heb. 9. and others and after them the Fathers Writings but it appears more certainly in the seventh Action where is their Synodical Epistle to Constantine and Irene in which they urge many Scriptures to prove the truth of what this Council defined and then say These to wit Scriptures being so confessedly and without all doubt we believe these things to be acceptable and pleasing to God Whence it appears that the Rule by which they did without all doubting believe was the holy Scriptures and what else is a Rule of Faith So that they principally relied on the Scriptures and in consent with them on the written Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and the customs of the Catholick Church And this is that Protestants will not disclaim but allow as a Rule though they will keep better to it than this seventh General Council as it is called did Lastly From the first Action of this Council he cites these words which were spoken by Basilius of Ancyra as part of a recantation of his former opinions and seem to be allowed by that Council They who contemn the Writings of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church and bring for their excuse and inculcate the words of Arius Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus saying unless we were sufficiently instructed out of the Old and New Testament we would follow the Doctrines of the Fathers and of the six holy Synods and the Traditions of the Catholick Church let him be accursed And so will Protestants say They who contemn the preaching of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church against Arius and those other Hereticks which preaching and Tradition did declare it self grounded and was truly grounded upon Scripture imbracing and venting the words of these Hereticks which we know were against Scripture though these persons pretend Scripture to be on their side which we know is not let him be accursed Nor from these words will it follow as he would have it that it was ever the pretence of most execrable Hereticks to decline Tradition and pretend sufficient light from Scripture the contrary to this hath been by me shewed and will be further manifested These words do not speak it the constant practice of Hereticks to pretend to Scripture but only speak of some certain Hereticks whose time is defined to be betwixt the sixth and seventh General Councils for if they had not lived after the sixth Council they could not have declared why they did not follow the six General Councils and if they had not lived before the seventh General Council their words could not have been there produced But such words as these of those Hereticks which decline the true Tradition of the Church founded in Scripture and satisfie themselves with empty pretences of Scripture Protestants will condemn Yet lest the gloss upon these words
thing as this but fully asserted one and the same God Nor was there ever any question about this in their daies for as there were questions about things offered to Idols about Marriage and Divorce about veiling Women and the hope of the Resurrection in which he plainly refers to the Apostles writings so he saith if there had been any Question about this matter it would have been found as a most principal thing in the Apostle that is the Apostles writings and then adds the words cited by this Discourser And no other is to be acknowledged the Tradition of the Apostles than that which is this day published in their Churches In which words as Irenaeus and Tertullian elsewhere did against Heretical inventions in general so he here establisheth the Churches Tradition against Marcions innovation or he establisheth the Doctrine of Christ as his Church received it which principally included the Scriptures And that Tertullian chiefly designed against Marcion to establish the Scriptural Tradition may appear sufficiently from what hath been above observed To see yet more of Tertullians mind in this case observe that known place against Hermogenes who asserted matter co-eternal with God Advers Hermog c. 22. I adore the fulness of Scripture which manifests to me both the maker and his works But whether all things be made out of a subject matter I never yet read Let Hermogenes his shop shew it written If it be not written let him fear that woe that is denounced against them who add or take away What can be more full to shew the Scripture to be a Rule of Faith than to declare that nothing may safely be received but from it and that it is full and compleat SECT XIII What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith FRom this Father he only cites one place and that so much contrary to the plain design which is obvious to any eye that it appears evidently he never took it from Clemens himself but hath in practice discovered what certainty there is in his Oral way or taking things upon hear-say For shewing which nothing more is needful than the setting down the words of Clemens more largely Strom. lib. 7. He saith In those who are indued with knowledge the holy Scriptures have conceived but the Hereticks who have not learned them have rejected them as if they did not conceive some indeed follow the truths saying and others wrest the Scriptures to their own lusts but if they had a Judgment of true and false they would have been perswaded by the Divine Scriptures Then follow the words cited If therefore any one of a man becomes a Beast like those inchanted by Circe so he hath lost his being a man of God and one remaining faithful to the Lord who kicks against Ecclesiastical Tradition and leaps into the opinions of humane Heresies Then his next words are but he who returning out of error obeys the Scriptures and commits his life to the truth of a man in a manner becomes as God We have the Lord the original of this Doctrine both by the Prophets and by the Gospel and by the Apostles He who is to be believed of himself is worthy of all belief when he speaks in the Lords voice and the Scriptures Doubtless the Scriptures we use as our Criterion to find out things And then he shews That we are not satisfied with what men say but inquire and believe what God saith which is the only demonstration according to which Science they who have tasted only of the Scriptures are faithful What can be more plain than that Clemens his design here is not to guide men to the Oral way this Discourser talks of but as Origen and Tertullulian do so also Clemens against the way of the ancient Hereticks who were opposers of the Scripture commendeth the Churches Tradition which was in the Scripture Much more might be observed to this purpose from this 7. Strom. of Clemens and several other places but that I think the very place this Author blindfoldly chose is sufficient against him SECT XIV What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius OUr Discourser wisheth Protestants would seriously weigh the Sayings of this Father and consider what sustained him who was a Pillar of Faith in his daies This we assure him we will do and likewise highly honor that Rule of Faith which Athanasius made use of which we know was not Oral Tradition but Scripture The first testimony he produceth from Athanasius is in his Epistle de Synodis Arim. Seleuc. where speaking of the Arians who were not satisfied in the Council of Nice but sought after some other Synodical determination where they might have the Faith and therefore procured another Council to be called he saith Now they have declared themselves to be unbelievers in seeking that which they have not which are part of the words cited by this Discourser his following words I think cannot be found either in that Book or elsewhere in Athanasius which are All therefore that are seekers of Faith are unbelievers They only to whom Faith comes down from their Ancestors that is from Christ by Fathers do not seek and therefore they only have Faith if thou comest to Faith by seeking thou wast before an Vnbeliever Thus far this Discourser I think frames Athanasius Against the Arians in this Epistle Athanasius further saies If they had believed they would not have sought it as if they had it not and if you have wrote these things as now beginning to believe you are not Clergy-men but begin to be Catechumens Which words he writes upon occasion that the Arians Confession began not So believes the Catholick Church but the Catholick Faith was in the presence of Constantius put forth such a day as Athanasius there declares But that we may understand Athanasius his mind where they who are Believers must have Faith and not elsewhere seek it which also is the way he must understand it to come from Ancestors if any such words be any where in Athanasius in this very Epistle he declares it thus It is a vain thing that they running about pretend to desire Synods for the Faith for the holy Scripture is more sufficient than all Synods And if for this there should be need of a Synod there are the Acts of the Holy Fathers they who came together in Nice wrote so well that whoever faithfully read their Writings may by them be remembred of that Religion towards Christ which is declared in the holy Scriptures So that these words of Athanasius as they design not the promoting Oral Tradition so they do advance Scripture The next testimony cited and vainly flourished over is from Athan. de Incarn against Paulus Samosatenus where he concerning this Subject of the Incarnation of the Word shews That such great things and difficult to be apprehended cannot be attained to but by Faith And they who have weak knowledge if they here reject not curious questions and keep to the
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
and spake evil of their Governours And they were frequently turbulent and tumultuous But by the Evangelical Doctrine only the Humble and Lowly can enter into Heaven The Son of God himself so far promoted Submission to all in Authority that he was obedient to his Parents was himself baptized of John And the New Testament earnestly enjoins upon us Obedience to them who have the Rule over us and denounceth Damnation to those who resist the higher Powers 6. And lastly They left themselves and their Followers at a licentious Liberty in many weighty Matters of Doctrine and Practice They could suffer their Hands to be Polluted by devouring Widows Houses and their Tables by Extortion and Excess They made void the Commands of God by their Traditions and were such Casuists as to allow Swearing by Heaven and Earth and to account such Oaths as those by the Temple and the Altar to leave no Obligation when Swearing by the Gold of the Temple or the Gift upon the Altar did oblige And it is manifest from this fifth chapter of St. Matthew that according to their strictest Rules they gave allowance to inward Wrath and Hatred and Lust if it did not break forth in open Murther or Adultery as was noted by Tertullian Tert. de Idolat c. 2. who also observeth how strictly extensive our Saviour's Doctrine is even against the unchast Eye and inward Wrath or in the phrase of St. John That he that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer But the excellent Christian Rules of Life which command the inward Man and far out-do the loose Principles of the Pharisees are many of them proposed by the Blessed Jesus in this and the following Chapters and are included under that Sanction at the close of this Sermon on the Mount that he that hears these words of his and doth them not is likened to him who builds his House on the Sand which ends in a dreadful fall And Vertuous Practices are so far from pleading any allowance from Christianity that Whosoever breaks the least Commandment and teacheth Men so shall be called least or not be accounted of in the Kingdom of Heaven These things I have discoursed of are sufficient to shew the gross miscarriages of the Pharisaical Righteousness in opposing the necessary Duties of Unity Meekness Sincerity true Religious Piety Obedience and Universal Holiness and therefore this could be no safe way to the Kingdom of Heaven I now come to the second Enquiry How stands the case of those Societies who lay the chief claims to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees in these particulars And here I shall not ransack the remote and distant parts of the World but take notice only of those with which we are concerned as the Church of England the present Roman Church and the Dissenting Parties among us Nor shall I strain resemblances to make the Cases appear Parallel but shall take notice of things as they really are to observe how far there is a likeness to or compliance with the Spirit of Pharisaism And here I profess that I seriously wish well to all Men of what Party soever and therefore whatever I shall say that speaks the error or danger of any of them is not out of design to cast reproach upon them but out of this true Charitable End to warn others to take heed thereof and I should be glad if it might make any of them consider of the error of their way 1. Concerning Separation and Division This was esteemed by the ancient Church as an heinous Crime St. Chrysostom equals it with Heresy Chr. in Eph. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. and St. Cyprian makes it a greater offence than that of the Lapsi The Church of England is clear herein it owns and professeth the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and Doctrine and none other and appoints a way of Worship agreeable thereto and so gives no cause to warrant any Separation from her Our Case with respect to the Romish Church is in part like that of the Apostles with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees whilest they professed the true Christian Doctrine and worshipped God after the way which was unjustly called Heresy Joh. 12.42 the Pharisees sentenced such to be put out of the Synagogue And the Talmud of the Venice Edition hath been observed to affirm That Jesus himself was Excommunicated with the Shammatha or great Excommunication And because we as we ought reject the evil and corrupt Romish Doctrines and Practices they censure us as Hereticks and let fly their Anathema's in various Canons of Trent and yearly denounce their Excommunications in the Bull in Coena Domini And besides this we cannot join in the main part of the Romish Worship without embracing their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices Nor have they any Right of Jurisdiction over us And all this acquits us from the Crime of Schism in our Reformation But they at Rome though they keep to their publick Worship as the Pharisees did are yet grossly guilty of Schism by unjustly rejecting all other Christian Churches who make use of their own just Rights and are not more ready to submit to St. Peters pretended Successor and his Impostures than to the Precepts and Doctrines of his and our Lord and Master And herein they pass Sentence as the Pharisee did against the Publican upon them who are better than themselves Other Parties at home practise Divisions in an higher degree than the Pharisees did openly separating themselves from the publick Assemblies of our Christian Worship 2. Concerning fierceness and furiousness of Zeal Our Church entertains no Bloody nor Uncharitable Doctrines or Tenents its Rules concerning Government contain as much mildness as can consist with Peace and Order and its Practice rather more by reason of the distemper and disorder of the minds of Men. But such is the Romish fierceness that in the highest violation of Charity they exclude other Churches from Salvation And their furious Zeal appears by Fire and Faggot by bloody Inquisitions Massacres and Rebellions by Horrid Treasons and cruel Conspiracies of which the World hath had and we have abundant Evidence These things are so unlike Christianity and Jesus the Saviour that they betray themselves to be from the Abaddon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Espencoeus a learned Doctor of Paris Esp in 1. T◠Digr l. 2. had observed how the ancient Canons obliged all the Clergy against engaging in War and Blood he acknowledgeth and smartly taxeth the contrary practice of the late Romish Church and her Bishops as herein degenerating from the Spirit of Christianity veteris Gentilismi ritu with a greater suitableness to the temper of Pagans And in other Dissenting Parties it is too manifest how prone their forward and leading Men are to censorious Uncharitableness and rash Judging and how ready they have been unjustly to take up the Sword and pursue the Interest of their Party with War and Blood with
in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy Sect. 1. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World p. 141 Sect. 2. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery p. 159 Sect. 3. Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome and are by the Authority thereof established which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour p. 186 Sect. 4. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God p. 214 Sect. 5. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy p. 241 CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly Sect. 1. Of Quakers p. 262 Sect. 2. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion p. 275 Sect. 3. Of Anabaptists p. 279 Sect. 4. Of Independents p. 292 An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Discourse Intituled Sure-Footing in Christianity THE first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith p. 321 Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 330 An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture p. 349 An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 367 An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it p. 383 An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori p. 404 An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie p. 416 An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori p. 433 An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority p. 451 Answer to his Corollaries p. 460 An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse p. 468 Sect. 1. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures p. 469 Sect. 2. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith p. 473 Sect. 3. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith p. 476 Sect. 4. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice p. 478 Sect. 5. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council p. 484 Sect. 6. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople p. 486 Sect. 7. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus p. 487 Sect. 8. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon p. 489 Sect. 9. Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine p. 491 Sect. 10. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus p. 492 Sect. 11. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith p. 497 Sect. 12. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian p. 501 Sect. 13. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith p. 506 Sect. 14. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius p. 507 Sect. 15. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil p. 510 Sect. 16. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith p. 512 Sect. 17. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith p. 515 Sect. 18. Answering the remainder of his Discourse p. 516 Sermons Preached upon several Occasions A Sermon Preached at Lyn S. Margaret 's at the Bishop's Visitation Octob. 15. 1677. on 2 Cor. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation p. 523 A Sermon Preached at Norwich March 2. 1678. on Joel 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart p. 555 A Sermon Preached on S. Matth. 5.20 For I say unto you That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven p. 577 OF REPROACHING AND CENSURE The First Part Concerning the irregular Excesses and great Sinfulness of uncharitable evil-speaking especially of Superiours CHAP. I. Some preparatory considerations concerning the evil of Reproaching 1. REligion hath that general influence upon the life of the pious man that it commands and governs his thoughts and affections his words and actions But where the true rules of piety are neglected very many indulge themselves in great disorder and miscarriages in every one of these particulars Among other things a strange licentious liberty is taken by no small number of men in speaking injuriously and casting reproaches and unreasonable censures upon others contrary to the rules of our Christian profession yea even upon men of the best principles and the best lives and not sparing our Rulers and Governours in Church and State 2. And this evil temper hath so far insinuated it self Evil speaking a vice dangerously prevailing at this time and is become so spreading and so open and manifest that I account it one of the prevailing vices of our dayes And when men are ashamed to own many other sinful practices or to shew any approbation of them as of drunkenness swearing uncleanness oppression and such like uncharitable speeches of others are entertained with a secret delight and pleasure and oft with open expressions of satisfaction And this shews the great defilement of this sin which not only prevails on the passions and affections by corrupting and disordering them but it also debaucheth and perverteth the very inward principles of Conscience it self I wish that with respect to very many persons we had not now just cause to take up the complaint of (a) Naz. Or. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it ought to be reproved and checked Gr. Nazianzen concerning the time he lived in That that man was best esteemed of not he who being governed by the fear of God durst not speak an idle word but he who speaketh the most contumeliously against others either openly or by sly intimations 3. And therefore I shall now design to speak
an act of detestation of sin in which he hath no thought of his future course of life But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts as that great one of loving God to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors and mainly to insist on those which have the publick allowance and establishment of the Church 10. Secondly Another obstacle to a pious life 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures which I shall consider is the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety which is the use of the Holy Scriptures The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Letters and Messages which God sends to men to invite them to him and guide them in their way and then surely they to whom and for whom they are sent ought to know and read them both out of Reverence to God and out of respect to themselves (n) de Tempore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures that they teach us knowledge and right understanding and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world unto the love of God and observes how greatly efficacious they are to the promoting piety in very great numbers and that they were designed for our Salvation 11. The Scriptures greatly promote piety These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life and were so accounted of in the ancient Church Herein is comprized the Will and Counsel of God declared by the Holy Ghost himself And the precepts and holy rules there proposed the promises declared the threatnings denounced the judgements executed on the disobedient and the blessings bestowed on the obedient are great incitements to piety and are of the greater force and weight as they are contained in the Scriptures because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them And the end for which they were written is for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 And the punishments there recorded which were inflicted on evil doers were for ensamples and written for our admonition 1 Cor. 10.11 These holy Books the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of and they so highly esteemed this priviledge that rather than they would deliver up these Books to their persecutors the best Christians chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings and of such (o) Baron Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent lubentissimo animo mortem oppetiverunt almost an infinite number of those who with the greatest readiness of mind chose death rather than to deliver up the Holy Books And they who did deliver them were accounted grievous offenders and called Traditores the name given to Judas who betrayed our Lord and of these as (p) Advers Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith there were many of all ranks both Laicks and Clergy 12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent advantage to promote piety and the happiness of men that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit declares the blessed and good man to delight himself in the law of the Lord and to meditate therein day and night Psal 1.2 And this makes him so to increase and be fruitful in good works that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water which brings forth his fruit in due season And the excellent use of this Divine Law is described Psal 19 7-11 in converting the soul making wise the simple and other great benefits Yea they are of such manifold and compleat use for the good of man that the Apostle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation and to be profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to every good work 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. And they have that mighty efficacy to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men that our Lord acquaints us that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets would not be perswaded though one arose from the dead Luke 16.31 13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scripture to the generality of their Communion as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books (q) Conc. Trident Sess ult prope sin which was ordered by the Council of Trent and was compleated about the end of that Council but the confirmation thereof was referred to the Pope by the Decree of that Council and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth In this (r) Indic Reg. 4. How far vulgar Translations are prohibited in the Roman Church Index it is declared That since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue be permitted generally without distinction there would thence from the rashness of men more hurt arise than advantage in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor he may grant to them the reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt but increase of faith and piety which faculty they should have in writing But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them may not obtain the absolution of their sins unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller who shall sell or otherwise procure such Bibles to them who have not a faculty And from this Index the substantial part of this rule is expressed in (Å¿) Panstrat Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier and somewhat more at large in the Book of t Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit (e) Ledes c. 15. De scripturis divinis quavis lingua non legendis and is mentioned in some English Writers It is therefore condemned as a very heinous and mortal crime without all these cautions to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue though it be in a version of their own And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike the use of such Bibles are in the Romish Communion as their own Writers declare it may thence be concluded that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing which others must not expect to obtain And upon further consideration of what difficulties may be expected in the gaining this faculty and the procuring the consent of those by whose authority and with whose advice it must be obtained any reasonable man
acts of Worship and refused to receive any such both under the Old Testament Judg. 13.16 17 18. and the New Rev. 19.10 ch 22.9 Yea the Apostle cautions against the worshipping of Angels Col. 2.18 and the ancient Church prohibited it by her (q) Conc. Laodic c. 35. nor in the New Canons 11. And in the Gospel God himself whose right it is to direct and appoint in whose name we should approach unto him hath directed us to come to him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and hath encouraged us thereto by promising that what we so ask he will give Joh. 16.23 and that our Lord himself will do what we so ask Joh. 14.13 14. And that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him and he ever lives to make intercession for them Heb. 7.25 And what further encouragement need be given or desired But not a word is spoken to direct us to any deceased Saint or to any Angel to make any of them our Intercessor And this is the great encouragement proposed to us in approaching to God that having a great High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens Jesus the Son of God and who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace Hebr. 4.14 15 16 and that if any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous 1 Joh. 2.1 And in the Precepts our Saviour gives to guide our Prayer and Worship he directs us to referr them only to God Matt. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Luke 11.2 when ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven 12. And though S. Stephen suffered Martyrdom in a short time after our Saviour's Ascension and S. James whose Martyrdom (r) Annal. Eccl. an 44. n. 2. Baronius places in the forty fourth year of Christ and the Blessed Virgin also in all probability died before the writing of any part of the New Testament nor in the Primitive Church Yet in all the New Testament where there are such frequent expressions of praying to and calling upon God with Supplications to our Blessed Saviour there is not the least intimation of any adoration or invocation to these eminent Saints or any others who were departed And yet S. Paul assures us that some of the Brethren who were Witnesses of our Saviour's Resurrection were fallen asleep before the time of his writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 15.6 And it hath been at large observed and proved by sufficient evidence that no genuine Writer of the first Centuries hath any thing in him to express or favour invocation of Saints This is shewed by (ſ) in Letter of Invocation of Saints the Bishop of Lincoln for the first three hundred years and (t) Voss Thes Theol. Disp 10. Vossius speaks of three hundred and seventy After which time some expressions were used which made way for this practice but yet no such thing was brought into any publick Liturgy for some hundred years after 13. It may be here added that if we consider the Saints they invocate Of the Canonization of Saints besides what Objections may be made against particular Persons it may be noted that the general Worship given to Saints hath respect to all those who are Canonized by the Roman Bishop And there is no sufficient reason to believe that all such are truly Saints The form of Canonization declares the Person canonized (u) Sacr. Cerem ut Sanctum à Christi fidelibus venerandum that he is to be worshipped of Christians as a Saint That none may receive publick adoration but they who are canonized by the Pope is owned by (w) De Sanct. Beat. c. 19. Bellarmine who also declares that (x) ib. c. 9. it is to be believed that the Pope doth not erre in Canonizing But he who believes the truth of this must frame an higher notion of the Papal Infallibility than that Cardinal hath given us For he tells us (y) de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. it is a thing agreed betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks that the Pope as Pope and joined with all his Council may err in matters of Fact and such as depend on the information and testimony of men He tells us indeed in the same place that in propounding matters of Faith or enjoyning rules of Duty and Practice he cannot err But since no matter of Fact is more lyable to mistake than to discern whether a person be eminently and sincerely holy or no especially as they proceed in the Church of Rome where the Testimonies concerning their working Miracles are of great moment in this case it may therefore according to the Cardinals own position be thought at least doubtful whether the Pope may not mistake in judging a Man to be truly a Saint and then it may seem hard to believe that all must needs be Saints whom he declares to be such by Canonization 14. Of denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Laity A Second Instance I shall here consider is That they at Rome debarr the people of the Cup in the Holy Communion which was manifestly one part of that Holy Sacrament as it was instituted and commanded to be received by our Saviour And therefore this contains an Opposition to what was established by Christ In the Church of Rome both the Laity and the Clergy except in ordinary Communions only the person consecrating or as they speak the conficient Priest receive only the one element in the Eucharist and not the other of the Cup. And though the Council of (b) Sess 22. in fin Trent wholly waved the determining this Question concerning the Cup Whether it might be granted to any of the Laity And referred this wholly to the prudence of the Pope who hath still continued the former use in one kind yet that Council freely declared their sense concerning the Doctrines and Rules of Duty referring to the Sacrament Here it declares that (c) Sess 21. c. 1. the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate are obliged by no Divine Precept to take the Eucharist in both kinds and that it cannot be doubted salva fide but that the Communion in one kind is sufficient to Salvation and that whole Christ and the true Sacrament is taken under either kind alone and therefore they who so receive are deprived of no grace necessary to Salvation And they so declare these things with others concerning the Sacrament that if any person shall speak contrary thereto even to say that the Catholick Church was not moved by just or sufficient reasons in ordering the Laity and Clergy who do not consecrate to communicate only under the Species of bread he shall be under an Anathema and they also forbid all Christians for the future ne de iis aliter credere audeant that they do not dare to believe otherwise of
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
shape to their souls but referr to them by expressing the resemblance of the bodies in which they once dwelt and to which they were and shall be again united though now separated from them And therefore this notion allows the Images of God in like manner as the Church of Rome sets up Images of Angels and Saints deceased not making any considerable difference betwixt these so far as concerns the representing every one of them by their Image and consequently must allow the worshipping every one of these Images with a proportionable honour in relation to the Beings represented by them 4. If this notion were of any weight the Jewish Church might then have been warranted in setting up Images of God and worshipping them also with respect to God provided they were not like him nor esteemed so to be And yet God plainly forbad their making any Image of him in the likeness of male or female or any other thing though he had sufficiently taught them and they well knew that the Deity was not in shape like to any of these And God declares his dislike against any such Images because they could frame nothing which they could liken to him which being a reason of perpetual and abiding truth doth concern the Christian state as well as the Jewish and the laying down this reason doth sufficiently declare against all such Images as are not like to him 13. Secondly Of the Romanists worshipping the Eucharist with Divine Worship I shall shew that the Romanists give proper Divine worship to that which is not God And here I shall particularly instance in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to which they profess to give that Latria or high worship which is due to the true God alone This is the plain Doctrine of the Council of Trent (q) Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. fideles omnes Latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic Sacramento deferre that all good Christians do give to this Sacrament that properly Divine worship which is due to the true God And in the beginning of that Session they strictly forbid all Christians thenceforward to believe otherwise and their sixth Anathema is against him who shall say that Christ in the Eucharist is not to be adored with that which is the proper Divine worship In like manner it is expressed in the Roman Catechism published by the authority of Pius the Fifth (r) Catech. ad par de Euch. Sacr. in init huic Sacramento divinos honores tribuendos esse that Divine honour is to be given to this Sacrament And the words of Adoration in the Missal and the acts of adoration unto this Sacrament are accordingly to be understood to give Divine honour thereunto And Azorius is for giving this Divine worship even to the (Å¿) Instit Mor. part 2. l. 5. c. 16. species or appearances of Bread and Wine in this Sacrament But the Council of Trent seem not to extend it so far and the Roman Catechism declares that when they affirm this Sacrament is to be worshipped they understand this of the Body and Blood of Christ therein 14. We greatly reverence the holy Sacrament as an excellent institution of our Saviour but reserve the Divine honour to God alone for there is nothing which is not truly God be it otherwise never so sacred to which such worship may be given S. Paul was an eminent Apostle but with detestation disclaimed the receiving it Act. 14.13 14 15. The brazen Serpent under the Law was of Gods institution for the healing those Israelites who looked upon it but yet it was a great sin to worship it with Divine honour If the homage peculiarly due to a Prince be given to any other in his Dominions though it be to one he hath highly advanced he will account this a disparaging his dignity and practising Treason and Rebellion and God who is a jealous God will not give his worship to another But this practice of the Roman Church depends upon their Doctrine of Transubstantiation This is grourded upon transubstantiation for if that substance which is in the Sacrament be no longer Bread and Wine but be changed into the substance of the very Body and Blood of Christ in union with his Divinity then and only then may Divine honour be given unto it And if it be in truth the very same glorified Christ who is at Gods right hand and nothing else then is that worship which is due to Christ the Son of God which is proper Divine Worship as much to be performed to this Sacrament as to him in Heaven since both is substantially one and the same thing wholly and intirely The (t) Sess 13. c. 1 4 5. Anath 1. 2. Council of Trent declares that by the consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a conversion of their whole substance into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ And they say the Body and Blood of Christ with his soul and Divinity and therefore whole Christ are contained in the Eucharist but the substance of the Bread and Wine remains not but only the species or appearance thereof and that this the Church calls Transubstantiation On this Doctrine it founds the Divine worship of the Sacrament and it anathematizeth him whosoever shall speak against this Transubstantiation and forbids all Christians that they shall not dare to believe or teach otherwise concerning the Eucharist than as this Council hath determined Now if this Doctrine of Transubstantiation be true the giving Divine worship to this Sacrament is but just but if this be false as the (u) Article 28. Church of England declares then is the giving Divine honour thereto certainly and greatly sinful and evil 15. It is acknowledged that this holy Sacrament administred according to Christs institution doth truly and really exhibite and communicate Christs Body and Blood with the benefits of his Sacrifice in an Heavenly Mystical and Sacramental way but the manner of this gracious presence it is needless curiously to enquire And though the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their proper substances yet are they greatly changed by their consecration from common Bread and Wine to contain under them such Spiritual and Divine Mysteries which is the effect of Divine power and grace Nor is it possible that these elements should tender to us Christ and the benefits of his Passion if this work had not been ordered by the power and authority of God in his Institutions who hath the disposal of this grace But that the elements of Bread and Wine remain in their substance and that they are not transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ is generally asserted by all Protestants whilst the contrary is universally affirmed by the Romanists and is made one great branch of the true Catholick Faith and the new Roman Creed according to the famous Bull of Pius the Fourth which is so solemnly sworn unto Indeed there are such expressions frequently
considers that Faith or the knowledge of God the vulgar may both have since they may be saved § 8 9 10. and they may have doubts concerning it § 11. and since this Faith is a rational assent § 12. which they who are out of the Church should imbrace § 13. and eminent Wits may be satisfied in § 14. and the most skill'd Adversaries cannot shew its Rule possibly false § 15. and this Rule must assure us what Christ said § 16. From this he gathers seven Properties of the Rule of Faith § 17. 1. It must be plain and self-evident as to its existence unto all 2. Evidenceable as to its Ruling Power to Inquirers even the rude Vulgar 3. Apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons 4. To satisfie fully the Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters 5. To convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries 6. Built upon unmoveable grounds that is absolutely certain in it self 7. And absolutely ascertainable unto us Having given some account of his Discourse I come now to examine whether he hath laid a sufficient foundation to raise from thence the properties of the Rule of Faith and then whether the properties mentioned be rightly raised and do agree to the Rule of Faith The ground he lays from the words Rule and Faith is not sufficiently sure and stable for since these words Rule of Faith even as he treats of them do admit of some ambiguity in their sense it had been necessary to have first declared what was here intended to be signified by them For besides that the phrase of regula fidei or the Rule of Faith is by Irenaeus and Tertullian and other Ancients sometimes made use of for a kind of Creed or comprisal of the chief Articles of Christian Faith I say besides this the word Rule being here a Metaphor the true meaning of it in this place must be searched into Nor doth he sufficiently describe his Rule by saying it is able to regulate or guide him who useth it for still by a Rule may be understood either that which is able to guide him who useth it that by it something to be inquired after may be discovered knowably or else a Rule is that from which all things about which such a Rule may be made use of may receive the most exact perfect and compleat way of trial and discovery Now that is not the Rule of Faith by which a man may be guided to believe some Divine revealed truths or most truths which yet may either misguide in some others or not most exactly guide to the knowledge of them but it is that by which all Divine revealed truths are sufficiently discovered by which there may be had the best determination of all Questions about such truths which are necessary to be decided and which is the most sure and firm ground of believing every Divine revealed truth The want of considering and observing this hath cast this Author upon a threefold miscarriage First He hath omitted the most principal and necessary property of the Rule of Faith which is that it is the way to know try and determine all matters of Faith or revealed Truth and that it is sufficient to do all this so far as it is requisite it should be done For if this property be omitted all those laid down by this Discourser will not have light enough to discover which is the Rule of Faith certainly and infallibly For instance this sentence God Created the Heavens and the Earth or any other such like so delivered to us that it appears certainly to come from God though it cannot be called a Rule of Christian Faith because it contains not so much Divine truth as is necessary either for every mans Salvation or for the determining Controversies in Religion so far as it is requisite they should be decided and this is received as much amongst the unbelieving Jews as amongst Christians yet all the properties mentioned by this Discourser may be applied unto it as much as to the Rule of Faith 1. It may be to all self-evident as to its existence That there is such a truth delivered 2. It may be knowable to have a ruling power even to the Vulgar 3. It may settle them who undoubtingly receive it 4. It may satisfie either Dissenters or Doubters 5. It may convince Adversaries 6. It may be certain in it self and 7. Ascertainable to us A Second miscarriage hence arising is That in this Treatise he useth the phrase of the Rule of Faith in a very uncertain fallacious and ambiguous sense sometimes to signifie one thing and sometimes another For under Faith as he treats of it he sometimes includes all Divine revealed truth so far as to a general ending of Controversies about them So Praef. § 7. he saith Controversie or the skill to know what is Faith if a Science must be grounded on some self-evident Principle and soon after he tells us he hath indeavoured to shew the first Principle Catholicks proceed on self-evident and this he calls the first principle in controversie Where it is plain he includes under Faith all Divine revealed truths concerning which there are any Controversies raised But in Disc 1. § 8. where he lays as a ground that the Vulgar are to be saved that is are to have Faith or the knowledge of God he cannot mean that they must be surely and rationally determined as he grants Faith must be such an assent in all points of Faith about which there is any Controversie for it is plainly evident that even amongst the Papists the Learned men have not been determined in all points de Fide by the help of their Tradition So by the Rule of Faith he sometimes means an only way to come to Faith as Disc 2. § 9 10. he saith Faith is not possible to be had without the Rule of Faith other times he understands by it only a sufficient way to come to Faith as Disc 1. § 8 9. he calls it the means to arrive at Faith or come to Faith Sometimes he calls it the ordinary way to Faith so Corol. 1. and yet thence concludes none can pretend to have Faith who hold not to the true Rule and yet as having his heart misgiving him in this confidence he saith Disc 1. § 11. The Rule of Faith is the best if not the only means to come to the knowledge of Faith Now to treat of the Rule of Faith in such a manner as not to keep to one sense but some time by his Rule to mean an only way sometimes a sufficient way sometimes an ordinary way other times the best if not the only way and by Faith of which it is the Rule sometimes to understand such Faith as is in all the believing Vulgar and at other times under Faith to take in all Controversie about matters revealed of God this is a strange jumbling of different things together and as it discovers much want of accurateness and rational proceeding in the Author so
appellation of Catholick they must be content with other names as Lutherans Zuinglians Protestants c. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application if Discipline be neglected and false tenets may be taking if Governours be not vigilant than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition must depend upon the supposed goodness and care of such persons as are to administer the Discipline of the Church and since there have been many bad Councils it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governours and there cannot any security be given that these Governours might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines and oppose the true and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition But though there may be defection from truth this Discourser here seems to venture to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known I will now examine all his Characters above recited First They who forsake truth are not alwaies an inconsiderable number in respect of the other When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem In Elijah's time it was in Israel but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh the Dissenters from the Scribes and Pharisees in their pernicious Doctrines were not the greater number and when Arianism most prevailed the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth so that if the greater number have oft imbraced false Doctrine in points of Faith there can be no evidence from such numbers which is the true Doctrine Secondly Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publickly attested if by this he understands as he must the Oral and not the Scriptural way of attesting though even in the latter some may stand upon having what they have not and so likewise in the former for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees and Talmudists who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra must be acknowledged to hold truth where they differ from and contradict the Apostles and Christians nor can there be any reason why standing upon Tradition from Christ should be a security for truth when standing upon Tradition from Moses who was a faithful deliverer was no security yea by this Rule as hath been before observed Paganism would be defended for a true Religion and the Jews worshipping of Baalim and in the Christian state the Heresie of Artemon denying the Divinity of Christ since all these pretended a right to the most publick and open way of Oral Tradition Thirdly Nor are they to be accounted for Hereticks who make use of Criticisms for though nothing more than common reason and capacity is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith were to be condemned for Hereticks then not only Learned Protestants but all the most eminent writers among the Papists must be accounted Hereticks yea and even all the Fathers who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness must be taken into the number Yea the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles in the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed that is Christ Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say that S. Paul was in the error or Heresie because he made use of Criticisms and his opposers in the truth who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews Fourthly Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine be known by being called Catholicks for first though the name of a Catholick be deservedly honoured by Christians and the persons who truly answer that name yet it was not the name whereby the Apostles did first call them who held the true Christian Faith but they were called Christians yea some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns assert that this name of Catholick was not at all in use in the Apostles daies however that which then was not the chief name commonly applied to them who hold the truth can by no shew of reason be proved to be now the Character to know which hold the true Faith Secondly is it necessary they must be called Catholicks by all men or only by themselves and men of their own way if it be sufficient that they of their own way call them Catholicks then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholick Faith as is asserted by Athanasius De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in but if this was enough who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men to evidence to the world that their Heresies are truths by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholicks But if it be necessary that they must be generally called Catholicks by them who differ from them then it would likewise follow that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth to take away from the holders of truth that certain Character whereby they may be known to hold truth if they refuse to call these holders of truth by the name of Catholick and it will likewise follow that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers and not from their own Doctrines and Positions And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holders of the truth for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholicks nor acknowledge them to be truly such but to be Schismaticks We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholicks or Pseudocatholicks and when ever any Protestants call them Catholicks they mean those who call themselves so and would be so owned in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders saying he was the stone which the builders refused Thirdly Nor is it possible there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholick to shew who hold the truth more than was in the Old Testament in being called the Children of the Prophets and the Covenant which God made with Abraham the followers of Moses and the Keepers of the Law which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews in and after the times of Christ Fifthly Nor is it the mark of an Heretick to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholick for if
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
is a contingency and notwithstanding the virtue of Tradition might have been otherwise as appeared in the Eastern Churches under Arianism Yea the reason why these Doctrines are preserved intire among the Romanists is probably this that as they have been and are delivered by them from the Scriptures they are also delivered in certain forms of words and in those Creeds which were received from those Ancient Churches and Councils who were not erroneous but agreed to the Scripture Now whereas their Tradition directs to receive what hath been delivered and the things delivered have been some by Councils truly Catholick and other things by erroneous Councils it may well be that Tradition may in some things deliver rightly and yet either omit the delivery of other things or deliver them amiss And if there had been nothing more to have preserved these Doctrines in the Western Church but what was in the necessary virtue of Tradition the Romish Church not here to mention any thing of Arian Popes might have lost these points as well as the Eastern long since did where Tradition lost this virtue of preserving them Now that it may appear how vainly this Discourser would conclude the certainty of Tradition from the things propounded in these Queries I shall mention some parallel Cases to which the substance of what is here questioned may be applied As 1. Concerning Gentilism To follow this Authour I would ask was not the Belief of a God and what things we agree in constantly preserved by Tradition among them now by what virtue did Tradition perform this may we not by the same virtue of Tradition receive what they delivered concerning the way of Gods Worship and would not this Tradition as well have continued all other things if any such had been delivered Thus it would plead for Gentilism 2. How would this plead for Judaism Did not Tradition amongst them continue till Christs time the Doctrine of Circumcision of the Sabbath of Sacrifices and of a Messias and must they not needs be in the right in all other matters of delivery though they were condemned by Christ and his Apostles 3. See how these Queries would plead against all possibility of forgetfulness When I have read a Book over and am certain I rightly remember some clauses in it may I thence conclude that by the same virtue of memory I remember these I should have remembred all other clauses if there had been any and therefore certainly there was no more in the Book than I can remember Or if I should conclude that because I am certain that I remember some passages which happened when I was a Child therefore by the same virtue that these things were delivered to my memory I also remember aright all things then done who would not see that this is a meer vain piece of Sophistry since some things may be more fully understood than others and more heedfully observed the impression upon many occasions more deeply imprinted and the remembrance of them more frequently repeated whence some things may be remembered and others not and the same causes may be assigned in matters of Religion To his 4. Qu. I answer Things may be received as delivered ever when yet there was no ever-delivery which I will manifest in answer to the following § where he would prove the contrary § 3. He layes down this effect The present perswasion of Catholicks that their Faith hath descended from Christ and his Apostles uninterruptedly which must for its Cause have Traditions Ever-Indeficiency § 4. To prove this he layes his first Principle That Age which holds Faith so delivered cannot change nor know any change of it because no man much less a whole Age can hold contrary to knowledge nor here change without knowledge To this I answer That supposing the abovementioned perswasion this may rise from other causes besides Traditions indeficiency Yea this his first Principle to prove the contrary is very weak For first it is very easie to conceive that mistaken Explications of Points of Faith may be held by a present Generation as having been matters of Faith ever delivered and yet may be really different from the things delivered and so include a change This is the more apt to take place if such explicated points seem plausibly declared and are either abetted by men of great fame or serve an interest and this is as possible as it is for men to be deceived in their conceptions about things not in express terms delivered since it is certain that many points now owned as matters of Faith in the Romish Church were not expresly and in such terms delivered of old yea this Authour acknowledgeth as much p. 206 207. Many such explicated points have in Councils been declared to be de fide though not only against the minds of many who before asserted the contrary but of others who in the said Councils opposed it Secondly to deliver a Doctrine as from Christ where they change or know some change of it is much more probable in the Roman Church than in others if any ignorance possess the Leaders or any interest and private designs take place upon some few of them For since the Tradition which particular persons have received must submit to the determination of a Council◠or else must they be anathematized how easie is it for some point de fide to be innovated if the Bishop of Rome and some few other men of note and fame through mistaken zeal or out of design should indeavour the having such a Point declared as a matter of Faith when he can send what Bishops he please or create new ones and many others may for want of circumspection comply in order to peace as some well disposed Bishops did unadvisedly with some of the Arian devices And in this case though there may be some withstanders yet may they not be numerous and therefore must sit still being overpowerred and will think they ought in the end to consent if they have received this Principle which many Papists imbrace That the determinations of such a Council are to determine their private judgments what is the Doctrine of the Church § 5. His second Principle is No Age could innovate any thing and deliver that thing as received by constant succession For the end of delivering it as so received must be to make the following Generation believe it Now if a whole Age should conspire to tell such a lie yet it is impossible it should be believed since they cannot blot out all Monuments which might undeceive and therefore the following Generation cannot believe unless they will believe what they know to be otherwise This Second Principle is unsound upon the same grounds with the other For as hath been now shewed there may happen such an innovation by the mistake or non-attendance of a considerable number especially in Councils who sometimes are too readily guided by some few eminent leading men who may act either out of mistake or some of
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
should not seem a sufficient answer without further proof of what is there intimated I shall undertake to evidence that the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the ancient Church against those Hereticks was such as was grounded upon Scripture as their Rule of Faith and that those Hereticks assertions were therefore rejected because they were contrary to these Scriptures Which I shall do in examining what were the grounds of Faith upon which the Catholick Fathers proceeded at the time of the four first General Councils in which were these Hereticks condemned as also Macedonius in the second Council SECT V. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council ARius being a Presbyter of Alexandria was for his Heretical Doctrine denying the eternal Godhead of the Son opposed and rejected by Alexander Bishop of that place and deposed from his Office by an Alexandrian Council Socr. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 6. upon which Alexander writes an Epistle to all his fellow Ministers wherein as he lays down many Scriptures which he declares to be full against the assertion of Arius so he there declares that the Arians when they had once determined to fight against Christ would not hear the words of our Lord. And he there likewise shews that whereas he had oftentimes overthrown them in unfolding the Divine Scriptures they as Chamaelions changed themselves The same Alexander of Alexandria in his Epistle to Alexander of Constantinople declares that the Arians assertion did tend to destroy the holy Scriptures and that in the Scriptures they pretended to urge they did offer violence to the holy Scriptures He likewise there urgeth the Scriptures against them with such expressions as these John is sufficient to instruct Paul doth declare manifestly But to leave this particular Bishop and come to the General Council When this famous Council of Nice was gathered together Constantine tells them Theodor. Hist Eccl. lib. 1. c. 7. that they had the Doctrine of the holy Spirit in writing for saith he the Evangelical and Apostolical Books and the Oracles of the ancient Prophets do evidently instruct us what we ought to think of Divine things wherefore rejecting all contentious strife let us receive a solution of such things as are questioned from the Divinely inspired speeches As this Council of Nice was put forth by Pisanus out of the Vatican Exemplar it is observable that they oft urge the same Scriptures which Alexander did urge against Arius and in the third Book of that Council The Bishops said by Eusebius In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God That was rejects was not and God takes away that he was not God believe the things that are written neither think nor inquire after things that are not written So that Council After the decision of this Council Socr. lib. 1. c. 5. shews that Eusebius writing of the Nicene Confession saies The form of Execration which is set after the Creed we thought fit to be received because it prohibits the using of words not written from whence almost all the confusion and disorder of the Churches do arise Wherefore when no Scripture of Divine inspiration useth these words concerning the Son that he was of things that were not and that it was once when he was not it is no way fit to speak or teach such things That this Council made Scripture their Rule of decision will yet further appear from the words of Constantine in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria recorded Socr. lib. 1. c. 6. where he declared That the Council had diligently examined all things and writing of the Arians he adds some blasphemed speaking and professing to believe things contrary to the Divinely inspired Scriptures and the Faith And Athanasius ad Epictetum speaks how powerful the Faith of Nice might be expected to be against Heresies which was professed according to the holy Scriptures I shall hereafter observe somewhat more out of Athanasius which will further declare that at the time of this Nicene Council of which he was a Member Scripture was the Rule made use of against the Arians SECT VI. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople THis Council not being called against Arius Nestorius Dioscorus or Eutyches which are mentioned by this Discourser but against Macedonius who denied the Divinity of the holy Spirit and other Hereticks I shall but briefly observe That Evagrius Hist Eccl. lib. 2. c. 4. declares the design of that Council to be to make manifest by Scripture-testimonies what they conceived about the Holy Ghost against them who adventured to reject his Lordship And if the testimony of Evagrius being a private Historian be not sufficient this very same thing was before him attested and declared concerning this second General Council in the definition of the General Council of Chalcedon Act. 5. And in the seventh Canon of this second Council where they declare how they will receive those that return from Heresie amongst other things concerning some of them are those words We receive them as Greeks and the first day we make them Christians and the second Catechumens and so we Catechize them and make them continue a long time in the Church and hear the holy Scriptures and then we Baptize them Doth it not hence appear that this Council owned the Scriptures as the way to the true Faith and establishment in it in that they would not receive Hereticks until they had been long hearers of it But I will not here neglect to mention that at the time of this Council Pope Damasus gathers a Council at Rome hearing of that at Constantinople where they declare That after all the Prophetical Apostolical and Evangelical Scriptures by which the Catholick Church by the grace of God is founded the Church of Rome is by some Synodical Decrees above other Churches And Christ himself said Thou art Peter Is not this testimony to be seen in their own Collectors of the Councils plain enough to shew what was in those daies owned by the Church of Rome as the main ground and foundation of Faith SECT VII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus THis Council was gathered against Nestorius when Coelestine was Bishop of Rome whose place was here supplied by Cyril of Alexandria That the Nestorians then did not pretend to Scripture for their Rule is probable in that Socr. lib. 7. c. 32. relates that they indeavoured to falsifie the Copies of the Scriptures as likewise in that an Epistle of the Nestorians to the people of Constantinople begins thus The Law is not delivered in writing but is placed in the minds of the Pastors which Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Ephesine Council Tom. 3. c. 7. And in the Epistle of Cyril to Comanus and Pontamion Act. Conc. Eph. Tom. 2.
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
makes use of to express the Discords and Rents in the Church of Corinth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are all of them enumerated in his Epistle to the Galatians tho there they be rendred by other English Words Gal. 5.20 among those Works of the Flesh concerning which we are told with earnestness of expression that they that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God And I think it considerable to be further observed that even in such Persons who are of a better Spirit and who in the main close with the other Duties and Rules of Christianity their miscarriage in this particular in not holding the Peace and Unity of the Church will lessen and abate the degrees of that future Glorious Reward which they would otherwise receive And this I think is sufficiently declared by St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians when he had rebuked the Corinthians for their Divisions one being of Paul and another of Apollo 1 Cor. 3.1 2 3 4. he still keeping his Eye upon and having an aim at these Divisions as appears from that third and the former part of the fourth Chapter tells them concerning them who hold to that only foundation which the Apostles laid If any shall build thereupon that which will not abide the Trial if his work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire v. 15. That is if any such person shall be engaged in Divisions in the Church or in any other unwarrantable Action or Doctrine it shall go the worse with him and be hereafter to his loss and though he escape Misery and obtain Life it shall be with the greater hazard danger and difficulty And therefore he who would seek his own greatest Good must carefully avoid this miscarriage Secondly Consider how extreamly opposite and contrary divisions in the Church are to Christ himself He is one Lord and Head he hath by one Spirit and in one Baptism established his Church to be one Body in one and the same Faith and Doctrine and upon the same Hope of their Calling and under the same Only God and Father of all And all these things S. Paul urgeth as containing in them special Obligations for Christian Unity Eph. 4.3 4 5 6. And besides all the Precepts of his Doctrine let us seriously observe how much our dying Saviour did earnestly and again desire and pray that all his Disciples might be one John 17.11 21 23. And this he twice expresseth in his Prayer to be desired to this end that the World might believe that thou hast sent me Now if it would be an unworthy thing for any person against all reason and duty to oppose the Dying Request of the best Friend he ever had in the World it must needs be unaccountable to act against that which was even at the point of Death so affectionately and importunately desired by our Lord and Saviour Was this aimed at by our Lord as an useful means to bring over the World to believe in him and will any who have any Honour for Christ or Love for Men be so uncharitable as to be engaged in any such Works as tend to keep off Men from Christianity and from obtaining Salvation by Jesus Christ But this is sufficiently intimated by our Saviour to be the sad effect of the Divisions in his Church To all this I shall further add that it is related by Crusius Turcograec lib. 3. part 1. p. 234. that it is the daily Prayer of the Turks that Christians may not be at Vnity And they who are of the Church of Rome express their delight and satisfaction in our Disagreements Baronius Annal. Eccles An. 344. n. 9. makes use of this as a considerable Argument against the truth of the Protestant Doctrine and Salmeron Tom. 9. Tr. 16. n. 1. declares that this is that which giveth them expectations of prevailing against us And now shall any who own themselves the true followers of Christ so undertake to contradict the dying Request of their Saviour as in the mean time to chuse that which complieth with and gratifieth the Desires both of the professed Enemies of his Religion and of those also who strangely corrupt and pervert his Doctrine and Gospel But after all this or whatsoever else may be spoken to this purpose there are two sorts of Men who I doubt are not like to be perswaded 1. I fear there are some fierce Men who are so far from having hearts inclined to do this Duty that they have not Patience to hear it but rather to turn angry and to cry out as the Lawyer did to our Saviour Thus saying thou reproachest us also But it will become them and others too to bethink themselves of the sad danger of all those persons who will not hearken but stop their Ears to such plain Duties as those of Peace and Unity are But these Truths must be spoken whether they will hear or whether they will forbear 2. And others there are who will acknowledg in general the Truth of all I have said of the great Sin and Evil of Schisms and Divisions And though they be engaged in the dividing Parties will plead their own Innocence and charge the fault of these Divisions wholly upon the order and constitution of our Church and not upon themselves Now here much might be said to shew that the Worship and Service of God in our Church is agreeable to the true Christian Rule and that on the other hand there are many things unaccountable yea and unlawful which are embraced without scruple by Dissenters and contended for by the dividing Parties But this would be too long for me to insist upon in my present Discourse Wherefore instead thereof I shall mention a sensible and ocular Demonstration that it is not the Constitution of our Church but the ill temper of dividing Spirits that is the true cause of our Divisions And that is this That when this Constitution was thrown aside between thirty and forty years since the Rents and Divisions of the Church were not by this means removed but to the grief of good Men they were greatly encreased thereby and the Spirits of many Men in this particular have been the worse ever since Let all of us therefore take heed to our selves that we keep in the paths of Peace and Vnity and let us mourn and pray for others who neglect them II. A second thing to be done in our turning to God is the forsaking all Viciousness and Debauchery and becoming Serious and Sober Vice defiles and debaseth the nature of Man It is so much against Reason and Conscience and is so far condemned by the common sense of Mankind that it generally passeth for a disparagement in the World And Viciousness is so much against the interest of Men and the good of the World that thereupon it is prohibited and punished by the Laws even of Barbarous Nations This is