Religion when he weakly forsook it Protestants are not renouncers of tradition for we allow all Catholic traditions that can prove themselves to be such but we finding little or nothing excepting this that the Bible is the word of God and that the Bible contains all the will of God for our salvation all doctrines of faith and life little or nothing else I say descending to us by an Universal tradition therefore we have reason to adhere to Scripture and renounce as I. S. is pleased to call it all pretence of tradition of any matters of faith not plainly set down in the Bible But now since we renounce no tradition but such as is not and cannot be prov'd to be competent and Catholic I hope with the leave of I. S. we may discourse out of Scriptures and Councils Fathers and reason history and instances For we believe tradition when it is credible and we believe what two or three honest men say upon their knowledge and we make no scruple to believe that there is an English Plantation in the Barbadoes because many tell us so who have no reason to deceive us so that we are in a very good capacity of making use of Scriptures and Councils c. But I must deal freely with Mr. S. though we do believe these things upon credible testimony yet we do not think the testimony infallible and we do believe many men who yet pretend not to infallibility And if nothing were Credible but what is infallible then no man had reason to believe his Priest or his Father We are taught by Aristotle that that is credible Quod pluribus quod sapientibus quod omnibus videtur and yet these are but degrees of probability and yet are sufficient to warrant the transaction of all humane affairs which unless where God is pleased to interpose are not capable of greater assurance Even the miracles wrought by our Blessed Saviour though they were the best arguments in the world to prove the Divinity of his person and his mission yet they were but the best argument we needed and understood but although they were infinitely sufficient to convince all but the malicious yet there were some so malicious who did not allow them to be demonstrations but said that he did cast out Devils by Beelzebub Here we live by faith and not by knowledge and therefore it is an infinite goodness of God to give proofs sufficient for us and fitted to our natures and proportion'd to our understanding but yet such as may neither extinguish faith nor destroy the nature of hope which although it may be so certain and sure as to be a stedfast anchor of the soul yet it may have in it something of Natural uncertainty and yet fill us with all comfort and hope in believing So that we allow tradition to be certain if it be universal and to be credible according to the degrees of its Universality and disinterested simplicity and therefore we have as much right to use the Scriptures and Fathers as I. S. and all his party and all his following talk in the sequel of this second way relying upon a ground which I have discovered to be false must needs fall of it self and signifie nothing But although this point be soon washt off yet I suppose the charge which will recoyle upon himself will not so easily be put by For though it appears that Protestants have right to use Fathers and Councils Scriptures and reason yet I. S. and his little convention of four or five Brothers of the tradition have clearly disintitled themselves to any use of these For if the oral tradition of the present Church be the infallible and only rule of faith then there is no Oracle but this one and the decrees of Councils did bind only in that age they were made as being part of the tradition of that age but the next age needed it not as giving testimony to it self and being it 's own rule And therefore when a question is to be disputed you can go no whither to be tried but to the tradition of the present Church and this is not to be proved by a series and order of records and succession but if you will know what was formerly believed you must only ask what is believed now for now rivers run back to their springs and the Lamb was to blame for troubling the Wolf by drinking in the descending river for the lower is now higher and you are not to prove by what is past that the present is right but by the present you prove what was past and Harry the seventh is before Harry the sixth and Children must teach their Parents and therefore it is to be hop'd in time may be their Elders But by this means Fathers and Councils are made of no use to these Gentlemen who have greatly obliged the world by telling us a short way to Science and though our life be short yet art is shorter especially in our way in Theology Concerning which there needs no labour no study no reading but to know of the present Church what was always believed and taught and what ought to be so Nay what was done or what was said or what was written is to be told by the present Church which without further trouble can infallibly assure us And upon this account the Jesuits have got the better of the Jansenists for though these men weakly and fondly deny such words to be in Jansenius yet the virtual Church can tell better whether they be or no in Jansenius or rather it matters not whether they be or no for it being the present sense of the Pope he may proceed to condemnation But I. S. offers at some reason for this For saith he Fathers being eminent witnesses to immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received and Councils representatives of the Church their strengths as proofs nay their very existence is not known till the notion of the Church be known which is part of their definition and to which they relate This is but part of his argument which I yet must consider apart because every proposition of his argument hath in it something very untrue which when I have remark'd I shall consider the whole of it altogether And here first I consider that it is a strange proposition to say that the existence of the Fathers is not known till the notion or definition of the Church be known For who is there of any knowledge in any thing of this nature that hath not heard of S. Austin S. Jerom S. Ambrose or S. Gregory The Spaniards have a proverb There was never good Oglio without Bacon nor good Sermon without S. Austin and yet I suppose all the people of Spain that hear the name of S. Austin it may be five hundred times every Lent make no question of the Existence of S. Austin or that there was such a man as he and yet I believe not very many of them can tell
the definition of the Church Thousands of the people and the very boys see the pictures of S. Austin sold in Fairs and Markets and yet are not so wise as to know the notion or nature of the Church and indeed many wiser people both among them and us will be very much to seek in the definition when your learned men amongst your selves dispute what that nature or definition is But it may be though I. S. put Fathers and Councils into the same proposition yet he means it of Councils only and that it is the existence of Councils which is not to be had without the notion or definition of Church and this is as false as the other for what tradesman in Germany Italy France or Spain is not well enough assur'd that there was such a thing as the Council of Trent and yet to the knowing of this it was not necessary that they should be told how Church is to be defin'd Indeed they can not know what it is to be Church-Councils unless they know as much of Church as they do of Councils But what think we Could not men know there was a Council at Ariminum more numerous than that at Nice unless they had the notion of Church Certainly the Church was no part of the definition of that Council nor did it relate save only as enemies are relatives to each other and if they be yet it is hard to say they are parts of each others definition But it may be I. S. means this saying of good and Catholic Councils yet they also may be known to have been without skill in definitions Definitions do not tell An sit but quid sit the first is to be supposed before any definition is to be inquir'd after Well! but how shall the being or nature of Church be known that 's his second proposition and tells us a pretty thing Nor is the being or nature of Church known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith who not which must be manifested by their having or not having the true Rule of faith Why but does the having the true rule of faith make a man faithful Cannot a man have the true rule of faith and yet forsake it or not make use of it or hide the truth in unrighteousness Does the having the best antidote in the world make a man healthful though he live disorderly and make no use of it But to let that pass among the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That which is more remarkable is That the being or Nature of Church is not known till it be certainly known who are faithful or have true faith I had thought that the way in the Church of Rome of pronouncing men faithful or to have true faith had been their being in the Church and that adhering to the Church whose being and truth they must therefore be presupposed to believe had been the only way of pronouncing them faithful which I suppos'd so certain amongst them that though they have no faith at all but to believe as the Church believes had been a sufficient declaration of the faith of ignorant men But it seems the Tables are turned It is not enough to go to the Church but first they must be assured that they are faithful and have true faith before they know any thing of the Church But if the testimony of the present Church be the only rule of faith as I. S. would fain make us believe then it had been truer said a man can not know the being or nature of faith till he be well acquainted with the Church And must the Rule of faith be tried by the Church and must the Church be tried by the rule of faith Is the testimony of the Church the measure and touchstone of faith and yet must we have the faith before we have any knowledge whether there be a Church or no Are they both first and both prove one another and is there here no circle But however I am glad that the evidence of truth hath brought this Gentleman to acknowledge that our way is the better way and that we must first chuse our religion and then our Church and not first chuse our Church and then blindly follow the religion of it whatsoever it be But then also it will follow that I. S. hath destroyed his main hypothesis and the oral tradition of the present Church is not the Rule of faith for that must first be known before we can know whether there be such a thing as the Church or no whose rule that is pretended to be And now follows his conclusion which is nought upon other accounts Wherefore saith he since the properties of the Rule of Faith do all agree to Tradition our Rule and none of them to theirs it follows the Protestant or Renouncer of Tradition knows not what is either right Scripture Father or Council and so ought not to meddle with either of them To this I have already answered and what I. S. may do hereafter when he happens to fall into another fit of demonstration I know not but as yet he hath been very far from doing what he says he hath done that is evidently prov'd what he undertook in this question And I suppose I have in a following Section of this book evidently prov'd that Tradition such I mean as the Church of Rome uses in this inquiry leads into error or may do as often as into truth and therefore though we may and do use tradition as a probable argument in many things and some as certain in one or two things to which in the nature of the thing it is apt to minister yet it is infinitely far from being the rule of faith the whole Christian faith But I wonder why I. S. saith that for want of Tradition we cannot know either right Scripture Fathers or Councils I do not think that by tradition they do know all the books of Scriptures Do they know by Universal or Apostolical Tradition that the Epistle to the Hebrews is Canonical Scripture The Church of Rome had no tradition for it for above four hundred years and they receiv'd it at last from the tradition of the Greek Church and then they not the Roman Church are the great conservers of tradition and they will get nothing by that And what universal tradition can they pretend for those books which are rejected by some Councils as particularly that of Laodicea which is in the Code of the Universal Church and some of the Fathers which yet they now receive certainly in that age which rejected them there was no Catholic tradition for them and those Fathers which as I. S. expresses it were eminent witnesses to their immediate posterity or children of the Churches doctrine received in all likelyhood did teach their posterity what themselves professed and therefore it is possible the Fathers in that Council and some others of the same sentiment might joyn in saying something which might deceive their
Sermon without meaning my book for that came out a pretty while after he does like the two penny Almanack-makers though he calculated it for the meridian of the Court Sermon as he calls it yet without any sensible error it may serve for Ireland It may be I. S. had an oral tradition for this way of proceeding especially having followed so authentic a president for it as the Author of the two Sermons called the Primitive rule before the reformation who goes upon the same infallible and thrifty way saying These two tracts as they are named Sermons are an answer to Dr. Pierce but as they may better be styled two common places so they are a direct answer to Dr. Taylon So that here are two things which are Sermons and no Sermons as you please not Sermons but common places and yet they are not altogether common places but they in some sense are Sermons unless Sermon and common place happen to be all one but how the same thing should be an answer to Dr. P. as he gives them one name and by giving them another name to the same purpose should be a direct answer to me who speak of other matters and by other arguments and to other purposes and in another manner I do not yet understand But I suppose it be meant as in I. S. his way and that it relies upon this first and a self evident principle That the same thing when called by another name is apt to do new and wonderful things It is a piece of Mr. White 's and I. S. his new Metaphysics which we silly men have not the learning to understand But it matters not what they say so they do but stop the mouths of the people that call upon them to say something to every new book that they may without apparent lying telling them the book is answered For to answer to confute means nothing with them but to speak the last word Well! but so it is I. S. hath ranged a great many of my quotations under heads and says so many are confuted by the first Corollary and so many by the second and so on to the ninth and tenth and some of them are raw and unapplyed some set for shew and some not home to the point and some wilfully represented and these come under the second or third head and perhaps of divers of the others To all this I have one short answer that the quotations which he reduces under the first head or the second or the third might for ought appears be rank'd under any other as well as these For he hath prov'd none to belong to any but Magisterially points with his finger and directs them to their several stations of confutation Thus he supposes I am confuted by an argument of his next to that of Mentiris Bellarmine And indeed in this way it were easie to confute Bellarmines three Volumes with the labour of three pages writing But this way was most fit to be taken by him who quotes the Fathers by oral tradition and not ocular inspection however if he had not particularly considered these things he ought not generally to have condemned them before he tried But this was an old trick and noted of some by S. Cyprian Corneliâ— Fr. epist. 42. edit Viderint autem qui vel furori suo Rigalt Paris 1648. vel libidini servientes divinae legis ac sanctitatis immemores jactitare interim gestiunt quae probare non possunt cum innocentiam destruere atque expugnare non valeant satis habent fama mendacii falsorum ore maculas inspergere I have neither will nor leisure to follow him in this extravagancy it will I hope be to better purpose that in the following Sections I shall justifie all my quotations against his and the calumnies of some others and press them and others beyond the objections of the wiser persons of his Church from whence these new men have taken their answers and made use of them to little purposes and therefore I shall now pass over the particulars of the quotations referring them to their places and consider if there be any thing more material in his eighth Way by which he pretends to blow up my grounds and my arguments deriv'd from reason The eighth Way THe eighth Way is to pick out the principles I rely on and to shew their weakness It is well this eighth Way is a great distance off from his first way or else I. S. would have no excuse for forgetting himself so palpably having at first laid to my charge that I went upon no grounds no principles But I perceive principles might be found in the Dissuasive if the man had a mind to it nay maine and fundamental principles and self evident to me And yet such is his ill luck that he picks out such which he himself says I do not call so And even here also he is mistaken too for the first he instances is Scripture and this not only I but all Protestants acknowledge to be the foundation of our whole faith But of this he says we shall discourse afterwards The second principle I rely upon at least he says I seem to do so is We all acknowledge that the whole Church of God kept the faith intire and transmitted faithfully to after ages the whole faith Well what says he to this principle He says this principle as to the positive part is good and assertive of tradition It is so of the Apostolical tradition for they deliver'd the doctrine of Christ to their Successors both by preaching and by writing And what hath I. S. got by this Yes give him but leave to suppose that this delivery of the doctrine of Christ was only by oral tradition for the three first ages for he is pleas'd so to understand the extent of the primitive Church and then he will infer that the third age could deliver it to the fourth and that to the fifth and so to us If they were able there is no question but they were willing for it concern'd them to be so and therefore it was done Though all this be not true for we see by a sad experience that too few in the world are willing to do what it concerns them most to do Yet for the present I grant all this And what then therefore oral tradition is the only rule of faith Soft and fair therefore the third age deliver'd it to the fourth and so on but not all the particulars by oral tradition but by the holy Scriptures as I shall largely prove in the proper place But to I. S. the Bells ring no tune but Whittington A third principle he says is this The present Roman doctrines which are in difference were invisible and unheard of in the first and best antiquity I know not why he calls this one of my principles unless all my propositions be principles as all his arguments are demonstrations It is indeed a conclusion which I have
Glossator falsly applies to all the works of the Fathers against the mind of the Fathers themselves quoted by Gratian in the ninth distinction and against the sense of Gelasius himself in that very chapter which he refers to in the fifteenth distinction It may be I. S. had not so much to say for his bold proposition as this it self comes to which if he had ever seen he must needs have seen in the same place very much to the contrary But that not only the Fathers themselves have taught him to speak more modestly of them than he does and that divers leading men of his Church have reprov'd this foolish affirmative of his he may be satisfied if he please to read Aquinas Authoritatibus Canonicae Scripturae utitur sacra doctrina ex necessitate argumentando Primâ parte q. 1. part 8. ad 2. arg authoritatibus autem aliorum Doctorum Ecclesiae quasi arguendo ex propriis sed probabiliter Now I know not what hopes of escaping I. S. can have by his restrictive terms the testimony of Fathers speaking of them properly as such for besides that the words mean nothing and the testimony of Fathers is the testimony of Fathers as such or it is just nothing at all Besides this I say that Aquinas affirms that their whole authority and therefore of Fathers as such is only probable and therefore certainly not infallible But this is so fond a proposition of I. S. that I am asham'd to speak any more of it and if he were not very ignorant of what his Church holds Lib. 1. adv haeres c. 7. he would never have said it Lib. 7. loc Theol c. 3. n. 4. c. But for his better information I desire the Gentleman to read Alphonsus a Castro Melehior Canus and Bellarmine De verb. Dei lib. 3. c. 10. Sect. Dices It is not therefore the constant doctrine of the Romanists that the Fathers are infallible for I never read or heard any man say it but I. S. and neither is it the avowed doctrine of that Church unless he will condemn all them for heretics that deny it some of which I have already nam'd and more will be added upon this occasion Well! but how shall we know that the Fathers testimony is a testimony of Fathers speaking properly as such for this doughty Question we are to inquire after in the pursuit of I. S. his mines and crackers He says in two cases they speak as Fathers 1. When they declare it the doctrine of the present Church of their time 2. When they write against any man as an heretic or his Tenet as heresie It seems then in these the Fathers testimony is infallible Let us try this 1. All or any thing of this may be done by Fathers supposed such but really not so and if it be not infallibly certain which are and which are not the writings of the Fathers we are nothing the neerer though it were agreed that the true Fathers testimony is infallible Or 2. If the book alledged was the book of the Father pretended and not of an obscure or heretical person yet it may be the words are interpolated or the testimony some way or other corrupted and then the testimony is not infallible when there is no absolute certainty of the witnesses themselves or the records and what causes there are of rejecting very many and doubting more and therefore in matters of present interest and Question of Uncertainty and fallibility in too many is known to every learned man and confessed by writers of both sides 2. It is very seldom that any of the Fathers do use that expression of saying This or this is the doctrine of the Church and therefore if they speak as Fathers never but when these two cases happen the writings of the Fathers will be of very little use in I. S.'s way 3. And yet after all this if we shall descend to instances I. S. will not dare to justifie what he says Was Justin Martyr infallible when he said that all Christians who were pure believers did believe the Millenary doctrine Certainly they were the Church for the others he says were such as denied the resurrection But was Gennadius or else S. Austin fathers and they infallible in the book de dogmatibus Ecclesiasticis in which he intends to give an account of the doctrine of the Church I. S. Seems to acknowledge it by affirming a saying out of that book to have been then de fide which because it had been oppos'd by very many of the fathers he had no reason to affirm but upon the witness of Gennadius putting it into his book of Ecclesiastical doctrines and he afterwards calls it the testimony of Gennadius delivering the doctrine of the Catholic Church Pag. 315. It is there said that all men shall die Christ only excepted that death might reign from Adam upon all Hanc rationem maxima Patrum turba tradente suscepimus This account we have receiv'd from the tradition of the greatest company of the Fathers If this be a tradition delivered by the greatest number of the fathers then 1. Tradition is not a sure rule of saith for this tradition is false and expresly against Scripture and 2. It follows that Tradition was not then esteemed a sure rule of faith for although this was a tradition from so great a troop of fathers at he says it was yet there were in his time alii aeque Catholici eruditi viri others as good Catholics and as learned that believ'd as S. Paul believ'd that we shall not all dye but we shall all be chang'd and however it be yet all that troop of fathers he speaks of from whence the tradition came were not infallible for they were actually deceiv'd Now this instance is of great consideration and force against I. S. his first and self evident principle concerning oral tradition For all that number of fathers if the rule of faith had been only oral tradition would horribly have disturbed the pure current of tradition and of necessity must have prevailed in I. S. his way or at least the contrary which is the truth and expresly affirm'd in Scripture could never have had the irrefragable testimony of oral tradition But thanks be to God in this the Church adher'd to the surer word of Prophecy the Scripture prov'd the surer rule of faith But again S. Austin or Gennadius says That after Christs resurrection the souls of all the Saints are with Christ and that going forth from the body they go to Christ expecting the resurrection of their bodies This he delivers as the Ecclesiastical doctrine and do the Patrons of Purgatory believe him in this to be infallible for my part I think S. Austin is in the right but I think I. S. will not grant this to be the avowed and constant doctrine of his Church The second case in which they speak as Fathers is when they write against any man as an
or the authority of plain Scriptures but this will be nothing to I. S. his hypothesis for if a part of the Catholic Fathers did deliver the contrary there was no irrefragable Catholic Oral tradition of the Church when so considerable a part of the Church delivered the contrary as their own doctrine which is not to be imagin'd they would have done if the consent of the Church of that age was against it And if we can suppose this case that one part of the Fathers should say this is the doctrine of the Church when another part of the Fathers are of a contrary judgment either they did not say true and then the Fathers testimony speaking as witnesses of the doctrine of the Church of their age is not infallible or if they did say true yet their testimony was not esteemed sufficient because the other Fathers who must needs know it if it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church then do not take it for truth or sufficient And that Maxime which was received in the Council of Trent that a Major part of voices was sufficient for decreeing in a matter of reformation but that a decree of faith could not be made if a considerable part did contradict relies upon the same reason faith is every mans duty and every mans concern and every mans learning and therefore it is not to be supposed that any thing can be an article of faith in which a number of wise and good men are at difference either as Doctors or as witnesses And of this we have a great testimony from Vincentius Lirinensis Common c. 3. In ipsa item Ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc est enim verè propriéque Catholicum Not that which a part of the Fathers but that which is said every where always and by all that is truly and properly Chatholic and this says he is greatly to be taken care of in the Catholic Church From all these premisses it will follow that the Dissuasive did or might to very good purpose make use of the Fathers and if I did there or shall in the following Sections make it appear that in such an age of the Ancient Church the doctrines which the Church of Rome at this day imposes on the world as articles of faith were not then accounted articles of faith but either were spoken against or not reckoned in their Canon and Confessions it will follow that either they can make new articles of faith or at least cannot pretend these to be articles of faith upon the stock of Oral Catholic tradition for this cannot be at all if the Catholic Fathers were though Unequally divided in their testimony The rest of I. S. his last Way or Mine is but bragging and indeed this whole Appendix of his is but the dregs of his sure-footing and gives but very little occasion of useful and material discourse But he had formerly promised that he would give an account of My relying on Scripture and here was the place reserved for it but when he comes to it it is nothing at all but a reviling of it calling of it a bare letter Unsens't outward characters Ink thus figur'd in a book but whatsoever it is he calls it my main most fundamental and in a manner my only principle though he according to his usual method of saying what comes next had said before that I had no Principle and that I had many Principles All that he adds afterwards is nothing but the same talk over again concerning the Fathers of which I have given an account I hope full enough and I shall add something more when I come to speak concerning the justification of the grounds of the Protestant and Christian religion Only that I may be out of I. S. his debt I shall make it appear that he and his party are the men that go upon no grounds that in the Church of Rome there is no sure-footing no certain acknowledged rule of faith but while they call for an assent above the nature and necessity of the thing they have no warrant beyond the greatest Uncertainty and cause their people to wander that I may borrow I. S. his expression in the very sphere of contingency THE SECOND PART OF The Dissuasive from Popery The first Book SECTION I. Of the Church shewing that The Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith THat the Scriptures are infallibly true though it be acknowledged by the Roman Church yet this is not an infallible rule to them for several reasons 1. Because it is imperfect and insufficient as they say to determine all matters of Faith 2. Because it is not sufficient to determine any that shall be questioned not onely because its authority and truth is to be determin'd by something else that must be before it but also because its sense and meaning must be found out by something after it And not he that writes or speaks but he that expounds it gives the Rule so that Scripture no more is to rule us then matter made the world until something else gives it form and life and motion and operative powers it is but iners massa not so much as a clod of earth And they who speak so much of the obscurity of Scripture of the seeming contradictions in it of the variety of readings and the mysteriousness of its manner of delivery can but little trust that obscure dark intricate and at last imperfect book for a perfect clear Rule But I shall not need to drive them out of this Fort which they so willingly of themselves quit If they did acknowledge Scripture for their Rule all Controversies about this would be at an end and we should all be agreed but because they do not they can claim no title here That which they pretend to be the infallible Judge and the measure of our faith and is to give us our Rule is the Church and she is a rock the pillar and ground of truth and therefore here they fix Now how little assurance they have by this Confidence will appear by many considerations 1. It ought to be known and agreed upon what is meant by this word Church or Ecclesia For it is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Church cannot be a Rule or Guide if it be not known what you mean when you speak the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said Suidas His body viz. mystical Christ calls his Church Among the Greeks it signifies a Convention or Assembly met together for publick imployment and affairs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Aristophanes understands it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Is there not a Convocation or an Assembly called for this Plutus Now by Translation this word is us'd amongst Christians to signifie all them who out of the whole mass of mankind are called and come and are gathered together by the voice and call of God to
and understood the meaning of the Council as well as any except the Legats and their secret Juncto wrote books against one another and both sides brought the words of the Council for themselves and yet neither prevailed Sancta Croce the Legat who well enough understood that the Council intended not to determine the truth yet to silence their wranglings in the Council let them dispute abroad but the Council would not end it by clearing the ambiguity And since this became the mode of Christendom to do so upon design it can be no wonder that things are left Uncertain for all the Decrees of Councils It is well therefore that the Church of Rome requires Faith to her Conclusions greater than her Premisses can perswade It is the only way of escaping that is left them as being conscious that none of their Arguments can enforce what they would have believ'd And to the same purpose it is that they teach the Conclusions and definitions of Councils to be infallible though their Arguments and Proceedings be fallible and pitiful and false If they can perswade the world to this they have got the Goal only it ought to be confess'd by them that do submit to the definition that they do so mov'd to it by none of their Reasons but they know not why I do not here enter into the particular examination of the matters determined by many Councils by which it might largely and plainly appear how greatly General Councils have been mistaken This hath been observed already by many very learned men And the Council of Trent is the greatest instance of it in the world as will be made to appear in the procedure of this Book But the Romanists themselves by rejecting divers General Councils have as I have above observ'd given proof enough of this That all things are here Uncertain I have prov'd and that if there be error here there can be no certainty any where else Bellarmine confesses So that I have thus far discharg'd what I undertook But beyond this there are some other particulars fit to be consider'd by which it will yet further appear that in the Church of Rome unless they will rely upon the plain Scriptures they have no sure foundation instance in those several Articles which some of the Roman Doctors say are de fide and others of their own party when they are press'd with them say they are not de fide but the opinions of private Doctors That if a Prince turn Heretick that is be not of the Roman party he presently loses all right to his temporal Dominions That the Pope can change Kingdoms taking from one and giving to another this is esteemed by the Jesuits a matter of Faith It is certa indubitata definita virorum clarissimorum sententia said Creswel the Jesuit in his Philopater F. Garnet said more it is Totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta doctrina It is receiv'd saith Creswel by the whole School of Divines and Canon-Lawyers nay it is Certum de fide It is matter of Faith I know that the English Priests will think themselves injur'd if you impute this Doctrine to them or say It is the Catholick Doctrine and yet that this power in Temporals that he can depose Kings sometimes is in the Pope Contr. Barclai cap. 3. Non opinio sed certitudo apud Catholicos est said Bellarmine It is more than an opinion it is certain amongst the Catholicks Now since this is not believ'd by all that call themselves Catholicks and yet by others of greatest note it is said to be the Catholick Doctrine to be certain to be a point of Faith I desire to know Where this Faith is founded which is the house of Faith where is their warrant their authority and foundation of their Article For if an English Scholar in the Colledge at Rome had in confession to F. Parsons Creswel Garnet Bellarmine or any of their parties confessed that he had spoken against the Pope's power of deposing Kings in any case or of any pretence of killing Kings it is certain they could not have absolved him till he had renounc'd his Heresy and they must have declar'd that if he had died in that perswasion he must have been damned what rest shall this poor man have or hope for He pretends that the Council of Constance had declar'd for his opinion and therefore that his and not theirs is certain and matter of Faith They tell him no and yet for their Article of Faith have neither Father nor Council Scripture nor Reason Tradition nor Ancient Precedent where then is this foundation upon which the article is built It lies low as low as Hell but can never be made to appear and yet amongst them Articles of faith grow up without root and without foundation but a man may be threatned with damnation amongst them for any trifle and affrighted with clappers and men of clouts If they have a clear and certain rule why do their Doctors differ about the points of faith They say some things are articles of faith and yet do not think fit to give a reason of their faith for indeed they cannot But if this be the way of it amongst Roman Doctors they may have many faiths as they have Breviaries in several Churches secundum usum Sarum secundum usum Scholae Romanae and so without ground or reason even the Catholicks become hereticks one to another it is by chance if it happen to be otherwise 2. What makes a point to be de fide If it be said The decision of a General Council Then since no General Council hath said so then this proposition is not de fide that what a General Council says is true is to be believed as matter of faith for if the authority be not de fide then how can the particulars of her determination be de fide for the conclusion must follow the weaker part and if the Authority it self be left in uncertainty the Decrees cannot be infallible 3. As no man living can tell that a Council hath proceeded rightly so no man can tell when an Article of faith is firmly decreed or when a matter is sufficiently propounded or when the Pope hath perfectly defin'd an article of all this the Canon law is the Greatest testimony in the world where there is Council against Council Pope against Pope and among so many decrees of faith and manners it cannot be told what is and what is not certain For when the Popes have sent their rescripts to a Bishop or any other Prelate to order an affair of life or doctrine either he wrote that with an intent to oblige all Christendom or did not If not why is it put into the body of the laws for what is a greater signature or can pass a greater obligation then the Authentick Code of laws But if these were written with an intent to oblige all Christendom how come they to be prejudic'd
words of Scripture and the Apostles Creed for a sufficient rule of their faith but are threatned with damnation if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determin'd and yet they neither do nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest or Confessor it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing and be of any religion and trust to any Article as they shall choose and find to their purpose The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures they both not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith and so the most learned and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other and yet Master White who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours affirms that it is not the Catholick position That all its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent gives a very good account of it and makes it excellent sense Thus Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture saith the Council and wonder not for saith Master White all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture You may believe so if you please for the contrary is not a Catholick doctrine But if these two things do not agree better then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says the People know not that but as their Priest teaches them And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion yet that the Priests themselves do not know it or wilfully mis-report it and therefore that the people cannot tell it it is too evident in this instance and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves about many considerable Articles in their Catholick religion Vide Wadding of Immac oncept p. 282. p. 334. alibi Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena Now they not relying on the way of God fall into the hands of men who teach them according to the interest of their order or private fancy and expound their rules by measures of their own but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it and is not always as appears in the instance now set down faithful in relating of it but first consens himself by his subtilty and then others by his confidence and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way when God hath so plainly given them a better and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture and in the Apostolical Creed in which they can suffer no illusion and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believ'd IV. The next thing I observe is that they all talking of the Church as of a charm and sacred Amulet yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where or how infallibly to find this Church I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry by shewing that the Church is that body which they do not rely upon but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. cap. 17. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis eam Ecclesiam requiramus cap. 3. affirms that the Church is no whereto be found but in Praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus in the Scriptures only And he gives but one great note of it and that is adhering to the head Jesus Christ for the Church is Christ's body who by charity are united to one another and to Christ their Head and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation And he adds no other mark but that Christ's Church is not this or that viz. not of one denomination but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head Bellarm. de Eccles Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia not Jesus Christ but the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome and the Greek Church and indeed of all other Churches of the world is so far from being a sign to know the Church by that it is apparent they have no ground of their Faith but the great Question of Christendom and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves is their foundation And this is so much the more considerable because concerning very many Heads of their Church it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ but the basest of Criminals and Enemies of all godliness And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked they could not be certain that they were members of Christ or that they were not of their Father the Devil The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition and Judas fell from it by transgression But the uncertainties are yetgreater Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church because no man can be certain who is true Pope For the Pope if he be a Simoniac is ipso facto no Pope as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal which when he broke the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain who intended to accuse him of Simony but it broke the Pope's heart and so he escaped here and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent and yet not to be seen in it and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome he forbad the Archbishop of
things we cannot certainly know that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church how shall the poor Roman Catholick be at rest in his inquiry Here is in all this nothing but uncertainty of truth or certainty of error And what is needful to be added more I might tire my self and my Reader if I should enumerate all that were very considerable in this inquiry I shall not therefore insist upon their uncertainties in their great and considerable Questions about the number of the Sacraments which to be Seven is with them an Article of Faith and yet since there is not amongst them any authentick definition of a Sacrament and it is not nor cannot be a matter of Faith to tell what is the form of a Sacrament therefore it is impossible it should be a matter of Faith to tell how many they are for in this case they cannot tell the number unless they know for what reason they are to be accounted so The Fathers and School-men differ greatly in the definition of a Sacrament and consequently in the numbring of them S. Cyprian and S. Bernard reckon washing the Disciples feet to be a Sacrament and S. Austin called omnem ritunt cultus Divini a Sacrament and otherwhile he says there are but two and the Schoolmen dispute whether or no a Sacrament can be defin'd And by the Council of Trent Clandestine Marriages are said to be a Sacrament and yet that the Church always detested them which indeed might very well be for the blessed Eucharist is a Sacrament but yet private Masses and Communions the Ancient Church always did detest except in the cases of necessity But then when at Trent they declar'd them to be Nullities it would be very hard to prove them to be Sacraments All the whole affair in their Sacrament of Order is a body of contingent propositions They cannot agree where the Apostles receiv'd their several Orders by what form of words and whether at one time or by parts and in the Institution of the Lord's Supper the same words by which some of them say they were made Priests they generally expound them to signifie a duty of the Laity as well as the Clergy Hoc facite which signifies one thing to the Priest and another to the People and yet there is no mark of difference They cannot agree where or by whom extreme Unction was instituted They cannot tell whether any Wafer be actually transubstantiated because they never can know by Divine Faith whether the supposed Priest be a real Priest or had right intention and yet they certainly do worship it in the midst of all Uncertainties But I will add nothing more but this what Wonder is it if all things in the Church of Rome be Uncertain when they cannot dare not trust their reason or their senses in the wonderful invention of Transubstantiation and when many of their wisest Doctors profess that their pretended infallibility does finally rely upon prudential motives I conclude this therefore with the words of S. Austin Remotis ergo omnibus talibus De Vnit. Eccles cap. 16. c. All things therefore being remov'd let them demonstrate their Church if they can not in the Sermons and Rumors of the Africans Romans not in the Councils of their Bishops not in the Letters of any disputers not in signs and deceitful Miracles because against these things we are warned and prepar'd by the word of the Lord But in the praescript of the Law of the Prophets of the Psalms of the Evangelists and all the Canonical authorities of the Holy Books And that 's my next undertaking to show the firmness of the foundation and the Great Principle of the Religion of the Church of England and Ireland even the Holy Scriptures SECTION II. Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures to Salvation which is the great foundation and ground of the Protestant Religion THis question is between the Church of Rome and the Church of England and therefore it supposes that it is amongst them who believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God The Old and New Testament are agreed upon to be the word of God and that they are so is deliver'd to us by the current descending testimony of all ages of Christianity and they who thus are first lead into this belief find upon trial great after-proofs by arguments both external and internal and such as cause a perfect adhesion to this truth that they are Gods Word an adhesion I say so perfect as excludes all manner of practical doubting Now then amongst us so perswaded the Question is Whether or no the Scriptures be a sufficient rule of our faith and contain in them all things necessary to salvation or Is there any other word of God besides the Scriptures which delivers any points of faith or doctrines of life necessary to salvation This was the state of the Question till yesterday And although the Church of Rome affirm'd Tradition to be a part of the object of faith and that without the addition of doctrine and practises deliver'd by tradition the Scriptures were not a perfect rule but together with tradition they are yet now two or three Gentlemen have got upon the Coach-wheel and have raised a cloud of dust enough to put out the eyes even of their own party Vid. hist. â—oncil Trident. sub Paul 3. A. D. 1546. making them not to see what till now all their Seers told them and Tradition is not onely a suppletory to the deficiencies of Scripture but it is now the onely record of faith But because this is too bold and impossible an attempt and hath lately been sufficiently reprov'd by some learned persons of our Church I shall therefore not trouble my self with such a frontless errour and illusion but speak that truth which by justifying the Scripture's fulness and perfection will overthrow the doctrine of the Roman Church denying it and ex abundanti cast down this new mud-wall thrown into a dirty heap by M. W. and his under-dawber M. S. who with great pleasure behold and wonder at their own work and call it a Marble Building 1. That the Scripture is a full and sufficient rule to Christians in faith and manners a full and perfect Declaration of the will of God is therefore certain because we have no other For if we consider the grounds upon which all Christians believe the Scriptures to be the word of God the same grounds prove that nothing else is These indeed have a Testimony that is credible as any thing that makes faith to men The universal testimony of all Christians In respect of which S. Austin said Evangelio non crederem c. I should not believe the Gospel if the Authority of the Church that is of the universal Church did not move me The Apostles at first own'd these Writings the Churches receiv'd them they transmitted them to their posterity they grounded their faith upon them they proved their propositions by them by them
Caution to the Christians but also of Opposition to the Gnosticks who were very busie in pretending ancient traditions This is the discourse of that great Christian Philosopher S. Clement from which besides the direct testimony given to the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of Faith or Questions in Religion we find him affirming that the Scriptures are a certain and the only demonstration of these things they are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of judging the controversies of faith that the tradition Ecclesiastical that is the whole doctrine taught by the Church of God and preach'd to all men is in the Scripture and therefore that it is the plenary and perfect repository of tradition that is of the doctrine deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles and they who believe not these are Impious And lest any man should say that suppose Scripture do contain all things necessary to Salvation yet it is necessary that tradition or some infallible Church do expound them and then it is as long as it is broad and comes to the same issue S. Clement tells us how the Scriptures are to be expounded saying that they who rely upon them must expound Scriptures by Scriptures and by the analogy of faith Comparing spiritual things with spiritual one place with another a part with the whole and all by the proportion to the Divine Attributes This was the way of the Church in S. Clement ' s time and this is the way of our Churches But let us see how this affair went in other Churches and times and whether there be a succession and an Universality of this doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all the affairs of God The next is Tertullian Contr. Hermog cap. 22. who writing against Hermogenes that affirm'd God made the world not out of nothing but of I know not what praeexistent matter appeals to Scripture in the Question whose fulness Tertullian adores Let the shop of Hermogenes show that this thing is written If it be not written let him fear the Wo pronounc'd against them that adde to or take from Scripture Against this testimony it is objected that here Tertullian speaks but of one question De verb. Dei lib 4. c. 11. Sect. So Bellarmine answers and from him E. W. and A. L. To which the reply is easie Profert undecimo For when Tertullian challenges Hermogenes to show his proposition in Scripture he must mean that the fulness of the Scripture was sufficient not onely for this but for all Questions of religion or else it had been an ill way of arguing to bring a negative argument from Scripture against this alone For why was Hermogenes tied to prove this proposition from Scripture more than any other Either Scripture was the rule for all or not for that For suppose the heretick had said It is true it is not in Scripture but I have it from tradition or it was taught by my forefathers there had been nothing to have replied to this but that It may be he had no tradition for it Now if Hermogenes had no tradition then indeed he was tied to shew it in Scripture but then Tertullian should have said let Hermogenes shew where it is written or that it is a tradition for if the pretending and proving tradition in case there were any such pretense in this Question had been a sufficient answer then Tertullian had no sufficient argument against Hermogenes by calling for authority from Scripture but he should have said If it be not scriptum or traditum written or delivered let Hermogenes fear the wo to the adders or detracters But if we will suppose Tertullian spoke wisely and sufficiently he must mean that the Scripture must be the Rule in all Questions and no doctrine is to be taught that is not taught there But to put this thing past dispute Tertullian himself extends this rule to an universal comprehension And by this instrument declares that hereticks are to be confuted Take from the hereticks that which they have in common with the heathens viz. their Ethnick learning and let them dispute their questions by Scripture alone and they can never stand By which it is plain that the Scripture is sufficient for all faith because it is sufficient to convince all heresies and deviations from the faith For which very reason the hereticks also as he observes attempted to prove their propositions by arguments from Scripture for indeed there was no other way because the Articles of faith are to be prov'd by the writings of faith De Praescript that is the Scripture that was the Rule How contrary this is to the practice and doctrine of Rome at this day we easily find by their Doctors charging all heresies upon the Scriptures as occasion'd by them and forbidding the people to read them for fear of corrupting their weak heads nay it hath been prohibited to certain Bishops to read the Scriptures lest they become hereticks And this folly hath proceeded so far that Erasmus tells us of a Dominican In Epist. who being urg'd in a Scholastical disputation with an argument from Scripture cried out It was a Lutheran way of disputation and protested against the answering it which besides that it is more than a vehement suspicion that these men find the Scriptures not to look like a friend to their propositions it is also a manifest procedure contrary to the wisdom religion and Oeconomy of the primitive Church The next I note Tract 5. in Matth. versus finem is Origen who when he propounded a Question concerning the Angels Guardians of little children viz. When the Angels were appointed to them at their Birth or at their Baptism He addes You see Vide etiam Origen bomil 25. in Matth. homil 7. in Ezek. hom l. â— in Jerem. Quos locos citat Bellarm. ubi supra Sect. Secundò profert he that will discuss both of them warily it is his part to produce Scripture for testimony agreeing to one of them both That was the way of the Doctors then And Scripture is so full and perfect to all intents and purposes that for the confirmation of our discourses Scripture is to be brought saith Origen * Jesum Christum scimus Deum quaeriâ—us verba quae dicta sunt juxta personae exponere dignitatem Quapropter necesse nobis est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem We know Jesus Christ is God and we seek to expound the words which are spoken according to the dignity of the person Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony for our meanings and enarrations without these witnesses have no belief To these words Bellarmine answers most childishly saying that Origen speaks of the hardest questions such as for the most part traditions are not about But it is evident that therefore Origen requires testimony of
percu it gladius Dei Those things which they make and find as it were by Apostlical tradition without the authority and testimonies of Scripture the word of God smites By which words it appears that in S. Hierom's time it was usual to pretend traditions Apostolical and yet that all which was then so early called so was not so and therefore all later pretences still as they are later are the worse and that the way to try those pretences was the authority and testimony of Scriptures without which testimony they were to be rejected and God would punish them Adverâ— Helvid And disputing against Helvidius in defence of the perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin But as we deny not those things which are written so we refuse those things which are not written We believe our Lord to be born of a Virgin because we read it We believe not Mary was married after her delivery because we read it not And therefore this very point the Fathers endeavour to prove by Scripture Ambr. tom â— particularly Ep. 9. Epiphan haeres 78. S. Epiphanius S. Ambrose and S. Austin August de haeres 84. S. Basil de human gen Christi Homil. 25. though S. Basil believ'd it not to be a point of faith and when he offer'd to prove it by a tradition concerning the slaying of Zechary upon that account S. Hierom rejects the tradition as trifling as before I have cited him And therefore S. John Damascen going upon the same Principle Lib. 1. de orthod fide cap. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 says We look for nothing beyond these things which are deliver'd by the Law and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists And after all this S. Austin who is not the least amongst the greatest Doctors of the Church is very clear in this particular If any one Lib. 3. cont lit concerning Christ or his Church Petâ—â—â—ani c. 6. or concerning any other thing which belongs to faith or our life I will not say if we but what Paul hath added if an Angel from Heaven shall preach unto you Praeter quam in Scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis beside what ye have receiv'd in the legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed The words Bellarmine quotes and for an answer to them says that praeter must signifie contra besides that is against and the same is made use of by Hart the Jesuit in his Conference and by the Lovain Doctors But if this answer may serve Non habebis Deos alienos praeter me may signifie contra me and then a man may Absit mihi gloriari praeterquam in Cruce Jesu Christi for all this Commandment say there are two Gods so one be not contrary to the other and the Apostle may glory in any thing else in that sense in which he glories in the Cross of Christ so that thing be not contrary to Christ's Cross. But S. Austin was a better Grammarian than to speak so improperly Praeter Elegant lib. 3. cap. 54. and Praeterquam are all one as I am covetous of nothing praeter laudem vel praeterquam laudis Nulli places praeterquam mihi vel praeter me And indeed Praeterquam eandem aut prope parem vim obtinet quam Nisi said Laurentius Valla but to make praeterquam to signifie contra quam is a violence to be allowed by no Master of the Latin tongue which all the world knows S. Austin was And if we enquire what signication it hath in law In vocabâ—lar utriusque Juris we find it signifies variously indeed but never to any such purpose When we speak of things whose nature is wholly separate then it signifies Inclusively As I give all my vines praeter domum besides my house there the house is suppos'd also to be given But if we speak of things which are subordinate and included in the general then praeter signifies Exclusively as I give unto thee all my Books praeter Augustinum de civitate Dei besides or except S. Austin of the City of God there S. Austins Book is not given And the reason of this is because the last words in this case would operate nothing S. August vocat Scripturas sacâ—as Divinam stateram l. 2. contr unless they were exclusive and if in the first they were exclusive they were not sense But that praeterquam should mean only what is contrary Donat. c. 1â— is a Novelty taken up without reason but not without great need Lib. â— de doctr But however that S. Austin did not mean only to reprove them that introduc'd into faith and manners Christ. c. 9. vide eundem l. 1. c. ult de Consensâ— Evangelistarum Quicquid Servator de suis factis dictis nos legere voluit hoc scribendum illis tanquam suis manibus imperavit such things which were against Scripture but such which were besides it and whatsoever was not in it is plain by an establish'd doctrine of his affirming that all things which appertain to life and doctrine are found in those things which are plainly set down in the Scriptures And if this be true as S. Austin suppos'd it to be then who ever adds to this any thing of faith and manners though it be not contrary yet if it be not here ought to be an anathema because of his own he adds to that rule of faith manners which God who only could do it hath made To this Lib. 4. de verbo Dei non scâ—ipto c. 11. Bellarmin answers that S. Austin speaks only of the Creed and the ten Commandments such things which are simply necessary to all He might have added that he speaks of the Lord's Prayer too and all the other precepts of the Gospel and particularly the eight Beatitudes and the Sacraments And what of the infallibility of the Roman Church Is the belief of that necessary to all But that is neither in the Creed nor the ten Commandments And what of the five Precepts of the Church are they plainly in the Scripture And after all this and much more if all that belongs to faith and good life be in the plain places of Scripture then there is enough to make us wise unto salvation And he is a very wise and learned man that is so For as by faith S. Austin understands the whole Christian Faith so by mores vivendi he understands hope and charity as himself in the very place expresses himself And beyond faith hope and charity and all things that integrate them what a Christian need to know I have not learned But if he would learn more yet there are in places less plain things enough to make us learned unto Curiosity Briefly by S. Austin's doctrine the Scripture hath enough for every one and in all cases of necessary Religion and much more then what is necessary nay there is nothing besides it that can come into our rule a Lib. de bono
and explicitely did teach much more is every Gospel But when all the four Gospels and the Apostolical Acts and Epistles and the Visions of S. John were all tied into a Volume by the counsel of God by the dictate of the Holy Spirit and by the choice of the Apostles it cannot be probable that this should not be all the Gospel of Jesus Christ all his Will and Testament Contre le Roy Jaq. p. 715. And therefore in vain does the Cardinal Perron strive to escape from this by acknowledging that the Gospel is the foundation of Christianity as Grammar is the foundation of Eloquence as the Institutions of Justinian is of the study of the law as the principles and institutions of a science are of the whole profession of it It is not in his sense the foundation of Christian doctrine but it contains it all not onely in general but in special not onely virtual but actual not mediate but immediate for a few lines would have serv'd for a foundation General virtual and mediate If the Scripture had said The Church of Rome shall always be the Catholick Church and the foundation of faith she shall be infallible and to her all Christians ought to have recourse for determination of their Questions this had been a sufficient virtual and mediate foundation But when four Gospels containing Christs Sermons and his Miracles his Precepts and his Promises the Mysteries of the Kingdom and the way of Salvation the things hidden from the beginning of the world and the glories reserv'd to the great day of light and manifestation of Jesus to say that yet all these Gospels and all the Epistles of S. Paul S. Peter S. James and S. John and the Acts and Sermons of the Apostles in the first establishing the Church are all but a foundation virtual and that they point out the Church indeed by saying she is the pillar and ground of truth but leave you to her for the foundation actual special and immediate is an affirmation against the notoreity of fact Add to this that S. Irenaeus spake these words concerning the Scriptures Lib. 3. cap. 2. in confutation of them who leaving the Scriptures did run to Traditions pretendedly Apostolical And though it be true that the traditions they relyed upon were secret Apocryphal forg'd and suppos'd yet because even at that time there were such false wares obtruded and even then the Hereticks could not want pretences sufficient to deceive and hopes to prevail How is it to be imagined that in the descent of sixteen ages the cheat might not be too prevalent when if the traditions be question'd it will be impossible to prove them and if they be false it will except it be by Scripture be impossible to confute them And after all if yet there be any doctrines of faith or manners which are not contain'd in Scripture and yet were preach'd by the Apostles let that be prov'd let the traditions be produc'd and the records sufficient primely credible and authentick and we shall receive them So vain a way of arguing it is to say The Traditions against which S. Irenaeus speaks were false but ours are true Theirs were secret but ours were open and notorious For there are none such And Bellarmine himself acknowledges that the necessary things are deliver'd in Scriptures and those which were reserv'd for tradition were deliver'd apart that is secretly by the Apostles Now if they were so on all sides what rule shall we have to distinguish the Valentinian Traditions from the Roman Vbi supra c. 11. de verb. Dei non Script l. 4. and why shall we believe these more than those since all must be equally taken upon private testimony at first And although it will be said That the Roman Traditions were receiv'd by after-ages and the other were not yet this shews nothing else but that some had the fate to prevail and others had not For it is certain that some were a long time believ'd even for some whole ages under the name of Apostolical Tradition as the Millenary opinion and the Asiatick manner of keeping Easter which yet came to be dis-believ'd in their time and also it is certain that many which really were Apostolical Traditions perished from the memory of men and had not so long lives as many that were not So that all this is by chance and can make no difference in the just authority And therefore it is vainly said of Cardinal Perron That the case is not the same because theirs are wrong and ours are right For this ought not to have been said till it were prov'd and if it were prov'd the whole Question were at an end for we should all receive them which were manifested to be doctrines Apostolical But in this there need no further dispute from the authority of Irenaeus his words concerning the fulness of Scripture as to the whole doctrine of Christ being so clear and manifest as appears in the testimonies brought from him in the foregoing Section Optatus compares the Scriptures to the Testator's Will l. 5. contr Parmer biblioth Patrum per Binium â—om 4. Paris 1589. pag. 510. If there be a controversie amongst the descendants of the house run to the Scriptures see the Original will The Gospels are Christ's Testament and the Epistles are the Codicils annex'd and but by these we shall never know the will of the Testator But because the Books of Scripture were not all written at once nor at once communicated nor at once receiv'd therefore the Churches of God at first were forc'd to trust their memories and to try the doctrines by appealing to the memories of others that is to the consenting report and faith deliver'd and preach'd to other Churches especially the chiefest where the memory of the Apostles was recent and permanent The mysteriousness of Christ's Priesthood the perfection of his sacrifice and the unity of it Christ's advocation and Intercession for us in Heaven might very well be accounted traditions before Saint Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews was admitted for Canonical but now they are written truths and if they had not been written it is likely we should have lost them But this way could not long be necessary and could not not long be safe Not necessary because it was supplied by a better and to be tied to what was only necessary in the first state of things is just as if a man should always be tied to suck milk because at first in his infancy it was fit he should Not safe because it grew worse and worse every day And therefore in a little while even the Traditions themselves were so far from being the touch-stone of true doctrine that themselves were brought to the stone of trial And the Tradition would not be admitted unless it were in Scripture By which it appears that Tradition could not be a part of the rule of faith distinct from the Scriptures but it self was a part of it that
to come but Christ is the substance And yet after all this The keeping of the Lord's-day was no law in Christendom till the Laodicean-Council but the Jewish Sabbath was kept as strictly as the Chrisian Lord's-day and yet both of them with liberty but with an intuition to the avoiding offence and the interests of religion and the Lord's-day came not in stead of the Sabbath and it did not succeed in the place of the Sabbath but was meerly a Christian festival and holy day But at last That the keeping of the Lord's-day be a Tradition Apostolical I desire it were heartily believed by every Christian for though it would make nothing against the sufficiency of Scriptures in all Questions of faith and rules of manners yet it might be an engagement on all men to keep it with the greater religion 6. At the end of this it is fit I take notice of another particular offer'd by the By not in justification of Tradition but in defiance of them that oppose it If the Protestants oppose all Tradition in General E. W. p. 5. they must quit every Tenet of Protestant religion as Protestantism for Example sake The belief of two Sacraments onely c. The charge is fierce and the stroak is little It was unadvisedly said That every Protestant Doctrine quâ talis must be quitted if Scripture be the rule for this very Proposition That Scripture is the rule of our faith is a main Protestant doctrine and therefore certainly must not be quitted if Scripture be the rule that is if the doctrine be true it must not be forsaken And although in the whole progress of this book Protestant religion will be greatly justified by Scripture yet for the present I desire the Gentleman to consider a little better about giving the Chalice to all Communicants whether their denying it to the Laity be by authority of Scripture and I desire him to consider what place of the Old or New Testament he hath for worshipping and making the images of God the Father and the Holy Ghost or for having their publick Devotions in an unknown tongue But of these hereafter As to the instance of two Sacraments onley I desire the Gentleman to understand our doctrine a little better It is none of the Doctrine of the Church of England that there are two Sacraments onely But that of those Rituals commanded in Scripture which the Ecclesiastical use calls Sacraments by a word of art Two onely are generally necessary to Salvation And although we are able to prove this by a Tradition much more Universal than by which the Roman Doctors can prove seven yet we rely upon Scripture for our Doctrine and though it may be I shall not dispute it with this Gentleman that sends his chartel unless he had given better proof of his learning and his temper yet I suppose if he reads this book over he shall find something first or last to instruct him or at least to entertain him in that particular also But for the present lest such an unconcerning trifle be forgotten I desire him to consider that he hath little reason to concern himself in the just number of seven Sacraments for that there are brought in amongst them some new devices I cannot call them Sacraments but something like what they have already forg'd which being but external rites yet out-do most of their Sacraments About the year 1630. there were introduc'd into Ireland by the Franciscans and Carmelite Friers three pretty propositions 1. Whosoever shall die in the habit of S. Francis shall never be prevented with an unhappy death 2. Whosoever shall take the Scapular of the Carmelites and die in the same shall never be damned 3. Whosoever shall fast the first Saturday after they have heard of the death of Luissa a Spanish Nun of the Order of S. Clare shall have no part in the second death Now these external rites promise more grace than is conferr'd by their Sacraments for it promises a certainty of glory and an intermediat certainty of being in the state of Grace which to them is not and cannot be done according to their doctrine by all the other Sacraments and Sacramentals of their Church Now these things are deriv'd to them by pretended revelations of S. Francis and S. Simon Stoc. And though I know not what the Priests and Friers in England will think or say of this matter yet I assure them in Ireland they are of great account and with much fancy religion and veneration us'd at this day And not long since visiting some of my Churches I found an old Nun in the Neighbourhood a poor Clare as I think but missing her Cord about her which I had formerly observ'd her to wear I ask'd the cause and was freely answered that a Gentlewoman who had lately died had purchas'd it of her to put about her in her grave And of how great veneration the Saturday-fast is here every one knows but the cause I knew not till I had learn'd the story of S. Luissa and that Flemming their Archbishop of Dublin had given countenance to it by his example and credulity But now it may be perceiv'd that the question of seven Sacraments is out-done by the intervention of some new ones which although they want the name do greater effects and therefore have a better title But I proceed to more material considerations Cardinal Perron hath chosen no other instances of matters necessary as he supposes them but there are many ritual matters customs and ceremonies which were at least it is said so practis'd by the Apostolical Churches and some it may be are descended down to us but because the Churches practise many things which the Apostles did not and the Apostles did and ordain'd many things which the Church does not observe it will not appertain to the Question to say There are or are not in these things Traditions Apostolical The Colledge of Widows is dissolv'd the Canon of abstaining from things strangled Vide Ductor dub tantium Rule of Conscience lib. 3. Reg. 11. n. 5. 6. obliges not the Church and S. Paul's rule of not electing a Bishop that is a Novice or young Christian is not always observ'd at Rome nay S. Paul himself consecrated Timothy when he was but twenty five years of age and the * Regirald Praâ—is sori pae â—i l. â— c. 12. Sect. 3. n. 133. Wednesday and Friday Fast is pretended to have been a precept from the very times of the Apostles and yet it is observed but in very few places and of the fifty Canons called Apostolical very few are observed in the Church at this day and of 84 collected by Clement as was suppos'd de Sacr. hâ—m conti l. 5. c. 105. Peres de tradiâ— part 3. c. de author Canon Apost Michael Medina says scarce six or eight are observed by the Latin Church For in them many things are contain'd saith Peresius which by the corruption of times are
ambiguous or obscure in case any Brother be a Doctor endued with the grace of knowledge but be curious with your self and seek with your self but at length it is better for you to be ignorant lest you come to know what ye ought not for you already know what you ought Faith consists in the rule Lib. de veland To know nothing beyond this is to know all things Virg. c. 1. Regula quidem fidei una â—mnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis To the same purpose he affirms that this Rule is unalterable is immoveable and irreformable it is the Rule of faith and it is one unchangeably the same which when he had said he again recites the Apostles Creed Lib. de veland Virg. c. â— he calls it legem fidei this law of faith remaining in other things of discipline and conversation the grace of God may thrust us forward and they may be corrected and renewed But the faith cannot be alter'd there is neither more nor less in that And it is of great remark what account Tertullian gives of the state of all the Catholick Churches and particularly of the Church of Rome in his time That Church is in a happy state into which the Apostles with their bloud pour'd forth all their doctrine De praescript c. 36. let us see what she said what she taught what she published in conjunction with the African Churches she knows one God the creator of the World and Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Son of God the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh she mingles the Law and the Prophets with the Evangelical and Apostolical writings and from thence she drinks that faith she sings with Water she cloaths with the holy Spirit she feeds with the Eucharist she exhorts to Martyrdom and against this Institution receives none This indeed was a happy state and if in this she would abide her happiness had been as unalterable as her faith But from this how much she hath degenerated will too much appear in the order of this discourse In the confession of this Creed the Church of God baptiz'd all her Catechumens to whom in the profession of that faith they consign'd all the promises of the Gospel S. Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit vers finem For the truth of God the faith of Jesus Christ the belief of a Christian is the purest simplest thing in the world In simplicitate fides est in fide justitia est in confessione pietas est Nec Deus nos ad beatam vitam per difficiles quaestiones vocat nec multiplici eloquentis facundiae genere sollicitat in absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas Jesum Christum credimus suscitatum à mortuis per Deum ipsum esse Dominum confitemur This is the Breviary of the Christian Creed and this is the way of salvation lib. de Synodis saith S. Hilary But speaking more explicitely to the Churches of France and Germany he calls them happy and glorious qui perfectam atque Apostolicam fidem conscientiâ professione Dei retinentes conscriptas fides hûc usque nescitis because they kept the Apostolical Belief for that is perfect Thus the Church remaining in the purity and innocent simplicity of the Faith there was no way of confuting Hereticks but by the words of Scripture or by appealing to the tradition of this Faith in the Apostolical form and there was no change made till the time of the Nicene Council but then it is said that the first simplicity began to fall away and some new thing to be introduc'd into the Christian Creed True it is that then Christianity was in one complexion with the Empire and the division of Hearts by a different Opinion was likely to have influence upon the publick peace if it were not compos'd by peaceable consent or prevailing authority and therefore the Fathers there assembled together with the Emperour's power did give such a period to their Question as they could but as yet it is not certain that they at their meeting recited any other Creed than the Apostolical for that they did not In Antidoto ad Nicolaum 5. Papam Laurentius Valla a Canon in the Lateran Church affirms that himself hath read in the ancient Books of Isidore who collected the Canons of the ancient Councils Certain it is the Fathers believ'd it to be no other than the Apostolical faith and the few words they added to the old form was nothing new but a few more explicate words of the same sense intended by the Apostles and their Successors as at that time the Church did remember by the successive preachings and written Records which they had and we have not but especially by Scripture But the change was so little or indeed so none as to the matter that they affirmed of it Epiphan in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was the Creed deliver'd by the Holy Apostles and in the old Latin Missal published at Strasburgh An. Dom. 1557. after the recitation of the Nicene Creed as we usually call it it is added in the Rubrick Finito Symbolo Apostolorum dicat Sacerdos Dominus vobiscum So that it should seem the Nicene Fathers us'd no other Creed than what themselves thought to be the Apostolical And this is the more credible because we find that some other Copies of the Apostles Creed particularly that which was us'd in the Church of Aquileia hath divers words and amplifications of some one Article as to the Article of God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth is added invisible and impassible which though the words were set down there because of the Sabellian Heresie yet they said nothing new but what to every man of reason was included in the very nature of God and so was the addition of Nice concerning the Divinity of the Son of God included in the very natural Filiation expressed in the Apostles Creed and therefore this Nicene Creed was no more a new Creed than was that of Aquileia which although it was not in every word like the Roman Symbol yet it was no other than the Apostolical And the same is the case even of those Symbols where something was omitted that was sufficiently in the bowels of the other Articles Thus in some Creeds Christ's Death is omitted but his Crucifixion and Burial are set down The same variety also is observable in the Article of Christ's descent into Hell which as it is omitted in that form of the Apostolical Creed which I am now saying was us'd by the Nicene Fathers so was it omitted in the six several Recitations and Expositions of it made by Chrysologus and in the five Expositions made of it by S. Austin in his Book de Fide Symbolo and in his four Books de Symbolo ad Catechumenos and divers others So the Article of the Communion of Saints which is neither in the Nicene nor Constantinopolitan Creed nor
The Second Part OF THE DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY In Vindication of THE FIRST PART And further REPROOF and CONVICTION OF THE ROMAN ERRORS By Jer. Taylor Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First and late Lord Bishop of Downe and Conner Curavimus Babylonem non est Sanata LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the Kings most Excellent Majesty at the Angel in S. Bartholomew's Hospital MDCLXVII DIEV ET MON DROIT SOIT · QVI · MAL · Y · PEâ—â—â—â— A Table of the SECTIONS The Introduction in Answer to J. S. The first Book contains Eleven Sections SECTION I. OF the Church shewing That the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith Page 1 Sect. II. Of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation 63 Sect. III. Of Traditions 102 Sect. IV. That there is nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 144 Sect. V. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavors to alter and suppress the old Catholick Doctrine 171 Sect. VI. Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church 192 Sect. VII The uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others 205 Sect. VIII The insecurity of the Roman Religion 222 Sect. IX That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men 236 Sect. X. Of the Seal of Confession 239 Sect. XI Of the imposing Anricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God 249 The Second Book contains Seven Sections SECTION I. OF Indulgences Page 1 Sect. II. Of Purgatory 13 Sect. III. Of Transubstantiation 56 Sect. IV. Of the half Communion 86 Sect. V. Of Service in an unknown Tongue 98 Sect. VI. Of the worshipping of Images 106 Sect. VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity 145 IMPRIMATUR THO. TOMKINS R. R mo in Christo Patri ac Domino Dno GILBERTO Divinâ Providentià Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi à Sacris Domesticis Junii 29 0 1667. Ex Aedibus Lambethanis THE INTRODUCTION BEING An Answer to the fourth Appendix to J. S. his Sure Footing intended against the General way of procedure in the Dissuasive from Popery WHen our Blessed Saviour was casting out the evil spirit from the poor Daemoniac in the Gospel he asked his name and he answered My name is legion for we are many Legion is a Roman word and signifies an Army as Roman signifies Catholic that is a great body of men which though in true speaking they are but a part of an Imperial Army yet when they march alone they can do mischief enough and call themselves an Army Royal. A Squadron of this legion hath attempted to break a little Fort or Outwork of mine they came in the dark their names concealed their qualities unknown whether Clergy or Laity not to me discovered only there is one pert man amongst them one that is discovered by his sure footing The others I know not but this man is a man famous in the new science of controversie as he is pleased to call it I mean in the most beauteous and amiable part of it railing and calumny The man I mean is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Confident the man of principles and the son of demonstration Dr. H. H. and though he had so reviled a great Champion in the Armies of the living God that it was reasonable to think he had cast forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the fiery darts of the wicked one yet I find that an evil fountain is not soon drawn dry and he hath indignation enough and reviling left for others amongst whom I have the honour not to be the least sufferer and sharer in the persecution He thought not fit to take any further notice of me but in an Appendix The fourth appendix to sure footing the Viper is but little but it is a Viper still though it hath more tongue than teeth I am the more willing to quit my self of it by way of introduction because he intends it as an Organum Catholicum against the General way of the procedure which I have us'd in the Dissuasive and therefore I suppose the removing this might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make my way smoother in the following discourses I will take no other notice of his evil language his scorn and reproach his undervaluing and slighting the person and book of the Dissuader as he is pleased sometimes to call me but I shall answer to these things as S. Bernard did to the tempation of the Devil endeavouring to hinder his preaching by tempting to vanity I neither began for you nor for you will I make an end but I shall look on those Rhetorical flowers of his own but as a fermentum his spirit was troubled and he breathed forth the froth as of an enraged Sea and when he hath done it may be he will be quiet if not let him know God will observe that which is to come and require that which is past But I will search and see what I can find of matter that is to be considered and give such accounts of them as is necessary and may be useful for the defence of my Book and the justification of my self against all ruder charges And after I have done so I shall proceed to other things which I shall esteem more useful The first thing I shall take notice of is his scornful and slight speaking of Scripture affirming that he is soonest beaten at this weapon that it is Sampsons hair it is the weakest part in the man And yet if it be the weakest it is that which S. Paul calls the weakness and foolishness of preaching more strong and more wise than all the wisdom of man When the Devil tempted our Blessed Saviour he us'd Scripture but Christ did not reprove his way of arguing but in the same way discovered his fraud Scriptum est said the Tempter yea but scriptum est said Christ to other purposes than you intend and so would I. S. have proceeded if he had been at all in love with the way But he thinks he hath a better and the wonder is the less that the Gentleman does not love the Scriptures or at least gives too much suspicion that he does not for he hath not yet proved himself by his writings to be so good a Christian as to love his enemies or his reprovers But however he is pleased to put a scorn on Scripture expressions it were much better if he and his Church too would use them more and express their articles they contend for and impose them on the Christian world in the words and expressions of Scripture which we are sure express the minde of God with more truth and simplicity than is done by their words of art and expressions of the Schools If this had been observed Christendom at this day had had fewer controversies and more truth and more charity we should not
profess to be infallible I am certain in nothing and without an infallible oral tradition it is impossible I should be certain of any thing In answer to this I demand why I may not be as certain of what I know or believe as Mr. White or I. S. Is the doctrine of Purgatory fire between death and the day of judgement and of the validity of the prayers and Masses said in the Church of Rome to the freeing of souls from Purgatory long before the day of judgment is this doctrine I say delivered by an infallible oral tradition or no If no then the Church of Rome either is not certain it is true or else she is certain of it by some other way than such a tradition If yea then how is Mr. White certain that he speaks true in his book de statu animarum where he teaches that prayers of the Church do no good and free no souls before the day of judgement for he hath no oral tradition for his opinion for two oral traditions cannot be certain and infallible when they contradict one another and if the traditions be not infallible as good for these men that they be none at all So that either Mr. White cannot be certain of any thing he says by not relying on oral tradition or the Church of Rome cannot be certain and therefore he or she may forbear to persuade their friends to any thing And for my present adversary I. S. who also affirms that oral tradition of the present Church is the whole rule of faith how can he trust himself or be certain of any thing or teach any thing when his Church says otherwise than he says and makes tradition to be but a part of the rule of faith as is to be seen in the Council of Trent it self in the first decree of the fourth Session Perspiciensque hanc verita tem disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis sine scripto traditionibus omnes libros tamveteris quam N. T. nec non Traditiones ipsa◠c. pari pietatis affectu ac reverentiâ suscipit veneratur So that in effect here are two rules of faith and therefore two Churches Mr. I. S.'s is the traditionary Church so called from relying solely on tradition the other what shall we call it for distinction sake the Purgatorian Church from Purgatory or if you will the imaginary Church from worshiping images And since they do not both follow the same rule of faith the one making tradition alone to be the ground the other not so it will follow by Mr. I. S. his argument that either the one or the other missing the true ground of faith cannot be certain of any thing that they say And now when he hath considered these things let him reckon the advantage which his Catholic faith gains by the opposition from her adversaries if they be rightly handled as Mr. S. hath handled them and brought to his grounds But however the opposition which I have now made hath it's advantages upon the weakness of Mr. Whites grounds and I. S.'s demonstrations yet I shall without relation to them but upon the account of other grounds which his wiser and more learned brethren of the other Church do lay make it appear that there is indeed in the Church of Rome no sure footing no foundation of faith upon which a man can with certainty rely and say Now I am infallibly sure that I am in the right The fifth Way THe fifth way I. S. says is built on the fourth which being prov'd to be a ruinous foundation I have the less need to trouble my self about that which will fall of it self but because he had no reason to trust that foundation for all his confidence he is glad to build his fifth way on the Protestants voluntary Concession for they granting they have no demonstration for the ground of their faith must say they have only probability But I pray who told I. S. that we grant we have no demonstration for the ground of our faith Did ever any Protestant say that there is no moral demonstration of his faith or that it cannot be prov'd so certain so infallible that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it If I. S. will descend so low as to look upon the book of a Protestant besides many better Book 1. chap. pag. 124. he may finde in my Cases of Conscience a demonstration of Christian Religion and although it consists of probabilities yet so many so unquestion'd so confess'd so reasonable so uncontradicted pass into an argument of as much certainty as humane nature without a Miracle is capable of as many sands heap'd together make a bank strong enough to resist the impetuosity of the raging sea But I have already shown upon what certainties our faith relies and if we had nothing but high probabilities it must needs be as good as their prudential motives and therefore I shall not repeat any thing but pass on to consider what it is he says of our high probabilities if they were no more If there be probabilities on both sides then the greatest must carry it so he roundly professes never considering that the latter Casuists of his Church I mean those who wrote since Angelus Silvester Cordubensis and Cajetan do expresly teach the contrary viz. that of two probabilities the less may be chosen and that this is the common and more receiv'd opinion But since I. S. is in the right let them and he agree it as we do if they please I hope he relates this only to the Questions between us and Rome and not to the Christian Faith well but if the matter be only between us I am well enough content and the greater probability that is the better argument shall carry it and I will not be asking any more odd Questions as why I. S. having so clearly demonstrated his religion by grounds firm as the land of Delos or O Brasile he should now be content to argue his cause at the bar of probability Well but let us see what he says for his party That there is no probability for our side says I. S. is very hard to be said since the whole world sees plainly we still maintain the field against them nay dare pretend without fearing an absolute baffle which must needs follow had we not at least probabilities to befriend us that our grounds are evidently and demonstrably certain Here I. S. seems to be afraid again of his probabilities that he still runs to covert under his broad shield of demonstration but his postulatum here is indeed very modest he seems to desire us to allow that there are some probable things to be said for his side and indeed he were very hard hearted that should say there are none at all some probabilities we shall allow but no grounds evidently and demonstratively certain good Sir And yet let me tell you this There are some of your propositions for
partly and shall in the sequel largely make good In the mean time whether it be principle or conclusion let us see what is objected against it or what use is made of it For I. S. says it is an improv'd and a main position But then he tells us the reason of it is because No heretic had arisen in those days denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write expresly for them but occasionally only Let us consider what this is no heretic had arisen in those days denying these points True but many Catholics did and the reason why no heretics did deny those things was because neither Catholic nor heretic ever affirm'd them Well! but however the Roman controvertists are frequent for citing them for divers points Certainly not for making vows to Saints not for the worship of images nor for the half Communion for these they do not frequently cite the Fathers of the first 300. years It may be not but for the ground of our faith the Churches voice or tradition they do to the utter overthrow of the Protestant cause They do indeed sometimes cite something from them for tradition and where ever the word tradition is in Scripture or the Primitive Fathers they think it is an argument for them just as the Covenanters in the late wars thought all Scripture was their plea where ever the word Covenant was nam'd But to how little purpose they pretend to take advantage of any of the primitive Fathers speaking of tradition I shall endeavour to make apparent in an inquiry made on purpose Sect. 3. In the mean time it appears that this conclusion of mine was to very good purpose and in a manner confess'd to be true in most instances and that it was so in all was not intended by me Well! but however it might be in the first three ages yet he observes that I said that in the succeeding ages secular interest did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous and many things more that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively And is not all this very true He cannot deny it but what then why then he says I may speak out and say all the Fathers after the first three hundred years are not worth a straw in order to decision or controversie and the Fathers of the first three hundred years spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of my own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it There is no great hurt in this If the Fathers be gone my Dissuasive may go too it cannot easily go in better company and I shall take the less care of it because I have I. S. his word that there is a part of it which relies upon the Fathers But if the Fathers be going it is fit we look after them and see which way they go For if they go together as in many things they do they are of very good use in order to decision of controversie if they go several ways and consequently that Controvertists may eternally and irrefutably bring sayings out of them against one another who can help it No man can follow them all and then it must be tried by some other topic which is best to follow but then that topic by it self would have been sufficient to have ended the Question Secondly If a disputer of this world pretends to rely upon the authority of the Fathers he may by them be confuted or determin'd The Church of Rome pretends to this and therefore if we perceive the Fathers have condemned doctrines which they approve of or approve what they condemn which we say in many articles is the case of that Church then the Dissuasive might be very useful and so might the Fathers too for the condemnation of such doctrines in which the Roman Church are by that touchstone found too blame And where as I. S. says that the first three ages of Christianity medled not with the present controversies it is but partly true for although many things are now adays taught of which they never thought yet some of the errors which we condemn were condemn'd then very few indeed by disputation but not a few by positive sentence and in explications of Scripture and rational discourses and by parity of case and by Catechetical doctrines For rectum est Index sui obliqui they have without thinking of future controversies and new emergent heresies said enough to confute many of them when they shall arise The great use of the Fathers especially of the first three hundred years is to tell us what was first to consign Scripture to us to convey the Creed with simplicity and purity to preach Christs Gospel to declare what is necessary and what not And whether they be fallible or infallible yet if we find them telling and accounting the integrity of the Christian faith and treading out the paths of life because they are persons whose conversation whose manner and time of living whose fame and Martyrdom and the venerable testimony of after-ages have represented to be very credible we have great reason to believe that alone to be the faith which they have describ'd and consequently that whatever comes in afterwards and is obtruded upon the world as it was not their way of going to heaven so it ought not to be ours So that here is great use of the Fathers writings though they be not infallible and therefore I wonder at the prodigious confidence to say no worse of I. S. to dare to say that as appears by the Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them infallible nor useful Nay that this is my fourth Principle He that believes Transubstantiation can believe any thing and he that says this dares say every thing for as that is infinitely impossible to sense and reason so this is infinitely false in his own Conscience and experience And the words which in a few lines of his bold assertion he hath quoted out of my book confute him but too plainly He tells us so saith I. S. the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation Do not I also though he is pleas'd to take no notice of it say that although we acknowledge not the Fathers as the Authors and finishers of our faith yet we owne them as helpers of our faith and heirs of the doctrine Apostolical That we make use of their testimonies as being as things now stand to the sober and the moderate the peaceable and the wise the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory to them that know well how to use it Can he that says this not acknowledge the Fathers useful I know not whether I. S. may have any credit as he is one of the
capacitie of being Catholick or Universal for that which hath no distinct Being can have no distinct Promises no distinct capacities but the promises are made to all Churches and to every Church onely there is this in it if any Church of one denomination shall be cut off other branches shall stand by faith and still be in the vine The Church of God cannot be without Christ their head and the head will not suffer his body to perish Thus I understand the meaning of the Churches being the pillar and ground of truth Just as we may say Humane understanding and the experience of mankind is the pillar and ground of true Philosophy but there is no such abstracted Being as Humane understanding distinct from the understanding of all individual men Every Universal is but an intentional or notional Being so is the word Catholick relating to the Church if it be understood as something separated from all particular Churches and I do not find that it is any other ways us'd in Scripture than in the distributive sense So S. Paul The care of all the Churches is upon me that is he was the Apostle of the Catholick Church of the Gentiles And so I teach in all the Churches of the Saints And in this sense it is that I say the Apostles have in the Creed comprehended all the Christian world all the the congregations of Christ's servants in the word Catholick But then 2. It is to be considered that this Epithet of the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth is to be understood to signifie in opposition to all Religions that were not Christian. The implied Antithesis is not of the whole to its parts but of kind to kind it is not so called to distinguish it from conventions of those who disagree in the house of God but from those that are out of the house meaning that whatever pretences of Religion the Gentile Temples or the Jewish Synagogues could make truth could not be found among them but only in those who are assembled in the name of Christ who profess his faith and are of the Christian Religion for they alone can truly pretend to be the conservers of truth to them only now are committed the Oracles of God and if these should fail Truth would be at a loss and not be found in any other Assemblies In this sense S. Paul spake usefully and intelligibly for if the several conventions of separated and disagreeing Christians should call themselves as they do and always did the Church the question would be which were the Church of God and by this rule you were never the nearer to know where truh is to be found for if you say In the Church of God several pretend to it who yet do not teach the truth and then you must find out what is truth before you find the Church But when the Churches of Christians are distinguish'd from the Assemblies of Jews and Turks and Heathens she is visible and distinguishable and notorious and therefore they that love the truth of God the saving truth that makes us wise unto salvation must become Christians and in the Assemblies of Christians they must look for it as in the proper repository and there they shall find it 3. But then it is also considerable What truth that is of which the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground It is only of the saving truths of the Gospel that whereby they are made members of Christ the house of God the temples of the Holy Spirit For the Spirit of God being the Churches teacher he will teach us to avoid evil and to do good to be wise and simple to be careful and profitable to know God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ to increase in the knowledge and love of them to be peaceable and charitable but not to entertain our selves and our weak Brethren with doubtful disputations but to keep close to the foundation and to superstruct upon that a holy life that is God teaches his Church the way of salvation that which is necessary and that which is useful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will make us wise unto salvation But in this School we are not taught curious questions Unedifying notions to unty knots which interest and vanity which pride and covetousness have introduc'd these are taught by the Devil to divide the Church and by busying them in that which profits not to make them neglect the wisdom of God and the holiness of the Spirit And we see this truth by the experience of above 1500 years The Churches have troubled themselves with infinite variety of questions divided their precious unity destroyed charity and instead of contending against the Devil and all his crafty methods they have contended against one another and excommunicated one another and anathematiz'd and damn'd one another and no man is the better after all but most men are very much the worse and the Churches are in the world still divided about questions that commenc'd twelve or thirteen ages since and they are like to be so for ever till Elias come which shows plainly that God hath not interested himself in the revelations of such things and that he hath given us no means of ending them but Charity and a return to the simple ways of Faith And this is yet the more considerable because men are so far from finding out a way to end the questions they have made that the very ways of ending them which they propounded to themselves are now become the greatest questions and consequently themselves and all their other unnecessary questions are indeterminable their very remedies have increased the disease And yet we may observe that God's ways are not like ours and that his ways are the ways of truth and Everlasting he hath by his wise providence preserv'd the plain places of Scripture and the Apostles Creed in all Churches to be the rule and measure of that faith by which the Churches are sav'd and which is only that means of the unity of Spirit which is the band of peace in matters of belief And what have the Churches done since To what necessary truths are they after all their clampers advanc'd since the Apostles left to them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sound form of words and doctrine What one great thing is there beyond this in which they all agree or in which they can be brought to agree He that wisely observes the ways of God and the ways of man will easily perceive that God's goodness prevails over all the malice and all the follies of mankind and that nothing is to be relied upon as a rule of truth and the wayes of peace but what Christ hath plainly taught and the Apostles from him for he alone is the Author and Finisher of our Faith he began it and he perfected it and unless God had mightily preserved it we had spoil'd it Now to bring all this home to the
present Inquiry The event and intendment of the premisses is this They who slighting the plain and perfect rule of Scripture rely upon the Church as an infallible guide of faith and judge of questions either by the Church mean the Congregation and Communion of Saints or the outward Church mingled of good and bad and this is intended either to mean a particular Church of one name or by it they understand the Catholick Church Now in what sense soever they depend upon the Church for decision of questions expecting an infallible determination and conduct the Church of Rome will find she relies upon a Reed of Egypt or at least a staff of wooll If by the Church they mean the Communion of Saints only though the persons of men be visible yet because their distinctive cognisance is invisible they can never see their guide and therefore they can never know whether they go right or wrong Lib. 3. de Eccl. milit cap 10. And the sad pressure of this argument Bellarmine saw well enough Sect. Ad hoc necesse est It is necessary saith he it should be infallibly certain to us which Assembly of men is the Church For since the Scriptures traditions and plainly all Doctrines depend on the testimony of the Church unless it be most sure which is the true Church all things will be wholly uncertain But it cannot appear to us which is the true Church if internal faith be required of every member or part of the Church Now how necessary true saving Faith or holiness is which Bellarmine calls internal faith I referr my self to the premisses It is not the Church unless the members of the Church be members of Christ living members for the Church is truly Christ's living body And yet if they by Church mean any thing else they cannot be assur'd of an infallible guide for all that are not the true servants of God have no promise of the abode of the Spirit of truth with them so that the true Church cannot be a publick Judge of questions to men because God only knows her numbers and her members and the Church in the other sense if she be made a Judge she is very likely to be deceiv'd her self and therefore cannot be relied upon by you for the promise of an infallible Spirit the Spirit of truth was never made to any but to the Communion of Saints 3. If by the Church you mean any particular Church which will you chuse since every such Church is esteemed fallible But if you mean the Catholick Church then if you mean her an abstracted separate Being from all particulars you pursue a cloud and fall in love with an Idea and a child of fancy but if by Catholick you mean all particular Churches is the world then though truth does infallibly dwell amongst them yet you can never go to school to them all to learn it in such questions which are curious and unnecessary and by which the salvation of Souls is not promoted and on which it does not rely not only because God never intended his Saints and servants should have an infallible Spirit so to no purpose but also because no man can hear what all the Christians of the world do say no man can go to them nor consult with them all nor ever come to the knowledge of their opinions and particular sentiments And therefore in this inquiry to talk of the Church in any of the present significations is to make use of a word that hath no meaning serving to the end of this great Inquiry The Church of Rome to provide for this necessity have thought of a way to find out such a Church as may salve this Phaenomenon and by Church they mean the Representation of a Church The Church representative is this infallible guide The Clergy they are the Church the teaching and the judging Church And of these we may better know what is truth in all our Questions for their lips are to preserve knowledge and they are to rule and feed the rest and the people must require the law from them and must follow their faith Heb. 13. 7. Indeed this was a good way once even in the days of the Apostles who were faithful stewards of the mysteries of God And the Apostolical men the first Bishops who did preach the Faith and liv'd accordingly these are to be remembred that is their lives to be transscribed their faith and perseverance in faith is to be imitated To this purpose is that of S. Irenaeus to be understood Tantae ostensiones cum sint Lib. 3. cap. 3. in principis non oportet adhuc quaerere apud alios veritatem quam facile est ab Ecclesiâ sumere cum Apostoli quasi in repositorium dives plenissimè in eâ contulerint omnia quae sint veritatis ubi omnis quicunque velit sumat ex eâ potum vitae Haec est enim vitae introitus Omnes autem reliqui fures sunt latrones propter quod oportet devitare quidem illos As long as the Apostles lived as long as those Bishops lived who being their Disciples did evidently and notoriously teach the doctrine of Christ and were of that communion so long they that is the Apostolical Churches were a sure way to follow because it was known and confess'd These Clergy-guides had an infallible Unerring spirit But as the Church hath decayed in Discipline and Charity hath waxen-cold and Faith is become interest and disputation this Counsel of the Apostle and these words of S. Irenaeus come off still the fainter But now here is a new question viz. Whether the Rulers of the Church be the Church that Church which is the pillar and ground of truth whether when they represent the diffusive Church the Promises of an indeficient faith and the perpetual abode of the Holy Spirit and his leading into all truth and teaching all things does in propriety belong to them For if they do not then we are yet to seek for an Infallible Judge a Church on which our Faith may relie with certainty and infallibility In answer to which I find that in Scripture the word Ecclesia or Church is taken in contradistinction from the Clergy but never that it is us'd to signifie them alone Act. 15. 22. Then it pleas'd the Apostles and the Elders with the whole Church to choose men of their own company c. And the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the Church of God Act. 20. 28. And Hilarius Diac. observes that the Apostle to the Church of Coloss sent by them a message to their Bishop In Col. 4. 16. Praepositum illorum per eos ipsos commonet ut sit sollicitus de salute ipsorum quia plebis solius scribitur epistola ideò non ad rectorem ipsorum destinata est sed ad Ecclesiam observing that the Bishop is the Ruler of the Church but his Flock is that which he intended onely to
they confuted hereticks and they made them the measures of right and wrong all that collective body of doctrines of which all Christians consentingly made publick confessions and on which all their hopes of salvation did relye were all contain'd in them and they agreed in no point of faith which is not plainly set down in Scripture And all this is so certain that we all profess our selves ready to believe any other Article which can pretend and prove it self thus prov'd thus descended For we know a doctrine is neither more nor less the word of God for being written or unwritten that 's but accidental and extrinsecal to it for it was first unwritten and then the same thing was written onely when it was written it was better conserv'd and surer transmitted and not easily altered and more fitted to be a rule And indeed onely can be so not but that every word of God is as much a rule as any word of God but we are sure that what is so written and so transmitted is Gods Word whereas concerning other things which were not written we have no certain records no evident proof no sufficient conviction and therefore it is not capable of being own'd as the rule of faith or life because we do not know it to be the Word of God If any doctrine which is offer'd to us by the Church of Rome and which is not in Scripture be prov'd as Scripture is we receive it equally but if it be not it is to be received according to the degree of its probation and if it once comes to be disputed by wise and good men if it came in after the Apostles if it rely but upon a few Testimonies or is to be laboriously argued into a precarious perswasion it cannot be the true ground of faith and salvation can never rely upon it The truth of the assumption in this argument will rely upon an Induction of which all Churches have a sufficient experience there being in no Church any one instance of doctrine of faith or life that can pretend to a clear universal Tradition and Testimony of the first and of all ages and Churches but onely the doctrine contain'd in the undoubted Books of the Old and New Testament And in the matter of good life the case is evident and certain which makes the other also to be like it for there is no original or primary Commandement concerning good life but it is plainly and notoriously found in Scripture Now faith being the foundation of good life upon which it is most rationally and permanently built it is strange that Scripture should be sufficient to teach us all the whole superstructure and yet be defective in the foundation Neither do we doubt but that there were many things spoken by Christ and his Apostles which were never written and yet those few onely that were written are by the Divine Providence and the care of the Catholick Church of the first and all descending ages preserv'd to us and made our Gospel So that as we do not dispute whether the words which Christ spake and the Miracles he did and are not written be as holy and as true as those which are written but onely say they are not our rule and measures because they are unknown So there is no dispute whether they be to be preferr'd or relied upon as the written or unwritten Word of God for both are to be relied upon and both equally always provided that they be equally known to be so But that which we say is That there are many which are called Traditions which are not the unwritten Word of God at least not known so to be and the doctrines of men are pretended and obtruded as the Commandments of God and the Testimonie of a few men is made to support a weight as great as that which relies upon universal Testimony and particular traditions are equall'd to universal the uncertain to the certain and traditions are said to be Apostolical if they be but ancient and if they come from we know not whom they are said to come from the Apostles and if postnate they are call'd primitive and they are argued and laboriously disputed into the title of Apostolical traditions by not onely fallible but fallacious arguments as will appear in the following numbers This is the state of the Question and therefore 1. It proves it self because there can be no proof to the contrary since the elder the tradition is the more likely it can be prov'd as being nearer the fountain and not having had a long current which as a long line is always the weakest so in long descent is most likely to be corrupted and therefore a late tradition is one of the worst arguments in the world it follows that nothing can now because nothing of Faith yet hath been sufficiently prov'd 2. But besides this consideration the Scripture it self is the best testimony of it's own fulness and sufficiencie I have already in the Introduction against I. S. prov'd from Scripture that all necessary things of salvation are there abundantly contain'd that is I have prov'd that Scripture says so Neither ought it to be replyed here that no man's testimony concerning himself is to be accepted For here we suppose that we are agreed that the Scripture says true that it is the word of God and cannot be deceived and if this be allow'd the Scripture then can give testimony concerning it self and so can any Man if you allow him to be infallible and all that he says to be true which is the case of Scripture in the present Controversie And if you will not allow Scripture to give testimony to it self who shall give testimony to it Shall the Church or the Pope suppose which we will But who shall give testimony to them Shall they give credit to Scripture before it be known how they come themselves to be Credible If they be not credible of themselves we are not the neerer for their giving their testimony to the Scriptures But if it be said that the Church is of it self credible upon it's own authority this must be prov'd before it can be adâ—itted and then how shall this be proved And at least the Scripture will be pretended to be of it self credible as the Church And since it is evident that all the dignity power authority office and sanctity it hath or pretends to have can no other way be prov'd but by the Scriptures a conformity to them in all Doctrines Laws and Manners being the only Charter by which she claims it must needs be that Scripture hath the prior right and can better be primely credible than the Church or any thing else that claims from Scripture Nay therefore quoad nos it is to be allowed to be primely credible because there is no Creature besides it that is so Indeed God was pleas'd to find out ways to prove the Scriptures to be his Word his immediate Word by miraculous consignations and
the word Internal every new thing shall pass for the word of God so it shall do also under the Roman pretence For not he that makes a Law but he that expounds the Law gives the final measures of Good or Evil. It follows from hence that nothing but the Scripture's sufficiencie can be a sufficient limit to the inundation of evils which may enter from these parties relying upon the same false Principle My Last argugument is from Tradition it self For 7. If we enquire upon what grounds the primitive Church did rely for their whole Religion we shall find they knew none else but the Scriptures Vbi Scriptum was their first inquiry Do the Prophets and the Apostles the Evangelists or the Epistles say so Read it there and then teach it else reject it they call upon their Charges in the words of Christ Search the Scriptures they affirm that the Scriptures are full that they are a perfect Rule that they contain all things necessary to salvation and from hence they confuted all Heresies This I shall clearly prove by abundant testimonies Of which though many of them have been already observ'd by very many learned persons yet because I have added others not so noted and have collected with diligence and care and have rescued them from Elusory answers I have therefore chosen to represent them together hoping they may be of more usefulness than trouble because I have here made a trial whether the Church of Rome be in good earnest or no when she pretends to follow Tradition or how it is that she expects a tradition shall be prov'd For this Doctrine of the Scripture's sufficiency I now shall prove by a full tradition therefore if she believes Tradition let her acknowledge this tradition which is so fully prov'd and if this do not amount to a full probation then it is but reasonable to expect from them that they never obtrude upon us any thing for tradition or any tradition for necessary to be believed till they have proved it such by proofs more and more clear than this Essay concerning the sufficiency and perfection of the Divine Scriptures I begin with S. Irenaeus * Rectissimè quidem scientes quia Scripturae quidem perfectae sunt quippe à verbo Dei Spiritu ejus dictae lib. 2. cap. 47. We know that the Scriptures are perfect for they are spoken by the word of God and by his Spirit Therefore * Lib. 4. c. 66. Legite diligentius id quod ab Apostolis est Evangelium nobis datum legite diligentius Prophetas invenietis Vniversam actionem omnem doctrinam Domini nostri praedicatam in ipsis read diligently the Gospel given unto us by the Apostles and read diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and the whole doctrine and the whole passion of our Lord preached in them And indeed we have receiv'd the Oeconomy of our salvation by no other but by those by whom the Gospel came to us which truly they then preached but afterwards by the will of God delivered to us in the Scriptures which was to be the pillar and ground to our Faith These are the words of this Saint who was one of the most ancient Fathers of the Church a Greek by birth by his dignity and imployment a Bishop in France and so most likely to know the sense and rule of the Eastern and Western Churches Next to S. Irenaeus Strom. lib. 7. P. 757 edit Parâ—s 1629. we have the Doctrine of S. Clemens of Alexandria in these words He hath lost the being a man of God and of being faithful to the Lord who hath kicked against Tradition Ecclesiastical and hath turned to the opinions of humane Heresies What is this Tradition Ecclesiastical and where is it to be found That follows But he who returning out of Error obeys the Scriptures and hath permitted his life to truth he is of a Man in a manner made a God For the Lord is the principle of our Doctrine who by the Prophets and the Gospel and the blessed Apostles at sundry times and in divers manners leads us from the beginning to the end He that is faithful of himself is worthy of faith in the Voice and Scripture of the Lord which is usually exercis'd through the Lord to the benefit of men for this Scripture we use for the finding out of things this we use as the rule of judging But if it be not enough to speak our opinions absolutely but that we must prove what we say we expect no testimony that is given by men but by the voice of the Lord we prove the Question and this is more worthy of belief than any demonstration or rather it is the only demonstration by which knowledge they who have tasted of the Scriptures alone are faithful Afterwards he tells how the Scriptures are a perfect demonstration of the Faith Perfectly demonstrating out of the Scriptures themselves concerning themselves we speak or perswade demonstratively of the Faith Although even they that go after Heresies do dare to use the Scriptures of the Prophets But first they use not all neither them that are perfect nor as the whole body and contexture of the Prophecy does dictate but choosing out those things which are spoken ambiguously they draw them to their own opinion Then he tells how we shall best use and understand the Scriptures Let every one consider what is agreeable to the Almighty Lord God and what becomes him and in that let him confirm every thing from those things which are demonstrated from the Scriptures out of those and the like Scriptures And he adds that It is the guise of Hereticks when they are overcome by shewing that they oppose Scriptures Yet still they chuse to follow that which to them seems evident rather than that which is spoken of the Lord by the Prophets and by the Gospel and what is prov'd and confirm'd by the testimony of the Apostles and at last concludes a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 755. they become impious because they believe not the Scriptures and a little before this he asks the Hereticks Will they deny or will they grant there is any demonstration I suppose they will all grant there is except those who also deny that there are senses But if there be any demonstration it is necessary to descend to Questions and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the Scriptures themselves to learn demonstratively how the Heresies are fallen and on the contrary how the most perfect knowledge is in the truth and the ancient Church But again they that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 untill they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves And after this adds his advice to Christians To wax old in the Scriptures and thence to seek for demonstrations These things he spoke not only by way of
difference S. Basil here declar'd that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord so now also at this time Ibidem in seqâ—entibus viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying * Truth will out pag. 3. that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned which is not in Scripture For although the Church of Rome does that also putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged or by the Primitive Church of Christians yet besides this S. Basil having having said Vbi supra Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures is not of faith and therefore it is a sin he says also by certain consequence That to add to the Scriptures is all one as to add to the Faith And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures In Regul brev reg 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to his 95th question Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture he answers It is right and it is necessary that those things which appertain to use every one should learn from the Scriptures both for the replenishing of their mind with piety as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions By which words he not onely declares that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety but that humane traditions by which he means every thing that is not contain'd in Scripture are not to be receiv'd but ought to be and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks Moral Regul 26. Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures both for the full persuasion of the good and the confusion or damnation of evil things There 's your rule that 's the ground of all true faith And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council Epist. ad Epicteâ—um Corinthiorum Episc. made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God because it was determin'd and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ. De Incarnat Nay he affirms that the Catholick Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Which words I the rather remark Idem Athanas. in Exhort ad Monachos because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father is brought as an instance by the Romanists of the necessity of tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture But not in this onely but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely Moral contra Gentiles in 〈◊〉 that is the whole truth of the Gospel he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety does not much need the ministery of man and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth Coloniae ex officâ—â— Melcâ—â—â—â—â— Novefiani 1548. ad omnem instructionem veritatis so the Latine Translation for the whole instruction of truth or the instruction of all truth But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion than himself to draw it from Scripture S. Athanasius tells him that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers and our masters which if men will diligently read over he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures and obtain that notion of truth which he desires Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan who compares the Scriptures to a Door which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in and introduce us to God and to the knowledge of God This surely is sufficient if it does this it does all that we need and if it does not S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd and so are we and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages But he is constant in the same affirmative Homil 9. in 2 Timoth. If there be need to learn or to be ignorant thence we shall learn it Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem if to confute or argue that which is false thence we shall draw it if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhortation if any thing be wanting for our comfort and that we ought to have it nevertheless from thence from the Scriptures we learn it That the man be perfect therefore without it he cannot be perfected In stead of me he saith thou hast the Scriptures if thou desirest to learn any thing hence thou mayest But if he writes these things to Timothy who was fill'd with the holy Spirit how much more must we think these things spoken to us To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Homil. 9. in Coloss. in 2 Thess. 2. which is here too long to transcribe Let no man look for another master Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper imperfecti Thou hast the Oracles of God No man teaches thee like to them Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith but that of the Divine Scripture but now by no means is it known by them who would know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert Bellarmine very learnedly sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation and it being without cause to suspect it though the Author of it had been an Arian because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the
did mean so But then if there be any obscure places that cannot be so enlightned what is to be done with them S. Austin says Lib. de Vnit. Ecclesiae c. 16. that in such places let every one abound in his own sense and expound as well as he can quae obscurè vel ambiguè vel figuratè dicta sunt quae quisque sicut voluerit interpretetur secundum sensum suum But yet still he calls us to the rule of plain places Talia autem rectè intelligi exponique non possunt nisi priùs ea quae apertissimè dicta sunt firma fide teneantur The plain places of Scripture are the way of expounding the more obscure and there is no other viz. so apt and certain And after all this I deny not but there are many other external helps God hath set Bishops and Priests Preachers and Guides of our Souls over us and they are appointed to teach others as far as they can and it is to be suppos'd they can do it best but then the way for them to find out the meaning of obscure places is that which I have now describ'd out of the Fathers and by the use of that means they will be best enabled to teach others If any man can find a better way than the Fathers have taught us he will very much oblige the world by declaring it and giving a solid experiment that he can do what he undertakes But because no man and no company of men hath yet expounded all hard places with certaintie and without error it is an intolerable vanitie to pretend to a power of doing that which no charitie hath ever obliged them to do for the good of the Church and the glory of God and the rest of inquiring Souls I end this tedious discourse with the words of S. Austin De Vnit. Eccles. cap. 3. Nolo humanis documentis sed Divinis oraculis Ecclesiam demonstrari If you enquire where or which is the Church from humane teachings you can never find her she is only demonstrated in the Divine Oracles 1 Pet. 4. 1. Therefore if any man speak let him speak as the Oracles of God SECTION III. Of Traditions TRadition is any way of delivering a thing or word to another and so every doctrine of Christianity is by Tradition 1 Thes. 2. 15. I have deliver'd unto you saith S. Paul that Christ died for our sins 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sic S. Pasilius lib. 3. contr Eunomium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say the Grammarians and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Jude the faith deliver'd is the same which S. Paul explicates by saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the traditions that is the doctrines ye were taught And S. * Lib. 3. c. 4. Irenaeus calls it a tradition Apostolical that Christ took the Cup and said it was his bloud and to believe in one God and in Christ who was born of a Virgin was the old tradition that is the thing deliver'd not at first written which the Barbarians kept diligently But Tradition signified either Preaching or Writing as it hapned When it signified Preaching it was only the first way of communicating the Religion of Jesus Christ and untill the Scriptures were written and consign'd by the full testimony of the Apostles and Apostolical Churches respectively they in the Questions of Religion usually appeal'd to the tradition or the constant retention of such a doctrine in those Churches where the Apostles first preach'd and by the succession of Bishops in those Churches who without variety or change had still remembred and kept the same doctrine which at first was deliver'd by the Apostles So Irenaeus If the Apostles had not left the Scriptures to us Ibid. must not we viz. in this case have followed the order of tradition which they deliver'd to them to whom they intrusted the Church to which ordination many Nations of Barbarians do assent And that which was true then is also true now for if the Apostles had never written at all we must have followed tradition unless God had provided for us some better thing But it is observable that Irenaeus says That this way is only in the destitution of Scripture But since God hath supplied not only the principal Churches with the Scriptures but even all the Nations which the Greeks and Romans call'd Barbarous now to run to Tradition is to make use of a staff or a wooden Leg when we have a good Leg of our own The traditions at the first publication of Scriptures were clear evident recent remembred talk'd of by all Christians in all their meetings publick and private and the mistaking of them by those who carefully endeavour'd to remember them was not easie and if there had been a mistake there was an Apostle living or one of their immediate Disciples to set all things right And therefore untill the Apostles were all dead Hegâ—sip apud Eccles. liâ— 38. c. 32. Grec 26. Latin there was no dispute considerable amongst Christians but what was instantly determin'd or suppress'd and the Heresies that were did creep and sting clancularly but made no great show But when the Apostles were all dead then that Apostasie foretold began to appear and Heresies of which the Church was warned began to arise But it is greatly to be remark'd There was then no Heresie that pretended any foundation from Scripture Acts 20. 29. 30. but from tradition many 1 Tim. 4. 1. c. for it was accounted so glorious a thing to have been taught by an Apostle 2 Tim 3. â— c. 4. 3. that even good men were willing to believe any thing which their Scholars pretended to have heard their Masters preach 2 Thes. 2. 3. and too many were forward to say 2 Pet. 2. â— c. they heard them teach what they never taught 1 Joh. 2. 18. 19. and the pretence was very easie to be made by the Contemporaries or Immediate descendants after the Apostles Jude 4. v. c. and now that they were dead it was so difficult to confute them that the Hereticks found it an easie game to play to say They heard it deliver'd by an Apostle Many did so and some were at first believed and yet were afterwards discovered some were cried down at first and some expir'd of themselves and some were violently thrust away But how many of those which did descend and pass on to custome were of a true and Apostolical original and how many were not so it will be impossible to find now only because we are sure there was some false dealing in this matter and we know there might be much more than we have discover'd we have no reason to rely upon any tradition for any part of our faith any more than we could do upon Scripture if one
the next best had been to have suppress'd and forgotten it instantly for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists and it could have no determination but the mere nature of the thing it self all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptize in water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and this was an admission to Christianity not to any sect of it and if this had been consider'd wisely so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form there could be no more in it And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose so far was it from being an Article of Faith 4. The next pretence is that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is an Article of our Faith and yet no where told in Scripture and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith To this some very excellent persons have oppos'd this Consideration that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words show that the Controversie it self is trifling or mistaken But though I wish them agreed yet when I consider that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Florence they never understood one another to purposes of peace I am apt to believe that those who would reconcile them shew their piety more than the truth of the thing and that the Greeks and Latins differ'd intirely in this point But then that on the Latin side there should be a tradition Apostolical can upon no other account be pretended but that they could not prove it by Scripture or shew any Ecclesiastical law or authority for it Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine not only from Scripture but also from immemorial tradition that is that they have not innovated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them and on the other side that the Latins have contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus superadded the clause of Filióque to the Constantinopolitan-Creed and that by authority of a little Convention of Bishops at Gentilly neer to Paris without the consent of the Catholick Church and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron Contr. le Râ—y Jaques p. 709. not only the Scripture favours the Greeks but Reason also because it is unimaginable that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind and although the three Persons created the world yet that production was from the Divine essence which is but one principle but the opinion of the Latius is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from two Persons as Persons and therefore from two principles it will be very hard to suppose that because all this is against them therefore it is certain that they had this from Apostolical tradition The more natural consequence is that their proposition is either mistaken or uncertain or not an article of Faith which is rather to be hop'd lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels or perverse Hereticks or else that it can be deriv'd from Scripture which last is indeed the most probable and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins who examin'd things by reason and not by prejudice But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this Titius was accus'd to have deserted his station in the Battel and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna He answers I must either have received Orders from the General or else you must suppose me to be a Coward or a Traytor for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline Well what if you be suppos'd to be a Coward or Traytor what hurt is in that supposition But must I conclude that you had Order from the General for fear I should think you did it on your own head or that you are a Traytor That 's the case Either this proposition is deriv'd to us by Apostolical tradition or we have nothing else to say for our selves well Nempe hoc Ithacus velit The Greeks allow the argument and will say thus You had nothing to say for your selves unless we grant that to you which is the Question and which you can never prove viz. that there is for this Article an Apostolical tradition but because both sides pretend that let us try this thing by Scripture And indeed that 's the only way And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted and turned upon himself For he saying It is not in Scripture therefore it is a tradition of the Church it is as good an argument It is not deliver'd to us by universal Tradition therefore either it is not at all or it is deriv'd to us from Scripture and upon the account of this for my part I do believe it 5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron is the observation of the Lord's Day but this is matter of discipline and external rite and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith or essentially necessary doctrine the consideration is differnt from the rest And it is soon at an end but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Circumcision into Baptism and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical or Lord's-day He might as well have added They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ the Law into the Gospel the Covenant of works into the Covenant of faith Ceremonies into substances and rituals into spiritualities And we need no further inquiry into this Question but to consider Perron ibid. 710. what the Cardinal says that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law Now I demand Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture for the abolishing of the law of Ceremonies If there be then the law of the Sabbath is abolished It is part of the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ nail'd to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory the Church is at liberty but that there should be a time sanctified or set apart for the proper service of God I hope is also very clear from Scripture and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the presidents of religion and then it will follow from Scripture that the Apostles or their Successors or whoever did appoint the Sunday-festival had not onely great reason but full authority to appoint that day and that this was done early and continued constantly for the same reason and by an equal authority is no question But as to the Sabbath S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law and particularly name 's the Sabbath-days Colos. 2. 16. saying They all were a shadow of things
bound to believe truths which are not matters of Faith This obliges upon supposition of a manifest discovery which may or may not happen but in the other case we are bound to inquire and all of us must be instructed and evere man must assent and without this we cannot be Christ's Disciples we are rebels if we oppose the other and no good man can or does For if he be satisfied that it is the word and mind of God he must and will believe it he cannot chuse and if he will not confess it when he thinks God bids him or if he opposes it when he thinks God speaks it he is malicious and a villain but if he does not believe God said it then he must answer for more than he knows or than he ought to believe that is the Articles of Faith but we are not Subjects or Children unless we consent to these The other cannot come into the common accounts of mankind but as a man may become a law unto himself by a confident an unnecessary and even a false perswasion because even an erring conscience can bind so much more can God become a law unto us when we by any accident come into the knowledge of any Revelation from God but these are not the Christian Faith in the strict and proper sense that is these are not the foundation of our Religion many a man is a good Christian without them and goes to Heaven though he know nothing of them but without these no Christian can be sav'd Now then the Apostles the founders of Christianity knowing the nature design efficacy and purpose of the Articles of Faith selected such propositions which in conjunction did integrate our Faith and were therefore necessary to be believ'd unto salvation not because these Articles were for themselves commanded to be believ'd but because without the belief of them we could not obtain the purposes and designs of faith that is we could not be enabled to serve God to destroy the whole body of sin to be partakers of the Divine Nature This Collect or Symbol of propositions is that which we call the Apostles Creed which I shall endeavour to prove to have been always in the Primitive Church esteemed a full and perfect Digest of all the necessary and fundamental Articles of Christian Religion and that beyond this the Christian faith or the foundation was not to be extended but this as it was in the whole Complexion necessary so it was sufficient for all men unto Salvation S. Paul gave us the first formal intimation of this measure 2 Tim. 1. 13. in his advises to S. Timothy Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us This was the depositum that S. Paul left with Timothy the hypotyposis or summary of Christian Belief the Christian Creed which S. Paul opposes to the prophane new talkings 1 Tim. 6. 20. and the disputations of pretended learning meaning that this Symbol of faith is the thing on which all Christians are to relie and this is the measure of their faith other things it is ods but they are bablings and prophane quarrelling and unedifying argumentations S. Ignatius recites the substance of this Creed in four of the Epistles usually attributed to him Epist 3. ad Magnes 5. ad Philipp 7. ad Smyrnens 11. ad Ephâ—sio some of which are witnessed by Eusebius and S. Hierom and adds at the end of it this Epiphonema Haee qui planè cognôrit crediderit beatus est And S. Irenaeus reciting the same Creed or form of words differing onely in order of placing them S. Irenaeus lib. 1. ca â— 2. but justly the same Articles and Foundation of faith affirms that this is the faith which the Catholick Church to the very ends of the Earth hath received from the Apostles and their disciples And this is that Tradition Apostolical of which the Churches of old did so much glory and to which with so much confidence they appealed and by which they provoked the hereticks to trial Et. cap. 3. This Preaching and this Faith when the Church scattered over the face of the world had receiv'd she keeps diligently as dwelling in one house and believes as having one soul and one heart and preaches and teaches and delivers these things as possessing one mouth For although there are divers speeches in the world yet the force of the Tradition is one and the same Neither do the Churches founded in Germany believe otherwise aut aliter tradunt or have any other tradition nor the Iberian Churches or those among the Celtae nor the Churches in the East in Egypt or in Lybia nor those which are in the midst of the world But he adds that this is not onely for the ignorant the idiots or Catechumeni but neither he who is most eloquent among the Bishops can say any other things than these for no man is above his Master neither hath he that is the lowest in speaking lessened the tradition For the faith is one and the same he that can speak much can speak no more and he that speaks little says no less This Creed also he recites again affirming that even those Nations who had not yet received the books of the Apostles and Evangelists yet by this Confession and this Creed Lib 3 cap. 4. Propter fidem per quam sapientissimi sunt did please God and were most wise through faith for this is that which he calls the tradition of the truth that is of that truth which the Apostles taught the Church and by the actual retention of which truth it is that the Church is rightly called the pillar and ground of truth by S. Paul Lib. 4. cap. 62. and in relation to this S. Irenaeus reckon'd it to be all one extra veritatem id est extra Ecclesiam Upon this Collect of truths the Church was founded and upon this it was built up and in this all the Apostolical Churches did hope for life eternal and by this they oppos'd all schisms and heresies as knowing what their and our great Master himself said in his last Sermon John 17. 3. This is life eternal to know thee the onely true God and whom thou hast sent Jesus Christ. This also is most largely taught by Tertullian Tertul de praescript adv haerâ—t c. 13. 14. who when he had recited the Apostolical Creed in the words and form the Church then used it calls it the Rule of faith he affirms this Rule to have been instituted by Christ he affirms that it admits of no questions and hath none but those which the heresies brought in and which indeed makes hereticks But this form remaining in its order you may seek and handle and pour out all the desires of Curiositie if any thing seems
The Question is made What is meant by it They that have a mind to it understand it easily enough it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh or he that was to come For whereas the Jews were the Inclosure and peculiar people of God at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more but the Gentiles being called and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world it was no more the Church of the Jews but Ecclesia totius mundi the Church of the Universe the Universal or Catholick Church of Jews and Gentiles of all people and all Languages Now this great and glorious mystery we confess in this Article that is we confess that God hath given to his Son the Heathen for an Inheritance and the utmost parts of the world for a possession that God is no respecter of persons Acts 10. 35. but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him This is the plain sense of the Article and renders the Article also highly considerable and represents it as Fundamental and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles and is not only easie and intelligible but greatly for Edification Now then let us see how the Church of Rome by her Head and Members expound or declare this Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church so it is in the Apostles Creed I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church so the Nicene Creed Here is no difference and no Commentary but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catholick Church as if it had been said I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world and not limited to the Jewish pale and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner she hath explain'd it so clearly that no wise man can believe it she hath declar'd the Article so as to make it a new one and made an addition to it that destroys the principal Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem Magistram agnosco I acknowledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches And at the end of this declaration of the Creed it is added as at the end of the Athanasian This is the true Catholick faith without which no man can be saved And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks secular or Religious Now let it be considered Whether this Declaration be not a new Article and not onely so but a destruction to the old 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholick or Universal Church The Pope limits it and calls it the Catholick Roman Church that by all he means some and the Vniversal means but particular But besides this 2. It is certain this must be a piece of a new Creed since it is plain the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church than as every other Church which was then or should be after And why Roman should be put in and not the Ephesine the Caesarean or the Hierosolymitan it is not to be imagined 3. This must needs be a new Article because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being I believe the holy Catholick Church was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed as equal and of the extent with the Catholick is not onely a false but a malicious addition For they having perpetually in their mouths That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation and now against the truth simplicity interest and design of the Apostolical Creed having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion and that is the far biggest part of the Catholick Church 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholick in the Creed when it is confess'd among * Driedo de dogmat Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3. themselves that it is not of faith that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman and * Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum Bellarmine proves this because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it and then if ever they be separated and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople then the Creed must be chang'd again and it must run thus I believe the holy Catholick and Apostolick Constantinopolitan Church 6. There is in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed a manifest untruth decreed enjoyn'd profess'd and commanded to be sworn to and that is that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches For the Law went forth out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem Apud Baron AD. 382. n 15. and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril said Vide etiam S. Basil tom 2. ep 30. Greg. Theol. We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem which is the Mother of all other Churches The like is said of the Church of Cesarea with an exception onely of Jerusalem quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum fuit ab initio nune quoque est nominatur quam Christiana respublica velut centrum suum circulus undique observat How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider In the mean time it is impossible that it should be true that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother but for another pretty reason which Bellarmine hath invented Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches Lib. 1. de Rom. and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio yet this seems not to be true but in that sense because Peter was Bishop of Rome he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops by himself or by others Otherwise since
are the wise consultations of States and Councils do they always discourse foolishly when they proceed and argue but upon probabilities Nay what does I. S. think of General Councils who are fallible in their premisses though right in their Conclusions do their conclusions suppose their premisses upon which they build their conclusions to be certain If not then I. S. hath affirm'd weakly that all discourse supposes that certain upon which it builds Well! but how does he build upon this rotten foundation who hath already in this very procedure confuted his following discourse as being such which does not I am sure ought not as appears by the reasons I have brought against it suppose that certain on which it is built Thus if tradition or the way of conveying down matters of fact by the former ages testifying can fail none of these viz. Scripture reason history Fathers Councils yea instances are certain This is his assumption and this besides that it is false is also to none of his purposes 1. It is false For suppose tradition be not certain how must all reason therefore fail for first there must be some reason presupposed before the certainty of tradition can be established and if there be not why does I. S. offer at a demonstrative reason to prove the certainty of tradition though if there be no better reasons for it than he hath yet shown his reason and tradition fail together 2. Supposing tradition should fail yet there may be reasons given for the excellency of Christianity which as they confirm Christians in their faith and beget love to the articles so they may be sufficient to invite even the wiser heathens to consider it and choose it But then suppose that these things should be uncertain upon the supposal of the uncertainty of tradition of matters of fact yet it will avail I. S. nothing for it will only follow that then those things which only rely upon that matter of fact are not demonstratively certain but though it may fail in some things it may be right in others and we may have reason for one and not for another and then either those things must be proved some other way or else they can be believed but only so far as the first topic will extend which yet though so uncertain as not to be infallible or demonstrative may be certain enough to make men believe and live and dye accordingly For if we have no better God requires no better and by these things will bring his purposes to pass and if this were not true what will become of the Laity and many the ignorant Priests of his own Church who do not rely upon the certainty of Universal tradition but the single testimony of their Parents or their Parish Priest But of this afterwards But to come closer to the thing suppose tradition of fact be certain for so it is in many instances and if it be Universal it will be allowed to be so in all yet it is but so certain that yet there is a natural possibility that it should be false and it is possible that what the Generality of one sort of men do joyntly testifie may yet be found false or at least uncertain as the burial of Mahomet in Mecha and his being attracted by a Loadstone of which the Mahumetans have a long and general tradition at least we in Christendom are made to believe so and if it be not so yet it is naturally possible that they should all believe and teach a lie and they actually do so yet I will allow Ecclesiastical Catholic tradition speaking morally to be certain and indubitable and that if this should fail much of our comfort and certainty of adherence to Christian Religion would fail with it but then it is to be considered that the certainty of tradition which is allowed is but in matters of fact not in doctrines because the fact may be one the doctrines many that soon remembred these soon forgotten that perceived by sense these mistaken and misunderstood And though it is very credibly reported and easily believed that Julius Caesar was kill'd in the Senate yet all that he said that day and all the unwritten orders he made and all his orations will not cannot so easily be trusted upon Oral tradition So that Oral tradition is a good ministery of conveying a record but is not the best record and the principle office of Oral tradition is done when the record is verified by it when the Scripture is consign'd and though still it is useful yet it is not still so necessary For when by tradition or Oral testimony we are assur'd that the Bible is the word of God and the great record of salvation then we are sure that God who gave it will preserve it or not require it and he that design'd it to such an end will make and keep it sufficient to that end and that he hath done so already is therefore notorious because God hath been pleased to multiply the copies and enwrap the contents of that book with the biggest interests of mankind that it is made impossible to destroy that divine repository of necessary and holy doctrines And when the Christians were by deaths and tortures assaulted to cause them to deliver up their Bibles that they might be destroyed the persecutors prevailed not they might with as much success have undertaken to drink up the sea And that providence which keeps the whole from destruction will also keep all it's necessary parts from corruption lest the work of God become insufficient to the end of it's designation And he that will look for better security than we can have from the certain knowledge and experience of the infallibility of the Divine providence and never failing goodness must erect a new office of assurance The effect of this discourse is this that Oral tradition may be very certain and in some case is the best evidence we have in matters of fact unless where we are taught by sense or revelation and if it were not certain we should be infinitely to seek for notices of things that are past but this is but a moral certainty though it be the best we have and this is but in matters of fact not in doctrines and orations or notions delivered in many words and after all this when tradition hath consign'd an instrument or record a writing or a book it may then leave being necessary and when the providence of God undertakes to supply the testimony of man the change is for our advantage Well! now having considered this second proposition let us see what his Conclusion is for that also hath something of particular consideration as having in it something more than was in the premisses The Conclusion is this Therefore a Protestant or a renouncer of tradition cannot with reason pretend to discourse out of any of these To which I shall reply these things 1. This Gentleman wholly mistakes us Protestants as he did the Protestant
what I say Melch. 〈◊〉 loc Theol. lib. 7. cap. 3. n. 8. Tertia Conclusio Plurium sanctorum authoritas reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus firma argumenta Theologo sufficere praestare non valet If the Major part of Fathers consenting be not a sufficient argument as Canus here expresly says then no argument from the authority of Fathers can prove it Catholic unless it be Universal Not that it is requir'd that each single point be proved by each single Father as I. S. most weakly would infer for that indeed is morally impossible but that when the Fathers of the later ages of whom we speak are divided in sentence and interest neither from the lesser number nor yet from the greater can you conclude any Catholic consent Ecclesia Universalis nunquam errat quia nunquam tota errat it is not to be imputed to the Universal Church unless all of it agree and by this Abulensis asserts the indefectibility of the Church of God Abulens praef in Matth. q. 3. it never erres because all of it does never erre And therefore here is wholly a mistake for to prove a point de fide from the authority of the Fathers we require an Universal consent Not that it is expected that every mans hand that writes should be at it or every mans vote that can speak should be to it for this were unreasonable but an Universal consent is so required that is that there be no dissent by any Fathers equally Catholic and reputed Reliquis licet paucioribus reclamantibus if others though the fewer number do dissent then the Major part is not testimony sufficient And therefore when Vincentius Lirinensis and Thomas of Walden affirmed that the consent of the Major part of Fathers from the Apostles downwards is Catholic Canus expounds their meaning to be in case that the few Dissentients have been condemned by the Church then the Major part must carry it Thus when some of the Fathers said that Melchisedeck was the Holy Ghost here the Major part carried it because the opinion of the Minor part was condemned by the Church But let me add one caution to this that it may pass the better Unless the Church of that age in which a Minor part of Fathers contradicts a greater do give testimony in behalf of the Major part which thing I think never was done and is not indeed easie to be supposed though the following ages reject the Minor part it is no argument that the doctrine of the Major part was the Catholic doctrine of that age It might by degrees become Universal that was not so at first and therefore unless the whole present age do agree that is unless of all that are esteemed Orthodox there be a present consent this broken consent is not an infallible testimony of the Catholicism of the doctrine And this is plain in the case of S. Cyprian and the African Fathers I. S. p. 3. 4. denying the baptism of heretics to be valid Supposing a greater number of Doctors did at that time believe the contrary yet their testimony is no competent proof that the Church of that age was of their judgement No although the succeeding ages did condemn the opinion of the Africans for the question now is not whether S. Cyprians doctrine be true or no but whether it was the Catholic doctrine of the Church of that age It is answered it was not because many Catholic Doctors of that age were against it and for the same reason neither was their doctrine the Catholic because as wise and as learned men opposed them in it and it is a frivolous pretence to say that the contrary viz. to S. Cyprians doctrine was found and defin'd to be the faith and the sense of the Church for suppose it was but then it became so by a new and later definition not by the oral tradition of that present age and therefore this will do I. S. no good but help to overthrow his fond hypothesis This or that might be a true doctrine but not the doctrine of the then Catholic Church in which the Catholics were so openly and with some earnestness divided And therefore it was truly said in the Dissuasive That the clear saying of one or two of those Fathers truly alledged by us to the contrary will certainly prove that what many of them suppose it do affirm and which but two or three as good Catholics do deny was not then a matter of faith or a doctrine of the Church If it had these dissentients publicly owning and preaching that doctrine would have been no Catholics but Heretics Against this I. S. hath a pretty sophism or if you please let it pass for one of his demonstrations Ibid. If one or two denying a point which many others affirm argues that it is not of faith then a fortiori if one or two affirm it to be of faith it argues it is of faith though many others deny it This consequent is so far from arising from the antecedent that in the world nothing destroys it more For because the denial of one or two argues a doctrine is not Catholic though affirm'd by many therefore it is impossible that the affirmation of one or two when there be many dissentients should sufficiently prove a doctrine to be Catholic The antecedent supposes that true which therefore concludes the consequent to be false for therefore the affirming a thing to be Catholic by two or three or twenty does not prove it to be so unless all consent because the denying it to be Catholic which the antecedent supposes by two or three is a good testimony that it is not Catholic I. S. his argument is like this If the absence of a few makes the company not full then the presence of a few when more are absent a fortiori makes the company to be full But because I must say nothing but what must be reduc'd to grounds I have to shew the stupendious folly of this argument a self evident Principle and that is Bonum and so Verum is ex integra causa malum ex qualibet particulari and a cup is broken if but one piece of the lip be broken but it is not whole unless it be whole all over And much more is this true in a question concerning the Universality of consent or of tradition For I. S. does praevaricate in the Question which is whether the testimony be Universal if the particulars be not agreed and he instead of that thrusts in another word which is no part of the Question for so he changes it by saying the dissent of a few does not make but that the article is a point of faith for though it cannot be supposed a point of faith when any number of the Catholic Fathers do profess to believe a proposition contrary to it yet possibly it will by some of his side be said to be a point of faith upon other accounts as upon the Churches definition
Concilio Generali praesidens and the 3d. Council of Toledo in the 18th Chapter uses this mandatory form Praecipit haec sancta Vniversalis Synodus 3 But if we will suppose a Catachrêsis in this style and that this title of Vniversal means but a Particular that is an Universal of that place though this be a hard expression because the most particular or local Councils are or may be universal to that place yet this may be pardon'd since it is like the Catholick Roman style that is the manner of speaking in the Universal particular Church but after all this it will be very hard in good Earnest to tell which Councils are indeed Universal or General Councils Bellarmine reckons eighteen from Nicene to Trent inclusively so that the Council of Florence is the sixteenth and yet Pope Clement the seventh calls it the eighth General and is reproved for it by Surius who for all the Pope's infallibility pretended to know more than the Pope would allow The last Lateran Council viz. the fifth is at Rome esteem'd a General Council In Germany and France it passes for none at all but a faction and pack of Cardinals 4. There are divers General Councils that though they were such yet they are rejected by almost all the christian world It ought not to be said that these are not General Councils because they were conventions of heretical persons for if a Council can consist of heretical persons as by this instance it appears it may then a General Council is no sure rule or ground of faith And all those Councils which Bellarmin calls reprobate are as so many proofs of this For what ever can be said against the Council of Ariminum yet they cannot say but it consisted of DC Bishops and therefore it was as general as any ever was before it but the faults that are found with it prove indeed that it is not to be accepted but then they prove two things more First That a General Council binds not till it be accepted by the Churches and therefore that all its authority depends on them and they do not depend upon it And secondly that there are some General Councils which are so far from being infallible that they are directly false schismatical and heretical And if when the Churches are divided in a question and the communion like the Question is in flux and reflux when one side prevails greatly they get a General Council on their side and prevail by it but lose as much when the other side play the same game in the day of their advantages And it will be to no purpose to tell me of any Collateral advantages that this Council hath more than another Council for though I believe so yet others do not and their Council is as much a General Council to them as our Council is to us And therefore if General Councils are the rule and law of faith in those things they determine then all that is to be considered in this affair is Whether they be General Councils Whether they say true or no is not now the question but is to be determin'd by this viz. whether are they General Councils or no for relying upon their authority for the truth if they be satisfied that they are General Councils that they speak and determine truth will be consequent and allowed Now then if this be the question then since divers General Councils are reprobated the consequent is that although they be General Councils yet they may be reprov'd And if a Catholick producing the Nicene Council be r'encontred by an Arian producing the Council of Ariminum which was farre more numerous here are aquilis aquilae pila minantia pilis but who shall prevail If a General Council be the rule and guide they will both prevail that is neither And it ought not to be said by the Catholick Yea but our Council determin'd for the truth but yours for errour for the Arian will say so too But whether they do or no yet it is plain that they may both say so and if they do then we do not find the truth out by the conduct and decision of a General Council but we approve this General because upon other accounts we believe that what is there defin'd is true And therefore S. Austin's way here is best Neque ego Nicenum Concilium neque tu Ariminense c. both sides pretend to General Councils that which both equally pretend to will help neither therefore let us go to Scripture But there are amongst many others two very considerable instances by which we may see plainly at what rate Councils are declar'd General A. D. 755. There was a Council held at C. P. under Constantinus Copronymus of 338 Bishops It was in that unhappy time when the question of worshipping or breaking images was disputed A D. 786. aut 789. This Council commanded images to be destroyed out of Churches and this was a General Council and yet 26 or as some say 31 years after this was condemned by another General Council viz. the second at Nice which decreed images to be worshipped not long after about five years this General Council of Nice for that very reason was condemned by a General Council of Francford and generally by the Western Churches Now of what value is a General Council to the determination of questions of faith when one General Council condemns another General Council with great liberty and without scruple And it is to no purpose to allege reasons or excuses why this or that Council is condemn'd for if they be General and yet may without reason be condemn'd then they have no authority but if they be condemned with reason then they are not infallible The other instance is in those Councils which were held when the dispute began between the Council and the Pope The Council of Constance consisting of almost a thousand Fathers first and last defin'd the Council to be above the Pope the Council of Florence and the fift Council in the Lateran have condemn'd this Council so far as to that article The Council of Basil all the world knows how greatly they asserted their own Authority over the Pope but therefore though in France it is accepted yet in Italy and Spain it is not But what is the meaning that some Councils are partly approv'd and partly condemned the Council of Sardis that in Trullo those of Francfort Constance and Basil but that every man and every Church accepts the General Councils as far as they please and no further The Greeks receive but seven General Councils the Lutherans receive six the Eutychians in Asia receive but the first three the Nestorians in the East receive but the first two the Anti-trinitarians in Hungary and Poland receive none The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard not that they are infallible but that they have determin'd wisely and holily Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata It
is as every one likes for the Church of Rome that receives sixteen are divided and some take-in others and reject some of these as I have shown 5. How can it be known which is a General Council and how many conditions are requir'd for the building such a great House The question is worth the asking not only because the Church of Rome teaches us to rely upon a General Council as the supreme Judge and final determiner of questions but because I perceive that the Church of Rome is at a loss concerning General Councils A. D. 1409. deâ—â—oâ—cil Eccles. l. â— c. 8. The Council of Pisa Bellarmine says is neither approv'd nor reprov'd for Pope Alexander the 6th approv'd it because he acknowledg'd the Election of Alexander the 5th who was created Pope by that Council and yet Antoninus called it Conciliabulum illegitimum an unlawful Conventicle But here Bellarmine was a little forgetful for the fift Lateran Council which they in Rome will call a General hath condemn'd this Pisan with great interest and fancie and therefore it was both approv'd and reprov'd But it is fit that it be inquir'd How we shall know which or what is a General Council and which is not 1. If we inquire into the number of the Bishops there present we cannot find any certain Rule for that but be they many or few the parties interested will if they please call it a General Council And they will not dare not I suppose at Rome make a quarrel upon that point when in the sixth Session of Trent as some printed Catalogues * 1546. inform us they may remember there were but 38 persons in all at their first sitting down of which number some were not Bishops and at last there were but 57 Archbishops and Bishops in all In the first Session were but three Archbishops and twenty three Bishops and in all the rest about sixty Archbishops and Bishops was the usual number till the last and yet there are some Councils of far greater antiquity who are rejected although their number of Bishops very far surpass the numbers of Trent In Nice were 318 Bishops in that of Chalcedon were 600 and in that of Basil were above 400 Bishops and in that of Constance were 300 besides the other Fathers as they call them But this is but one thing of many though it will be very hard to think that all the power and energy the virtual faith and potential infallibility of the whole Christian Church should be in 80 or 90 Bishops taken out of the neighbour-Countreys 6. But then if we consider upon what pitiful pretences the Roman Doctors do evacuate the Authority of Councils we shall find them to be such that by the like which can never be wanting to a witty person the authority of every one of them may be vilified and consequently they can be infallible security to no man's faith Charles the 7th of France and the French Church assembled at Bruges rejected the latter Sessions of the Council of Basil because they depriv'd P. Eugenius and created Felix the 5th and because it was doubtful whether that Assembly did sufficiently represent the Catholick Church But Bellarmine says that the former Sessions of the Council of Basil are invalid and null because certain Bishops fell off there and were faulty Now if this be a sufficient cause of nullity then if ever there be a schism or but a division of opinions the other party may deny the Authority of the Council and especially if any of them change their opinion and go to the prevailing side the other hath the same cause of complaint but this ought not at all to prevail till it be agreed how many Bishops must be present for if some fail if enough remain there is no harm done to the Authority But because any thing is made use of for an excuse it is a sure sign they are but pretended more than regarded but just when they serve mens turns The Council of C. P. under Leo Isaurus is rejected by the Romanists because there was no Patriarch present but S. German though all the world knows the reason is because they decreed against images But if the other were a good Reason then it is necessary that all the old Patriarchs should be present and if this be true then the General Council of Ephesus is null because all the Patriarchs were not present at it and particularly the Patriarch of Antioch and in that of Chalcedon there wanted the Patriarch of Alexandria And the first of C. P. could not have all the Patriarchs nether could it be Representative of the whole Church because at the same time there was another Council at Rome and which is worse to the Romanists than all that the Council of Trent upon this and a 1000 more is invalid because themselves reckon but three Patriarchs there present one was of Venice another of Aquileia and the third was only a titular of Jerusalem none of which were really any of the old Patriarchs whose Authority was so great in the Ancient Councils 7. It is impossible as things are now that a General Council should be a sure Rule or Judge of Faith Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil Eccles. cap. 15. since it can never be agreed who of necessity are to be called and who have decisive voices in Councils Sect. At athâ—licorum At Rome they allow none but Bishops to give sentence and to subscribe and yet anciently not only the Emperours and their Embassadours did subscribe but lately at Florence Lateran and Trent Cardinals and Bishops Abbots and Generals of Orders did subscribe and in the Council of Basil Priests had decisive voices and it is notorious that the ancient Councils were subscribed by the Archimandrites who were but Abbots not Bishops L â—b 2. de Concil act 6. and Cardinal Jacobatius affirms that sometimes Lay-men were admitted to Councils to be Judges between those that disputed some deep Questions Nay Gerson says that Controversies of Faith were sometimes referred to Pagan Philosophers who though they believ'd it not yet supposing it such they determin'd what was the proper consequent of such Principles which the Christians consented in and he says Socrat. l. â— c 5. Eccles. hist. it was so in the Council of Nice as is left unto us upon record * And Eutropius a Pagan was chosen Judge between Origen and the Marcionites and against these he gave sentence and in behalf of Origen Certain it is that the States of Germany in their Diet at Noremberg propounded to Pope Adrian the VI th that Lay-men might be admitted as well as the Clergy and freely to declare their judgments without hindrance And this was no new matter for it was practis'd in all Nations in Germany France England and Spain it self as who please may see in the 6th 8th and 12th Councils of Toledo So that it is apparent that the Romanists though now they do not yet formerly
they did and were certainly in the right Vide Marsil Patav. in defens pacis and if any man shall think otherwise he can never be sure that they were in the wrong Part. 2. c. 20. especially when he shall consider that the Council of the Apostles not only admitted Presbyters but the Laity who were parties in the Decree as is to be seen in the * Cap. 15. V. 22. 23. Acts of the Apostles And that for this there was also a very great Precedent in the Old Testament in a case perfectly like it when Elijah appealed to the people to Judge between God and Baal 1 Kings 18. which of them was the Lord by answering by fire 8. But how if the Church be divided in a Question which hath caused so great disturbances that it is thought fit to call a Council here will be an Eternal Uncertainty If they call both sides they will never agree If they call but one then they are Parties and Judges too Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 16. In the General Council of Sardis by command of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius Sozomen l. 3. c. 10. all Bishops Catholick and Arians were equally admitted so it was also both at Ariminum and Seleucia and so it was at Ferrara where the Greeks and Latines sate together But if one side onely exclude all the adversaries and declare them criminals before hand as it happened at Trent and Dort how is that one party a representative of the Church when so great a part of Christendom is not consulted not heard not suffer'd 9. Suppose a Council being called the Bishops be divided in their opinion how shall the decision be By the major number of voices surely But how much the major shall one alone above the equal number carry it That were strange that one man should determine the faith of Christendom Must there be two thirds as it was propounded in Trent in some cases but if this be who shall make any man sure that the Holy Spirit of God shall go over to those two thirds and leave the remaining party to themselves And who can ascertain us that the major part is the more wise and more holy or if they be not yet that they shall speak more truth But in this also the Doctors are uncertain and divided and how little truth is to be given to the major part in causes of faith the Roman Doctors may learn from their own Abbot of Panormo Panorm in corp s ignificasti de Elect. and the Chancellour of Paris The first saying The opinion of one Godly man ought to be preferr'd before the Pope's if it be grounded upon better authorities of the Old and New Testament and the latter saying Every learned man may and ought to withstand a whole Council if he perceive it erres of malice or ignorance 10. The world is not yet agreed in whose power it is to call the Councils and if it be done by an incompetent authority the whole convention is schismatical and therefore not to be trusted as a Judge of Consciences and questions of faith The Emperors always did it of old and the Popes of late but let this be agreed first and then let the other questions come before them till then we cannot be sure 11. Lastly if General Councils be suppos'd to be the rule and measure of Faith Christendom must needs be in a sad condition and state of doubt for ever not onely because a Council is not called it may be in two or three Ages but because no man can be sure that all things are observed which men say are necessary neither did the several Churches ever agree what was necessary nor did they ever agree to set down the laws and conditions requisite to their being such and therefore they have well and wisely comported themselves in this that never any General Council did declare that a General Council is infallible Indeed Bellarmine labours greatly to prove it out of Scripture his best argument is the promise that Christ made that when two or three are gathered in my name I will be in the midst of them and I will be with you to the end of the world Now to these authorities I am now no other way to answer but by observing that these arguments do as much prove every Christian-meeting of any sort of good Christians to be as infallible as a Council and that a Diocesan Council is as sure a guide as a General and it is impossible from those or any other like words of Christ to prove the contrary and therefore gives us no certainty here But if General Councils in themselves be so uncertain yet the Roman Doctors now at last are come to some certainty for if the Pope confirm a Council then it is right and true and the Church is a rule which can never fail and never can deceive or leave men in uncertainty for a spirit of infallibility is then in the Churches representative when head and members are joyn'd together This is their last stress and if this cord break they have nothing to hold them Now for this there are divers great Considerations which will soon put this matter to issue For although this be the new device of the Court of Rome and the Pope's flatterers especially the Jesuites and that this never was so much as probably prov'd but boldly affirm'd and weakly grounded yet this is not defin'd as a doctrine of the Roman Church Lib. 3. cap. 9 de Concil Ecclesia For 1. we find Bellarmine reckoning six cases of necessity or utility of calling General Councils and four of them are of that nature that the Pope is either not in being or else is a party the person to be judg'd As 1. if there be a schism amongst the Popes of Rome as when there happen to be two or three Popes together which hapned in the Councils of Constance and Basil. Or 2. if the Pope of Rome be suspected of heresie Or 3. when there is great necessity of reformation of manner in head and members which hath been so notoriously called for above 400 years Or 4. if the election of the Pope be question'd Now in these cases it is impossible that the consent of the Pope should be necessary to make up the Authority of the Council since the Pope is the pars rea and the Council is the onely Judge And of this there can be no question And therefore the Popes authority is not necessary nor of avail to make the Council valid 2. If the Popes approbation of the Council make it to be an infallible guide then since without it it is not Infallible not yet the supreme Judicatory it follows that the Pope is above the Council which is a thing very uncertain in the Church of Rome but it hath been denied in divers General Councils as by the first Pisan by the Council of Constance the fourth and fifth Sessions by the Council of Basil
in the second the sixteenth and eighteenth and 33 d Sessions by the Council of Bruges under Charles the VII th and by the pragmatick Sanction all which have declar'd that A General Council hath its authority immediately from Christ and consequently not depending on the Pope and that it is necessary that every person in what dignity soever though Papal should be obedient to it in things that concern faith the extirpation of schism and the reformation of the Church of God both in head and members This is the decree of the Council of Constance which also addes further That whosoever shall neglect to obey the commands statutes ordinances and decrees of this or any other General Council lawfully assembled in the things aforesaid or thereunto pertaining viz. in matters of faith or manners made or to be made if he do not repent of it he shall undergo a condign penance yea and with recourse to other remedies of law against him of what condition estate or dignity soever he be though he be the Pope The same was confirm'd in the Council of Lausanna and the second Pisan in the third Session so that here are six General Councils all declaring the Pope to be inferior and submitted to a Council They created Popes in some of them they decreed when Councils should be called they Judged Popes they deposed them they commanded their obedience they threatned to impose penances if they obeyed not and to proceed to further remedies in law and the second Pisan beside the former particulars declared that the Synod neither could nor should be dissolved without their universal consent nevertheless by the common consent it might be removed to a place of safety especially with the Pope if he could be got to consent thereunto always provided it be not at Rome And yet this very Council was approv'd and commended by Pope Alexander the 5th Platina in Alex. Quinto Naucl. tom 2. generat 47. as both Platina and Nauclerus witness and the Council of Constance was called by Pope John the 23. He presided in it and was for his wicked life deposed by it and yet Platina in his life says he approv'd it and after him so did Pope Martin the 5th as is to be seen in the last Session of that Council and Eugenius the 4th Vide 16. c. 18. Session and the Council of Basil and Lausanna was confirm'd by Pope Nicolas the 5th as is to be seen in his Bull and not only Pope Martin the 5th but Pope Eugenius the 4th approv'd the Council of Basil. It were a needless trouble to reckon the consenting testimonies of many learned Divines and Lawyers bearing witness to the Council's superiority over Popes More material it is that many famous Universities particularly that of Paris Erford Colein Vienna Cracovia all unanimously did affirm the power of General Councils over Popes and principally for this thing relied upon the Authority of the General Councils of Constance and Basil. Now if a General Council confirmed by a Pope be a Rule or Judge of Faith and Manners then this is an Article of Faith that the Authority of a General Council does not depend upon the Pope but on Christ immediately and then the Pope's confirmation does not make it valid any more than the confirmation or consent of the other Patriarchs for their respective Provinces For here are many Councils and they confirmed by divers Popes But that it may appear how Uncertain all De comparatione authoritatis Papae Conci ii even the Greatest things are at Rome Cardinal Cajetan wrote a Book against this doctrine and against the Councils of Constance Basil and Pisa and Gerson the Chancellor of Paris which book King Lewis the XII th of France required the University of Paris to examine which they did to very good purpose And the latter Popes of Rome have us'd their utmost diligence to disgrace and nullifie all these Councils and to stifle the voice and consciences of all men and to trample General Councils under their feet Now how can the Souls of Christian people put their questions and differences to their determination who themselves are biting and scratching one another He was likely to prove but an ill Physician who gave advices to a woman that had gotten a cold when himself could scarce speak for coughing I am not concern'd here to say what I think of the question or whether the Council or the Pope be in the right for I think as to the power of determining matters of Faith infallibly they are both in the wrong But that which I observe is That the Church of Rome is greatly divided about their Judge of Controversies and are never like to make an end of it unless one Party be beaten into a good compliant belief with the other I shall only add a conclusion to these premisses in the words of Bellarmine De Concil cuthor l. 2. c. 24. Sect. Accedit Si Concilia Generalia possent errare nullum esset in Ecclesia firmum judicium quo Controversiae componi Vnitas in Ecclesiâ servari possit If a General Council can erre there is no sure judgement in Church for the composing Controversies and preserving Unity I shall not need to take advantage of these words by observing that Bellarmine hath by them evacuated all the Authority of the Pope's defining questions in Cathedrâ for if a General Council can fail nothing amongst them can be certain This is that which I observe that since this thing is rendred so Uncertain upon the stock of their own wranglings and not agreeing upon which are General Councils one part condemning some which very many others among them acknowledge for such it is impossible by their own Doctrine that they can have any place where to set their foot and say Here I fix upon a Rock and cannot be moved And there being so many conditions requir'd and so many ways of failing laid to their charge and many more that may be found out and it being impossible that we can be infallibly assured that none of them hath hapned in any General Council that comes to be question'd How can any man rely upon the decision of a Council as infallible of which he cannot ever be infallibly assured that it hath proceeded Concilialiter as Bellarmine's new word is or that it hath in it nothing that does evacuate or lessen its authority And after all this suppose we are all agreed about any Convention and allow it to be a General Council yet they do not always end the questions when they have defin'd them and the Decrees themselves make a new harvest of Uncertainties Of this we have too many witnesses even all the Questions which in the world are made concerning the sense and meaning of the Decrees and Canons in the respective Councils And when Andreas Vega and Dominicus à Soto and Soto A. D. 1546. and Catarinus who were all present at the Council of Trent
rescinded abrogated by contrary laws and desuetude by change of times and changes of opinion And in all that great body of laws registred in the decretum and the Decretals Clementins and Extravagants there is no signe or distinctive cognisance of one from another and yet some of them are regarded and very many are not When Pope Stephen decreed that those who were converted from heresie should not be re-baptiz'd Euseb. lib. 7. hist. 4. c. 3 4. lib. de unico baptis c. 14. and to that purpose wrote against S. Cyprian in the Question and declar'd it to be unlawful and threatned excommunication to them that did it as S. Austin tells S. Cyprian regarded it not but he and a Council of fourscore Bishops decreed it ought to be done and did so to their dying day Bellarmine admits all this to be true but says that Pope Stephen did not declare this tanquam de fide but that after this definition it was free to every one to think as they list nay Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 7. Sect. Et per hoc that though it was plain that S. Cyprian refus'd to obey the Pope's sentence yet non est omninò certum that he did sin mortally By all this he hath made it apparent that it cannot easily be known when a Pope does define a thing to be de fide or when it is a sin to disobey him or when it is necessary he should be obeyed Now then since in the Canon law there are so very many decrees and yet no mark of difference of right or wrong necessary or not necessary how shall we be able to know certainly in what state or condition the soul of every of the Pope's subjects is especially since without any cognisance or certain mark all the world are commanded under pain of damnation to obey the Pope In the Extravagant de Majoritate Obedientiâ are these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici Now when can it be thought that a Pope defines any article in Cathedra if these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus necessarium ad salutem be not sufficient to declare his intention Now if this be true that the Pope said this he said true or false If false how sad is the condition of the Romanists who are affrighted with the terrible threatnings of damnation for nothing And if it be true what became of the souls of S. Cyprian and the African Bishops Epist. S. Cyprian ad Pompeium who did not submit to the Bishop of Rome but call'd him proud ignorant and of a dark and wicked mind Seriò praecepit said Bellarmine he seriously commanded it but did not determine it as necessary and how in a Question of faith and so great Concern this distinction can be of any avail can never be known and can never be prov'd since they declare the Pope sufficiently to be of that faith against S. Cyprian and the Africans and that in pursuance of this his faith he proceeded so far and so violently But now the matter is grown infinitely worse For 1. the Popes of Rome have made innumerable decrees in the Decretum In l. Benè à Zenoâ—e c. de quadrien praescript Decretals Bulls Taxes Constitutions Clementines and Extravagants 2. They as Albericus de Rosate a Great Canonist affirms sometimes exalt their constitutions and sometimes abase them according to the times And yet 3. All of them are verified and impos'd under the same Sanction by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. c. 20. all I say which were ever made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons and the Liberties of the Church which are indeed the greater part of all after Gratians decree witness the Decretals of Gregory the 9 th Boniface the 8 th the Collectio diversarum Constitutionum literarum Romanorum Pontificum and the Decretal Epistles of the Roman Bishops in three Volumes besides the Ecloga Bullarum motuum propriorum All this is not onely an intolerable burden to the Christian Churches but a snare to consciences and no man can tell by all this that is before him whether he deserve love or hatred whether he be in the state of mortal sin of damnation or salvation But this is no new thing More than this was decreed in the Ancient Canon law it self Decret dist 19. c. Sic omnes C. Eniâ—vero Sic omnes Sanctiones Apostolicae sedis accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius Divinâ voce Petri firmatae And again Ab omnibus quicquid statuit quicquid ordinat perpetuò quidem infragibiliter observandum est All men must at all times with all submission observe all things whatsoever are decreed or ordain'd by the Roman Church Nay licèt vix ferendum although what that holy See imposes be as yet scarce tolerable yet let us bear it and with holy devotion suffer it says the Canon Ibid. In memoriam And that all this might indeed be an intolerable yoke the Canon Nulli fas est addes the Pope's curse and final threatnings Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis and every one that obeys not the Apostolical decrees is majoris excommunicationis dejectione abjiciendus The Canon is directed particularly against the Clergy And the gloss upon this Canon affirms that he who denies the Pope's power of making Canons viz. to oblige the Church is a heretick Now considering that the decree of Gratian is Concordantia discordantiarum a heap or bundle of Contrary opinions doctrines and rules and they agree no otherwise then a Hyaena and a Dog catch'd in the same snare or put into a bag and that the Decretals and Extravagants are in very great parts of them nothing but boxes of tyranny and errour usurpation and superstition onely that upon those boxes they write Ecclesia Catholica and that all these are commanded to be believ'd and observ'd respectively and all gainsayers to be cursed and excommunicated and that the twentieth part of them is not known to the Christian world and some are rejected and some never accepted and some slighted into desuetude and some thrown off as being a load too heavie and yet that there is no rule to discern these things it must follow that matters of faith determin'd and recorded in the Canon law and the laws of manners there established and the matter of salvation and damnation consequent to the observation or not observation of them must needs be infinitely uncertain and no man can from their grounds know what shall become of him There are so very many points of faith in the Church of Rome and so many Decrees of Councils which when they please make an Article of faith and so many are presumptuously by private Doctors affirm'd to be de fide which are not that considering that the common people are not taught to rely upon the plain
viduiâ—aâ— cap. 1. The Scripture is the consummation or utmost bounded rule of our doctrine that we may not dare to be wiser than we ought And that not only in the Question of widdow-hood but in all questions which belong unto life and manners of living as himself in the same place declares And it is not only for Laics and vulgar persons but for all men and not only for what is merely necessary 2. Tim. 3. but to make us wise to make us perfect Salmeron in hunâ— locum tom 15. p. 607. vide plura apud eandem p. 606. saith the Apostle And how can this man say that the Scriptures makes a man perfect in justice And he that is perfect in justice needs no more revelation which words are well enlarged by S. Cyril The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approv'd Cyril Alex. l. 7. contr Julian and having a most sufficient understanding And to this we need not any forraign teachers But lastly if in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is simply necessary to all then it is clear by Bellarmine's confession that S. Austin affirm'd that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all Laics and all Ideots or private persons and then as it is very ill done to keep them from the knowledge and use of the Scriptures which contain all their duty both of faith and good life so it is very unnecessary to trouble them with any thing else there being in the world no such treasure and repository of faith and manners and that so plain that it was intended for all men and for all such men is sufficient S. August ser. 38. ad fratres in eremâ— Read the holy Scriptures wherein you shall find some things to be holden and some to be avoided This was spoken to the Monks and Brethren in the Desert and to them that were to be guides of others the pastors of the reasonable flock and in that whole Sermon he enumerates the admirable advantages fulness and perfection of the Holy Scriptures out of which themselves are to be taught and by the fulness of which they are to teach others in all things I shall not be troublesome by adding those many clear testimonies from other of the Fathers But I cannot omit that of Anastasius of Antioch It is manifest that these things are not to be inquir'd into Lib. 8. anagogicâ— contempt in Hexameron which the Scripture hath pass'd over in silence For the Holy Spirit hath dispensed and administred to us all things which conduce to our profit De vocaâ— gentium in 2. tem operum S. Ambros l. 2. c. 3. If the Scriptures be silent who will speak said S. Prosper what things we are ignorant of from them we learn said Theodoret a In 2. tâ—m 3. in illud ad docenduâ— and there is nothing which the Scriptures deny to dissolve said Theophylact b Ibidem And the former of these brings in the Christian saying to Eranistes c Dial. 1. Tell not me of your Logisms and Syllogisms I rely upon Scripture only But Rupertus Tuitiensis d Commenâ— in â—ib Regum lib. 3. c. 12. his words are a fit conclusion to this heap of testimonies Whatsoever is of the word of God whatsoever ought to be known and preach'd of the Incarnation of the true Divinity and humanity of the Son of God is so contain'd in the two Testaments that besides these there is nothing ought to be declar'd or believ'd The whole coelestial Oracle is comprehended in these which we ought so firmly to know that besides these it is not lawful to hear either Man or Angel And all these are nothing else but a full subscription to and an excellent commentary upon those words of S. Paul Let no man pretend to be wise above what is written By the concourse of these testimonies of so many Learned Orthodox and Ancient Fathers we are abundantly confirm'd in that rule and principle upon which the whole Protestant and Christian Religion is established From hence we learn all things and by these we prove all things and by these we confute Heresies and prove every Article of our Faith according to this we live and on these we ground our hope and whatsoever is not in these we reject from our Canon And indeed that the Canonical Scriptures should be our only and intire Rule we are sufficiently convinc'd by the title which the Catholick Church gives and always hath given to the holy Scriptures for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rule of Christians for their whole Religion The word it self ends this Enquiry for it cannot be a Canon if any thing be put to it or taken from it said a lib. 1. contr Eunom S. Basil b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost. Hom. 12. In 3. Philip. Idem dixit Theophyl S. Chrysostome and c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Varinus Varinus I hope I have competently prov'd the tradition I undertook and by it that the holy Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation The sum is this If tradition be not regardable then the Scriptures alone are but if it be regarded then here is a full Tradition That the Scriptures are a perfect rule for that the Scriptures are the word of God and contain in them all the word of God in which we are concern'd is deliver'd by a full consent of all these and many other Fathers and no one Father denies it which consent therefore is so great that if it may not prevail the topick of Tradition will be of no use at all to them who would fain adopt it into a part of the Canon But this I shall consider more particularly Onely one thing more I am to adde Concerning the interpretation and finding out the sense and meaning of the Scriptures For though the Scriptures be allowed to be a sufficient repository of all that is necessary to salvation yet we may mistake our way if we have not some infallible Judge of their sense To him therefore that shall ask How we shall interpret and understand the Scriptures I shall give that answer which I have learned from those Fathers whose testimony I have alleged to prove the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture For if they were never so full yet if it be fons signatus and the waters of salvation do not issue forth to refresh the souls of the weary full they may be in themselves but they are not sufficient for us nor for the work of God in the salvation of man But that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the hand of God and therefore no way deficient from the end of their design God hath made them plain and easie to all people that are willing and obedient So S. Cyril Lib. 9. contr Julian Nihil in Scripturis difficile est iis qui in illis
Book or Chapter of it should be detected to be imposture But there were two cases in which tradition was then us'd The one was when the Scriptures had not been written or communicated as among divers nations of the Barbarians The other was when they disputed with persons who receiv'd not all the Scriptures as did the Carpocratians of whom * Lib. 1. c. 1. c. 24. Irenaeus speaks In these cases tradition was urg'd that because they did not agree about the authority of one instrument they should be admitted to trial upon the other For as Antonius Marinarius said truly and wisely The Fathers served themselves of this topick onely in case of necessity never thinking to make use of it in competition against holy Scripture But then it is to be observ'd that in both these cases the use of tradition is not at all pertinent to the Question now in hand For first the Question was not then as now it is between personn who equally account of Scriptures as the word of God and to whom the Scriptures have been from many generations consign'd For they that had receiv'd Scriptures at the first relied upon them they that had not were to use tradition and the topick of succession to prove their doctrine to have come from the Apostles that is they were fain to call Witnesses when they could not produce a Will in writing But secondly in other cases the old hereticks had the same Question as we have now S. Irenaeus l. 1. c. 24. For besides the Scripture they said that Jesus in mystery spake to his disciples and Apostles some things in secret and apart S. August tract 97. in Johan because they were worthy And so Christ said I have many things to say but ye cannot hear them now For this place of Scripture was to this purpose urg'd by the most foolish hereticks Just thus do the Doctors of the Church of Rome at this day De verb. Dei non script lib. 4. ca. 11. Sect. His notatis So Bellarmine They preach'd not to the people all things but those which were necessary to them or profitable but other things they deliver'd apart to the more perfect Here then is the popish ground of their traditions they cannot deny but necessary and profitable things were deliver'd in publick and to all but some secret things were reserv'd for the secret ones For the Scriptures are as the Credential Letters to an Embassadour but traditions are as the private Instructions This was the pretence of the old Hereticks and is of the modern Papists who while they say the same thing pretend for it also the same authority saying that Traditions also are to be receiv'd Pag. 16. because they are recommended in Scripture Of this I shall hereafter give account In the mean time Concerning this I remember that a great man of the Roman party falls foul upon Castellio Salmeron tom 15. in 2 Tim. 3. disp 4. p. â—07 for saying The Apostle had some more secret doctrine which he did not commit to writing but deliver'd it to some more perfect persons and that the word of God was not sufficient for deciding controversies of religion however it be expounded but that a more perfect revelation is to be expected Upon which he hath these words Intolerabile est ut Paulus quam accepit reconditiorem doctrinam non scripto consignaverit fuisset enim alioqui infidelis depositi Minister And it was most reasonable which Antonius Marinarius a Frier Carmelite did say If some things were deliver'd in secret it was under secret because the Apostles might as well have publish'd it as their disciples but if it was deliver'd as a secret and consequently to be kept as secret how came the successors of the Apostles to publish this secret to break open the seal and reveal the forbidden secret And secondly If the secret tradition which certainly was not necessary to all be made publick how shall we know which traditions are necessary and which are not Certain it is the secret tradition could not of it self be necessary and therefore if it becomes so by being made publick it is that which the Apostles intended not for they would have it secret And therefore it follows that now no man can tell that any of their traditions was intended as necessary because the onely way by which we could know which was and which was not necessary viz. the making the one publick and keeping the other private is now destroyed since they are all alike common All that which was delivered to all and in publick was by the providence of God ministring apt occasions and by the Spirit of God inspiring the Apostles and Evangelists with a will to do it set down in writing that they might remain upon record for ever to all generations of the Church So S. Peter promis'd to the Jews of the dispersion that he would do some thing to put them in remembrance of the things he had taught them and he was as good as his word and imployed S. Mark to write the Gospel others also of the Apostles took the same care and all were directed by God and particular occurrences were concentred in the general design and counsel of God Lib. 3. c. 1. So S. Irenaeus The Gospel which the Apostles preach'd afterwards by the will of God they deliver'd to us in the Scriptures It was a Tradition still but now the word signified in its primitive and natural sense not in the modern and Ecclesiastical But Irenaeus speaks of the Gospel Tract 49. in Johan that is the whole Gospel of God not all the particulars that Jesus spake and did S. Augustin lib. 1. c. 35. de consensu Evangel but What ever Christ would have us to read of his words and works he commanded them to write as if it were by his own hands And therefore Electa sunt quae scriberentur quaè saluti credentium sufficere videbantur There was a choice made of such things as were to be written It was not therefore done by chance and contingency as many of the Roman Doctors in disparagement of the Scriptures sufficiency do object but the things were chosen saith S. Austin it was according to the will of God said S. Irenaeus and the choice was very good all that suffic'd to the salvation of believers according to the words of S. John These things were written that ye might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God Joh. 20. 30 31. and that believing ye might have life through his name And indeed there cannot be any probable cause inducing any wise man to believe that the Apostles should pretend to write the Gospel of Jesus Christ and that they should insert many things more then necessary and yet omit any thing that was and yet still call it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nicephorus calls the Epistles of S. Paul Lib. 2. hist. c. 34. A summary of what he plainly
is whatsoever was deliver'd and preach'd was recorded which they so firmly believed that they rejected the Tradition unless it were so recorded and 2. It hence also follows that Tradition was and was esteemed the worse way of conveying propositions and stories because the Church requir'd that the Traditions should be prov'd by Scriptures that is the less certain by the more Epist. ad Pompeium contra epist. Stephani That this was so S. Cyprian is a sufficient witness For when Pope Stephen had said Let no thing be chang'd only that which is deliver'd meaning the old Tradition that was to be kept S. Cyprian enquires from whence that Tradition comes Does it come from the Gospels or the Epistles or the Acts of the Apostles So that after the writing and reception of Scriptures Tradition meant the same thing which was in Scripture or if it did not the Fathers would not admit it Damasc. de orthod fide c. 1. All things which are deliver'd to us by the Law and the Prophets the Apostles and Evangelists we receive and know and reverence But we enquire not further Apud Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nothing beyond them If the Traditions be agreeable to Scripture said S. Irenaeus that is if that which is pretended to be taught at first be recorded by them who did teach it then all is well And this affair is fully testified by the words of Eusebius Lib. 5. cap. 8. which are greatly conclusive of this Inquiry We have saith he promis'd that we would propose the voices of the old Ecclesiastical Presbyters and Writers by which they declared the traditions by the authority witnessed and consign'd of the approv'd Scriptures Amongst whom was Irenaeus says the Latin version But I shall descend to a consideration of the particulars which pretend to come to us by tradition and without it cannot as it is said be prov'd by Scripture 1. It is said that the Scripture it self is wholly deriv'd to us by tradition and therefore besides Scripture Tradition is necessary in the Church And indeed no man that understands this Question denies it This tradition that these books were written by the Apostles and were deliver'd by the Apostles to the Churches as the word of God relies principally upon Tradition Universal that is it was witnessed to be true by all the Christian world at their first being so consign'd Now then this is no part of the word of God but the notification or manner of conveying the word of God the instrument of it's delivery So that the tradition concerning the Scripture's being extrinsecal to Scripture is also extrinsecal to the Question This Tradition cannot be an objection against the sufficiency of Scripture to salvation but must go before this question For no man inquires Whether the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation unless he believe that there are Scriptures that these are they and that they are the word of God All this comes to us by Tradition that is by universal undeniable testimony After the Scriptures are thus receiv'd there is risen another Question viz. Whether or no these Scriptures so deliver'd to us do contain all the word of God or Whether or no besides the Tradition that goes before Scripture which is an instrumental Tradition onely of Scripture there be not also something else that is necessary to salvation consign'd by Tradition as well as the Scripture and of things as necessary or useful as what is contain'd in Scripture and that is equally the Word of God as Scripture is The Tradition of Scripture we receive but of nothing else but what is in Scripture And if it be ask'd It is therefore weakly said by E. W. pag 5. If he says that he impugns all tradition in General all doctrine not expressly contain'd in Scripture forced he is to throw away Scripture it self c. Why we receive one and not the rest we answer because we have but one Tradition of things necessary that is there is an Universal Tradition of Scripture and what concerns it but none of other things which are not in Scripture And there is no necessity we should have any all things necessary and profitable to the salvation of all men being plainly contain'd in Scriptures and this sufficiency also being part of that Tradition as I am now proving But because other things also are pretended to be E. W. ibid. He is forc'd not onely to throw away Scripture it self and the Nicene definitions not only to disclaim a Trinity of persons in one Divine essence Baptizing of children c. but every tenet of Protestant religion as Protestantism E. g. The belief of two Sacraments onely c. or are necessary and yet are said not to be in Scripture it is necessary that this should be examin'd 1. First all the Nicene definitions Trinity of persons in one Divine essence This I should not have thought worthy of considering in the words here expressed but that a friend The same also he says concerning the Nicene and the other three Councils and S. Athanasius Creed p. 8. it seems of my own whom I know not but yet an adversary as he who should know him best that is himself assures me is pleas'd to use these words in the objection To this I answer first that this Gentleman would be much to seek if he were put to it to prove the Trinity of persons in one Divine essence to be an express Nicene definition and therefore if he means that as an instance of the Nicene definitions he will find himself mistaken Indeed at Nice the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was determin'd but nothing of the Divinity of the holy Ghost That was the result of after-Councils But whatever it was which was there determin'd I am sure it was not determin'd by tradition but by Scripture So S. Athanasius tells us of the faith which was confess'd by the Nicene Fathers Epist. ad Epictet Corinth Episc. it was the faith confess'd according to the holy Scriptures and speaking to Serapion of the holy Trinity Lib. 3. ad Serap de Spir. S. Id. de Incarnat he says Learn this out of the holy Scriptures For the documents you find in them are sufficient And writing against Samosatenus he proves the Incarnation of the Son of God out of the Gospel of S. John saying It becomes us to stick close to the word of God Theodoret. l. 1. c. 7. And therefore when Constantine the Emperour exhorted the Nicene Fathers to concord in the question then to be disputed they being Divine matters he would they should be ended by the authority of the Divine Scriptures For saith he the books of the Evangelists and Apostles Et apud Gelas. Cyzicen in actis Concil Nicen. l. 2. c. 7. as also the Oracles of the old Prophets do evidently teach us what we are to think of the Deity Therefore all seditious contention being laid
who having this warning from the very persons whence the mistake comes will yet swallow the hook deserve to live upon air and fancy and to chew deceit But this Topick of pretended Tradition is the most fallible thing in the world for it is discover'd of some things that are called Apostolical tradition that they had their original of being so esteemed upon the authority and reputation of one man Some I say have been so discover'd Papias was the Author of the Millenary opinion which prevailed for about three whole ages and that so Universally that Justin Martyr said it was believ'd by all that were perfectly Orthodox and yet it recurres to him onely as the fountain of the Tradition But of this I shall say no more because this instance hath been by others examin'd and clear'd The assumption of the Virgin Mary is esteem'd a Tradition Apostolical but it can derive no higher then S. Austin In serm de Assumptione whose doctrine alone brought into the Church the veneration of the Assumption which S. Hierom yet durst not be confident of But the Tradition of keeping Easter the fourteen day of the Moon deriv'd onely from S. John Salmeron tract 51. in Rom. 5. p. 468 in marg and the Asâ—atick Bishops but the other from S. Peter and S. Paul prevail'd though it had no greater authority But the Communicating of Infants prevail'd for many ages in the West S. Hierom. dial adv Lucifer and to this day in the East and went for an Apostolical Tradition but the fortune of it is chang'd and it now passes for an errour and S. Hierom said It was an Apostolical Tradition that a Priest should never baptize without Chrism but of this we have scarce any testimony but his own But besides this there was in the beginning of Christianity some Apocryphal books of these Origen gave great caution Tract 26. in Matth. and because the falsity of these every good man could not discover therefore he charges them that they should offer to prove no Opinion from any books but from the Canonical Scriptures as I have already quoted him but these were very busie in reporting traditions The book of Hermes seduc'd S. Clemens of Alexandria into a belief that the Apopostles preach'd to them that died Infidels and then rais'd them to life and the Apocryphal books under the title of Peter and Paul make him believe that the Greeks were sav'd by their Philosophy and the Gospel of Nicodemus so far as yet appears was author of the pretended tradition of the signing with the Sign of the Cross at every motion of the body and led Tertullian and S. Basil and in consequence the Churches of succeeding ages into the practise of it A little thing will draw on a willing mind and nothing is so credulous as piety and timerous Religion and nothing was more fearful to displease God and curious to please him than the Primitive Christians and every thing that would invite them to what they thought pious was sure to prevail and how many such pretences might enter in at this wide door every man can easily observe Add to this that the world is not agreed about the competency of the testimony or what is sufficient to prove tradition to be Apostolical Some require and allow only the testimony of the present Catholick Church to prove a Tradition which way if it were sufficient then it is certain that many things which the primitive Fathers and Churches esteem'd tradition would be found not to be such because as appears in divers instances above reckon'd they admitted many traditions which the present Church rejects 2. If this were the way then truth were as variable as time and there could be no degrees of credibility in testimony but still the present were to carry it that is every age were to believe themselves and no body else And the reason of these things is this because some things have in some ages been universally receiv'd in others universally rejected I instance in the state of Saints departed which once was the opinion of some whole ages and now we know in what ages it is esteemed an error 3. The Communicating Infants before instanc'd in was the practise of the Church for 600 years together Maldonat in 6. Joh. 53. videetiam Espéncaeuâ— de adorat Eucharist l. 2. c. 12. Now all that while there was no Apostolical tradition against this doctrine and practice or at least none known for if there had these Ages would not have admitted this doctrine But if there were no tradition against it at that time there is none now And indeed the Testimony of the present Church cannot be useful in the Question of Tradition if ever there was any age or number of orthodox and learned men that were against it only in a negative way it can be pretended that is if there was no doctrine or practice or report ever to the contrary then they that have a mind to it may suppose or hope it was Apostolical or at least they cannot be sure that it was not But this way can never be useful in the Questions of Christendom because in them there is Father against Son and Son against Father Greeks against Latin and their minds differ as far as East and West and therefore it cannot be in our late Questions that there was never any thing said to the contrary but if there was then the testimony of the present Church is not sufficient to prove the tradition to be Catholick and Apostolick 4. If the testimony of the present Church were a sure record of Tradition Apostolical then it is because the present Church is infallible but for that there is neither Scripture nor Tradition or if there were for its infallibility in matter of faith yet there is none for its infallibility in matter of fact and such is the Tradition concerning which the Question only is Whether such a thing was actually taught by an Apostle and transmitted down by the hand of uninterrupted succession of Sees and Churches Antiquissimum quodque verissimum We know the fountains were pure and the current by how much the nearer it is to the spring it is the less likely to be corrupted And therefore it is a beginning at the wrong end to say The present Church believes this therefore so did the primitive but let it be shewed that the primitive did believe this for else it is Out-facing of an Opponent as if he ought to be aasham'd to question whether you have done well or no. For if that question may be ask'd it must be submitted to trial and it must be answer'd and the holding the opinion will not justifie the holding it that must be done by something else therefore the sampler and the sampled must be compar'd together and it will be an ill excuse if a servant who delivers a spotted garment to his Lord and tells him Thus it was deliver'd to me for thus you see
in the ancient Apostolical Creeds expounded by Marcellus Ruffinus Chrysologus Maximus Taurinensis Venantius Fortunatus Etherius and Beatus Lib. 1. contra Elipand Tolet. yet because it is so plain in the Article of the Church as the omission is no prejudice to the integrity of the Christian Faith so the inserting it is no addition of an Article or Innovation So these Copies now reckon'd omit in the beginning of the Creed Maker of Heaven and Earth but out of the Constantinopolitan Creed it is now inserted into all the Copies of the Apostolical Symbol Now as these omissions or additions respectively that is this variety is no prejudice to these being the Apostles Creed So neither is the addition made at Nice any other but a setting down what was plainly included in the Filiation of the Son of God and therefore was no addition of an Article nor properly an explication but a saying in more words what the Apostles and the Apostolical Churches did mean in all the Copies and what was deliver'd before that Convention at Nice But there was ill use made of it and wise men if they had pleased might easily have foreseen it But whether it was so or no for I can no otherwise affirm it than as I have said yet to add any new thing to the Creed or to appoint a new Creed was at that time so strange a thing so unknown to the Church that though what they did was done with pious intention and great advantage in the Article it self yet it did not produce that effect which from such a concurrence of sentiments might have been expected For first even some of the Fathers then present refus'd to subscribe the Additions some did it as they said against their will some were afraid to use the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Consubstantial and most men were still so unsatisfied that presently after Council upon Council was again called at Sirmium Ariminum Seleucia Sardis to appease the new stirrs rising upon the old account and instead of making things quiet they quench'd the fire with oyle and the Principal persons in the Nicene Council Casu Hosii planè miserabâ—li Cathulicus Orbis contremâ—it concussaeque sunt solidissimae petrae Baron A. C. 347. 17. 18. chang'd their minds and gave themselves over to the contrary temptation Even Hosius himself who presided at Nice and confirm'd the former Decrees at Sardis yet he left that Faith and by that desertion affrighted and shook the fabrick of the Christian Church in the Article added or explained at Nice In the same sad condition was Marcellus of Ancyra Vide Epist. Marcellinorum ad Episcipos in Dio-Caesarea exulantes a great friend of S. Athanasius and an earnest opposer of Arius so were the two Photinus's Eustathius Elpidius Heracides Hygin Sigerius the President Cyriacus and the Emperour Constantine himself who by banishing Athanasius into France by becoming Arian and being baptiz'd by an Arian Bishop secur'd the Empire to his sons as themselves did say as it is reported by Lucifer Calaritanus * Pro S. Athanas l. 1. apud Baron A. â— 336. 13. and that he was vehemently suspected by the Catholicks is affirmed by Eusebius Hierom Ambrose Theodoret Sozomen and Socrates But Liberius Bishop of Rome was more than suspected to have become an Arian Idem aiunt Martinus Polâ—nus Alphonsus de Castro Volaterranus as Athanasius himself S. Hierom Damasus and S. Hilary report So did Pope Felix the second and Leo his successor It should seem by all this that the definitions of General Councils were not accounted the last determination of truths or rather that what propositions General Councils say are true are not therefore part of the body of faith though they be true or else that all these persons did go against an establish'd rule of faith and conscience which if they had done they might easily have been oppress'd by their adversaries urging the plain authority of the Council against them But Neither am I to urge against thee the Nicene Council nor thou the Council of Ariminum against me was the saying of S. Austin even long after the Council of Nice had by Concession obtain'd more authority than it had at first Now the reason of these things can be no other than this not that the Nicene Council was not the best that ever was since the day that a Council was held at Jerusalem by all the Apostles but that the Council's adding something to the Creed of the Church which had been the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Christian faith for 300 years together was so strange a thing that they would not easily bear that yoke And that this was the matter appears by what the Fathers of the Church after the Council did complain Dum in verbis pugna est dum de novitatibus quaestio est dum de ambiguis dum de Authoribus querelae est dum de studiis certamen est dum in consensu difficultas est dumque alter alteri anathema esse coepit prope jam nemo est Christi S. Hilar. After the Nicene Synod we write nothing but Faiths viz. new Creeds while there is contention about Words while there is question about Novelties while there is complaint of ambiguities and of Authors while there is contention of parties and difficulty in consenting and while one is become an Anathema to another scarce any man now is of Christ. And again We decree yearly and monethly faiths of God we repent when we have decreed them we defend them that repent we anathematize them that are defended we either condemn foreign things in our own or condemn our own in forein things and biting one another we are devour'd of one another This was the product of leaving the simplicity and perfection of the first rule by which the Church for so many ages of Martyrdom was preserv'd and defended and consummated their religious lives and their holy baptism of bloud and which they oppos'd as a sufficient shield against all heresies arising in the Church And yet the Nicene Fathers did adde no new Article Quid unquam aliud Ecclesia Conciliorum decretis enisa est nisi ut quod antea simpliciter credebatur hâ—c idem posteà diligentiùs crederetur Vincent Lirin contr haeres cap. 32. of new matter but explicated the Filiation of Jesus Christ saying in what sense he was the Son of God which was in proper speaking an interpretation of a word in the Apostles Creed and yet this occasion'd such stirs and gave so little satisfaction at first and so great disturbances afterward that S. Hilary * Lib. de Synodis call'd them happy who neither made nor knew nor receiv'd any other Symbol besides that most simple Creed us'd in all Churches ever since the Apostles days However it pleas'd the Divine Providence so to conduct the spirits of the Catholick Prelates that by their wise and holy adhering to the Creed as explicated
devesting the Church from the simplicity of her Faith is like removing the ancient Land-mark you cannot tell by the mark in what Countrey you are in whether in your own or in the Enemies And in the world nothing is more unnecessary For if that faith be sufficient if in that faith the Church went to Heaven if in that she preserv'd unity and begat Children to Christ and nurs'd them up to be perfect men in Christ and kept her self pure from Heresie and unbroken by Schism whatsoever is added to it is either contain'd in the Article virtually or it is not If not then it is no part of the Faith and by the laws of Faith there is no obligation pass'd upon any man to believe it But if it be then he that believes the Article does virtually believe all that is virtually contain'd in it but no man is to be press'd with the consequents drawn from thence unless the Transcript be drawn by the same hand that wrote the Original for we are sure it came in the simplicity of it from an infallible Spirit but he that bids me believe his Deductions under pain of damnation bids me under pain of damnation believe that he is an Unerring Logician for which because God hath given me no command and himself can give me no security if I can defend my self from that man's pride God will defend me from Damnation But let us see a little further with what constancy That and The following Ages of the Church did adhere to the Apostles Creed as the sufficient and perfect Rule of Faith There was an Imperial Edict of Gratian Valentinian and Theodosius Cunctos populos quos clementiae nostrae regit imperium in eâ volumus religione versari quam Divinum Petrum Apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque nunc ab ipso insi nuata declarat quámque pontificem Damasum sequi claret Petrum Alexandriae Episcopum virum Apostolicae sanctitatis hoc est ut secundum Apostolicam disciplinam Evangelicamque doctrinam Patris Filii Spiritus sancti Vnam Deitatem sub pari majestate sub piâ Trinitate credamus Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum Catholicorum nomen jubemus amplecti reliquos verò dementes vesanósque judicantes Haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere divina primùm vindictâ pòst etiam motu animi nostri quem ex coelesti arbitrio sumpserimus ultione plectendos Part of this being cited in the Dissuasive to prove that in the early Ages of the Church the Christian Faith was much more simple than it is now in the Roman Church The Letter to a friend p. 4. and that upon easier terms men might then be Catholick It was replied by some one of the Opponents That by this law was not meant that all who believ'd the Trinity were Catholicks absolutely but only as to those points and the Reason given is this Because after this law the Novatians Donatists Nestorians Eutychians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of the Trinity and Vnity of the God-head But this thing was spoken without all care whether it were to the purpose or no. For when this law was made that was the Rule of Catholicism as appears by the words of the law and if afterward it became alter'd and the Bishops became too opinionative or thought themselves forc'd into further declarations must therefore the precedent law be judged ex post facto by what they did afterwards It might as well have been said the Church was never content with the Apostles Creed because afterwards the Lutherans and Calvinists and Zuinglians c. were proceeded against as Hereticks and Schismaticks notwithstanding their belief of all that is in the Apostles Creed Ex post facto nunquam crescit praeteriti aestimatio says the law But for the true understanding of this Imperial law we must know that the confession of the Holy Trinity and Unity was not set down there as a single Article but as a Summary of the Apostles Creed the three parts of which have for their heads The three Persons of the holy and undivided Trinity And this appears by the relation the law makes to the faith Saint Peter taught the Church of Rome and to the Creed of Damasus which may be seen in Saint Hierom who rejects the Creed of that worthy Prelate in the second Tome of his Works in which the Apostolical Creed is explicated that what relates to the Trinity and Unity spoken of in the Imperial Law or Rule of Catholicks and Christians is set down in it's full purpose and design And this thing may better be understood by an instance in the Catechism of the Church of England for when the Catechumen hath at large recited the Apostles Creed he is taught to summe it up in this manner First I learn to believe in God the Father who hath made me and all the world Secondly In God the Son who hath redeemed me and all mankind Thirdly In God the Holy Ghost who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God This is the Summary of the Creed and these things are not to be considered as Articles distinct and complete and integrating the Christian Faith but as a breviary of that Faith to which in the same place it is made to relate just as the Imperial Law does relate to the Faith of S. Peter and the Creed of Damasus and Peter of Alexandria Concerning which he that says much says no more and he that says little says no less for the Faith is the same as I have already cited the words of S. Irenaeus Since then the Emperours made the summary of the Apostles Creed to be the rule of discerning Catholicks from Hereticks it follows that the Roman Church Catholick signifies something else than it did in the primitive Church S. Ambrose says Faith is conceiv'd by the Apostles Creed all Faith lies in that as the Child in the Mother's Womb and he compares it to a Key because by it the darknesses of the Devil are unlock'd that the light of Christ might come upon us and the hidden sins of conscience are opened that the manifest works of righteousness may shine This Key is to be shown to our Brethren that by this as Scholars of S. Peter they may shut the gates of Hell and open the doors of Heaven He also calls it The Seal of our Heart and the Sacrament of our Warfare S. Hierom speaking of it Epist. ad Pammach contra â—rro es Johan Hierosolymit Exp siâ— Symbol c. 2 3. l. 6. Orig. c. 9. says The Symbol of our Faith and Hope which was deliver'd by the Apostles is not written in Paper and Ink but in the fleshy tables of our hearts After the confession of the Trinity and Vnity of the Church the whole or every Sacrament of the Christian Religion is concluded with the resurrection of the flesh Which words are intimated and in part transcribed by Isidore of Sevil.
Ruffinus says The Apostles being to separate and go to their several charges appointed Normam futurae praedicationis regulam dandam credentibus unanimitatis fidei suae indicium the Rule of what they were to preach to all the world the measure for believers the Index of Faith and Unity Not any speech not so much as one even of them that went before them in the faith was admitted or heard by the Church By this Creed the foldings of infidelity are loosed by this the gate of life is set open by this the glory of Confession is shewn It is short in words but great in Sacraments It confirms all men with the perfection of believing with the desire of confessing with the confidence of the Resurrection Whatsoever was prefigured in the Patriarchs whatsoever is declar'd in the Scriptures whatsoever was foretold in the Prophets of God who was not begotten Serm. 131. de tempore sive Serm. 2. de exposit Symboli ad Competenteâ— of the Son of God who is the onely begotten of God or the Holy Spirit c. Totum hoc breviter juxta oraculum propheticum Symbolum in se continet confitendo So S. Austin who also cals it The fulness of them that believe It is the rule of faith the short the certain rule which the Apostles comprehended in twelve Sentences that the believers might hold the Catholick Vnity and convince the heretical pravity The comprehension and perfection of our faith Serm. 181. de tempore Hom. 115. The short and perfect Confession of the Catholick Symbol is consigned with so many Sentences of the twelve Apostles Epist. 13. ad Pulcher. Augustum is so furnished with celestial ammunition that all the opinions of Hereticks may be cut off with that sword alone said Pope Leo. I could adde many more testimonies declaring the simplicity of the Christian faith and the fulness and sufficiency of the Apostolical Creed But I summe them up in the words of Rabanus Maurus In the Apostles Creed there are but few words Lib. 2. de institut Clericorum cap. 56. but it contains all Religion Omnia in eo continentur Sacramenta for they were summarily gathered together from the whole Scriptures by the Apostles that because many Believers cannot read or if they can yet by their secular affairs are hindred that they do not read the Scriptures retaining these in their hearts they may have enough of saving knowledge Now then since the whole Catholick Church of God in the primitive ages having not only declar'd that all things necessary to salvation are sufficiently contain'd in the plain places of Scripture but that all which the Apostles knew necessary they gathered together in a Symbol or form of Confession and esteem'd the belief of this sufficient unto salvation and that they requir'd no more in credendis as of necessity to Eternal life but the simple belief of these articles these things ought to remain in their own form and order For what is and what is not necessary is either such by the Nature of the Articles themselves or by the Oeconomy of Gods Commandment and what God did command and what necessary effect every Article had the Apostles onely could tell and others from them They that pretend to a power of doing so as the Apostles did have shown their want of skill and by that confess their want of power of doing that which to do is beyond their skill For which sins are venial and which are mortal all the Doctors of the Church of Rome cannot tell and how then can they tell this of Errors when they cannot tell it of Actions But if any man will search into the harder things or any more secret Sacrament of Religion by that means to raise up his mind to the contemplation of heavenly things and to a contempt of things below he may do it if he please so that he do not impose the belief of his own speculations upon others or compel them to confess what they know not and what they cannot find in Scriptures or did not receive from the Apostles We find by experience that a long act of Parliament or an Indenture and Covenant that is of great length ends none but causes many contentions and when many things are defin'd and definitions spun out into declarations men believe less and know nothing more And what is Man that he who knows so little of his own body of the things done privately in his own house of the nature of the meat he eates nay that knows so little of his own Heart and is so great a stranger to the secret courses of Nature I say what is man that in the things of God he should be asham'd to say This is a secret This God onely knows S. Athanas. ep ad Serapion This he hath not reveal'd This I admire but I understand not I believe but I understand it to be a mystery And cannot a man enjoy the gift which God gives and do what he commands but he must dispute the Philosophy of the gift or the Metaphysicks of a Command Cannot a man eat Oysters unless he wrangle about the number of the senses which that poor animal hath and will not condited Mushromes be swallowed down unless you first tell whether they differ specifically from a spunge S. Basil. de Spir. S. c. 13. Is it not enough for me to believe the words of Christ saying This is my body and cannot I take it thankfully and believe it heartily and confess it joyfully but I must pry into the secret and examine it by the rules of Aristotle and Porphyry and find out the nature and the undiscernable philosophy of the manner of its change and torment my own brains and distract my heart and torment my Brethren and lose my charity and hazard the loss of all the benefits intended to me by the Holy Body because I break those few words into more questions than the holy bread is into particles to be eaten Is it not enough that I believe that whether we live or die we are the Lord's in case we serve him faithfully but we must descend into hell and inquire after the secrets of the dead and dream of the circumstances of the state of separation and damn our Brethren if they will not allow us and themselves to be half damn'd in Purgatory Is it not enough that we are Christians that is that we put all our hope in God who freely giveth us all things by his Son Jesus Christ that we are redeemed by his death that he rose again for our justification that we are made members of his body in Baptism that he gives us of his Spirit that being dead to the lusts of this world we should live according to his doctrine and example that is that we do no evil that we do what good we can that we love God and love our Brother that we suffer patiently and do good things in expectation of better even of
a happy Resurrection to eternal life which he hath promis'd to us by his Son and which we shall receive if we walk in the Spirit and live in the Spirit What is wanting to him that does all this but that he do so still Is not this faith unto righteousness and the confession of this-faith unto salvation We all believe we shall arise from our graves at the last day one sort of Christians thinks with one sort of body and another thinks with another but these conjectures ought not to be accounted necessary and we are not concern'd to dispute which it is for we shall never know by all our disputing but we may lose the good of it if we make it an argument of Uncharitableness But besides this Did not the Apostles desire to know nothing but Christ Jesus and him crucified and risen again and did not they preach this faith to all the world and did they preach any other but severely reprove all curious and subtle questions and all pretences of science or knowledge falsely so called when men languished about Questions and strife of words Are we not taught by the Apostles that we ought not to receive our weak Brother unto doubtful disputations and that the servant of God ought not to strive Did not they say that all that keep the foundation shall be saved some with and some without loss and that erring brethren are to be tolerated and that if they be servants of God and yet in a matter of doctrine or opinion otherwise minded God shall reveal even this also unto them And if these things be thus Why shall one Christian Church condemn another which is built upon the same foundation with her self And how can it be imagined that the servants of God cannot be sav'd now as in the days of the Apostles Are we wiser than they are our Doctors more learned or more faithful Is there another Covenant made with the Church since their days or is God less merciful to us than he was to them Or hath he made the way to heaven narrower in the end of the world than at the beginning of the Christian Church Do men live better lives now than at the first so that a holy life is so enlarged that the foundation of faith laid at first is not broad enough to support the new buildings We find it much otherwise And men need not enlarge the Articles and Conditions of Faith in these degenerate ages wherein when Christ comes he shall hardly upon earth find any faith at all and if there were need yet no man is able to do it because Christ onely is our Lord and Master and no man is Master of our faith But to come closer to the thing It is certain There is nothing simply necessary to salvation now that was not so always and this must be confess'd by all that admit of the so much commended rule of Vincentius Lirinensis That which was always and every where believ'd by all that 's the rule of faith and therefore there can be no new measure no new Article no new determination no declaration obliging us to believe any proposition that was not always believ'd And therefore as that which was first is true that which was at first and nothing else is necessary Nay suppose many truths to be found out by industry and by Divine Assistances yet no more can be necessary because nothing of this could ever be wanting to the Church Therefore the new discover'd truth cannot of it self be necessary Neither can the discovery make it necessary to be believ'd unless I find it to be discover'd and reveal'd by him whose very discovery though accidental yet can make it necessary that is unless I be convinced that God hath spoken it Indeed if that happen there is no further inquiry But because there are no new revelations since the Apostles died whatever comes in after them is onely by mans ratiocination and therefore can never go beyond a probability in it self and never ought to pretend higher lest God's incommunicable right be invaded which is to be the Lord of humane Understandings The consequent of all this is There can be nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Church of God taught by the Apostles did not believe necessary SECTION V. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church new Articles of faith and endeavours to alter and suppress the old Catholick Doctrine NOw then having establish'd the Christian Rule and Measure I shall in the next place shew how the Church of Rome hath usurp'd an Empire over Consciences offering to enlarge the Faith to add new propositions to the Belief of Christians and imposes them under pain of damnation And this I prove 1. Because they pretend to a power to do it 2. They have reason and necessity to do so in respect of their interest and they actually do so both in faith and manners 3. They use indirect and unworthy arts that they may do it without reproach and discovery 4. Having done this they by enlarging Faith destroy Charity 1. They pretend to a power to do it The Authorities which were brought in the first part of the Dissuasive Chapt. 1. Sect. pag. 10. edit Dublin 1664. did sufficiently prove this but because they were snarl'd at I shall justifie and enlarge them and confirm their sense by others First the Pope hath authority as his Doctors teach the world to declare an Article of Faith and this is as much as the Apostles themselves could do that is As the Apostles by gathering the necessary Articles of Faith made up a Symbol of what things are necessary and by their imposing this Collection on all Churches their baptizing into that Faith their making it a Rule of Faith to all Christians did declare not only the truth but the necessity of those Articles to be learn'd and to be believ'd So the Pope also pretends he can declare For declaring a thing to be true and declaring it to be an Article of Faith are things of vast difference He that declares it only to be true imposes no necessity of believing it but if he can make it appear to be true he to whom it so appears cannot but believe it But if he declares it to be an Article of Faith he says that God hath made it necessary to be known and to be believ'd and if any hath power to declare this to declare I say not as a Doctor but as an Apostle as Jesus Christ himself he is Master and Lord of the Conscience Now that the Pope pretends to this we are fiercely taught by his Doctors and by his Laws Thus the Gloss upon the Extravagant de verborum significatione Gloss ibid. Cap. Cum inter verb. Declaramus says He being Prince of the Church and Christ's Vicar can in that capacity make a declaration upon an Article of the Catholick Faith He can declare it authoritativè not
only as a Doctor but as a Prince by Empire and Command as Princeps Ecclesiae The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholick Faith if it be only matter of skill and learning but to declare so as to bind every man to believe it to declare so as the Article shall be a point of Faith when before this Declaration it was not so quoad nos this is that which is pretended be declaring And so this very Gloss expounds it adding to the former words The Pope can make an Article of Faith if an Article of Faith be taken not properly but largely that is for a Doctrine which now we must believe whereas before such declaration we are not tied to it These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this There are some Articles of Faith which are such before the declaration of the Church and some which are by the Churches declaration made so some were declar'd by the Scriptures or by the Apostles and some by the Councils or Popes of Rome after which declaration they are both alike equally necessary to be believ'd and this is that which we charge upon them as a dangerous and intolerable point For it says plainly that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith the Pope can make others for if they were not Articles of Faith before the declaration of the Pope then he makes them to be such and that is truely according to their own words facere Articulum fidei this is making an Article of Faith Neither will it suffice to say that this Proposition so declar'd was before such a declaration really and indeed an Article of Faith in it self but not in respect of us For this is all one in several words For an Article of Faith is a relative term it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe and to confess and to say This is an Article of Faith and yet that no man is bound to believe it is a contradiction Now then let it be considered No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declar'd as no man is bound to obey a Law till it be promulgated Faith comes by hearing till there be hearing there can be no Faith and therefore no Article of Faith The truth is Eternal but Faith is but temporary and depends upon the declaration Now then suppose any Article I demand did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church If not how does the Pope know it who pretends to no new Revelations If the Apostles did not declare it how were they faithful in the house of God Acts 20. 27. and how did S. Paul say truly I have not failed or ceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God But if they did say true and were faithful and did declare it all then was it an Article of Faith before the Pope's Declaration and then it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it and of malice or pusillanimity not to confess it and a worse sin to have contradicted it And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descendants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith If it was not then it cannot now be declar'd that it was so then for to declare a thing properly is to publish what it was before if it was then there needs no declaration of it now unless by declaring we mean preaching it and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it and can do it as well as the Pope If therefore they mean more as it is certain they do then Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it Christ's preaching and the Apostles imposing it made it an Article of Faith in it self and to us other declaration excepting only teaching preaching expounding and exhorting we know none and we need none for they only could do it and it is certain they did it fully But I need not argue and take pains to prove that by Declaring they mean more than meer Preaching Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei that 's more than declare meerly it must be to appoint to decree to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be believ'd unto salvation Art 27. Certum est in manâ— Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articulos fide c. and because Luther said the Pope could not do this he was condemn'd by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the meaning of this For their Doctors are plain in affirming that the Pope is the Foundation Turrecrem l. 2. cap. 107. rule and principle of faith So Turrecremata For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule and science of things that are to be believ'd and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal And again It is easie to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome Idem ibid. as to the general and principal Master and Doctor of the whole World to determine those things which are of faith and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith to interpret the senses of Holy Scriptures to approve and reprove the sayings of every Doctor belonging to Faith Hence comes it to pass that the Doctors say that the Apostolical See is call'd the Mistress and Mother of Faith And what can this mean but to do that which the Apostles could not do that is Extravag de vâ—rb signifi cap quia Quorundum gloss to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom For to declare only an Article of Faith is not all they challenge they can do more As he is Pope he can not only declare an Article of Faith but introduce a new one And this is that which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean Qu. 59 art 1. when he says Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat and if that be not plain enough he adds Art 2. As he can make a new Creed or Symbol of Faith so he can multiply new Articles one upon another Vide Salmeron orolog in comment in Epist. ad Roman part 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò dicitur For the conclusion of this particular I shall give a very considerable Instance which relies not upon the Credit and testimony of their Doctors but is matter of fact and notorious to all the World For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it and say that the Pope can only declare an Article but not make a new one For it is plain that they so declare an old one that they bring a new one in they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion and they introduce a suppositious Child of their own The Instance I mean is that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church
Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur Lib. 3. de Trinit c. 4. said S. Hierom and S. Austin calls the Sacrament Prece mystica consecratum Vide Divine instit of the Office Ministeriâ—l â—ect 7. Of the Real and Spiâ— presence Sect. 4. But of this thing I have given an account in other places The use I make of it now is this that the Church of Rome is not onely forward to decree things uncertain or to take them for granted which they can never prove but when she is by chance or interest or mistake faln upon a proposition she will not endure any one to oppose it and indeed if she did suffer a change in this particular not onely a great part of their Thomistical Theology would be found out to be sandy and inconsistent but the whole doctrine of Transubstantiation would have no foundation True it is this is a new doctrine in the Church of Rome for Amularius affirms that the Apostles did consecrate onely by Benediction and Pope Innocent the third and Pope Innocent the fourth taught that Christ did not consecrate by the words of Hoc est corpus meum so that the doctrine is new and yet I make no question he that shall now say so shall not be accounted a Catholick But the instances are many of this nature not necessary to be enumerated because they are notorious and when the Quaestiones disputatae as S. Thomas Aquinas calls a Volume of his Disputation are at least many of them past into Catholick propositions and become the general doctrine of their Church they do not so much insist upon the nature of the propositions as the securing of that authority by which they are taught If any man dissent in the doctrine of Purgatory or Concomitancy and the half Communion then presently Hannibal ad portas they first kill him and then damne him as far as they can But in the great questions of Predetermination in which mans duty and the force of laws and the powers of choice and the attributes of God are deeply concerned they differ infinitely and yet they endure the difference and keep the Communion But if the heats and interests that are amongst them had happened to be imployed in this Instance they would have made a dissent in these questions as damnable as any other But the events of salvation and damnation blessed be God do not depend upon the votes and sentences of men but upon the price which God sets upon the propositions and it would be considered that there are some propositions in which men are confident and erre securely which yet have greater influence upon the honour of God or his dishonour or upon good or bad life respectively than many others in which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make more noise and have less consideration For these things they teach not as the scribes but as having authority not as Doctors but as Lawgivers which because Christ onely is the Apostles by the assistance of an infallible spirit did publish his Sanctions but gave no laws of faith but declar'd what Christ had made so and S. Paul was careful to leave a note of difference with a. hoc dico ego non Dominus it follows that the Church of Rome does dominari fidei conscientiis make her self mistress of faith and consciences which being the prerogative of God it is part of his glory that he will not impart unto another But this evil hath proceeded unto extremity and armies have been raised to prove their propositions and vast numbers of innocent persons have been put to the sword and burnt in the fire and expos'd to horrible torments for denying any of their articles and their Saints have been their Ensign bearers particularly S. Dominick and an office of torment and Inquisition is erected in their most zealous Countries Nempe hoc est esse Christianum this is the Roman manner of being Christian And whom they can and whom they cannot kill they excommunicate and curse and say they are damned This is so contrary to the communion of Saints and so expressly against the rule of the Apostle commanding us to receive them that are weak in faith but not to receive them unto doubtful disputations and so ruinous to the grace of charity which hopes and speaks the best and not absolutely the worst thing in the world and so directly oppos'd to Christs precept which commands us not to judge that we be not judged and is an enemy to publick peace which is easily broken with them whom they think to be damned wretches and is so forgetful of humane infirmity and but little considers that in so innumerable a company of old and new propositions it is great odds but themselves are or may be deceiv'd and lastly it is so much against the very law of nature which ever permits the Understanding free though neither tongue nor hand and leaves all that to the Divine Judgement which ought neither to be invaded nor antedated that this evil doctrine and practice is not more easily reproved than it is pernicious and intolerable and of all things in the world the most unlike the spirit of a Christian. I know that against this they have no answer to oppose but to recriminate and say that we in the Church of England do so and hang their priests and punish by fines and imprisonment their lay Proselytes To which the answer need not be long or to trouble the order of the discourse For 1. we put none of their Laity to death for their opinion which shews that it is not the Religion is persecuted but some other evil appendix 2. We do not put any of their Priests to death who is not a native of the Kingdoms but those subjects who pass over hence and receive orders abroad and return with evil errands 3. Neither were these so treated until by the Pope our Princes were excommunicated and the Subjects absolved from their duty to them and incouraged to take up arms against them and that the English Priests return'd with traiterous desings and that many conspiracies were discover'd 4. And lastly when much of the evil and just causes of fear did cease the severity of procedure is taken off and they have more liberty than hitherto they have deserv'd Now if any of these things can be said by the Church of Rome in her defence I am content she shall enjoy the benefit of her justification For her rage extends to all Laity as well as Clergy forreign Clergy as well as Domestick their own people and strangers the open dissentients and the secretly suspected those that are delated and those whom they can inquire of and own that which we disavow and which if we did do we should be reproved by our own sentences and publick profession to the contrary But now after all this if it shall appear that the danger is on the part of the Roman Church and safety on our side and yet that we in
Origen Homil. 2. in Psal. 37. Tantum modo circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum Si intellexerit praeviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiae exponi debeat curari ex quo fortassis caeteri aedificari poterunt tu ipse facilè sanari multâ hoc deliberatione satis perito medici illius consilio procurandum est By which words he affirms 1. That it was in the power of the Confessor to command the publication of certain crimes 2. That though it was not lightly to be done yet upon great reason it might 3. That the spiritual good of the penitent and the edification of others were causes sufficient for the publication 4. That of these the Confessor was judge 5. That this was no otherwise done by the consent of the party but because he was bound to consent when the Confessor enjoyn'd it And the matter is evident in the case of the incestuous Corinthian who either was restor'd without private Confession or if he was not S. Paul caus'd it to be publish'd in the Church and submitted the man to the severest discipline and yet publick that was then or since in the world The like to this we find in a decretal Epistle of Pope Leo Epist. 80. ad Epist◠Companiae for when some Confessors exceeding the ancient Ecclesiastical Rule were not so prudent and deliberate in conducting their Penitents as formerly they were but commanded that all their whole Confessions should be written down and publickly read he says Though the plentitude of Faith might be landable that is not afraid to blush in publick yet the Confession is sufficient if it be made in secret first to God and then to the Priest and adds Non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata ut ea quae poenitentiam poscunt non timeant publicare All sins are not of that nature that are fit to be publish'd and therefore removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo let such a reprovable custome be taken away In which words of S. Leo we find 1. That the Seal of Confession as at this day it is understood at Rome was no such inviolable and religious secret for by a contrary custom it was too much broken 2. That he blames not the publication of some sins but that they indiscriminately did publish all 3. That the nature of some sins did not permit it for as he adds afterwards men by this means were betrayed to the malice of their Enemies who would bring them before tribunals in some cases 4. That this was not spoken in case of publick Crimes delated and brought into publick notice but such as were spoken in private Confession And here I cannot but desire there had been some more ingenuity in Bellarmine who relating to this Epistle of S. De poenitentiâ lib. 3. cap. 14. Sect. Denique cum secreta Leo affirms that S. Leo says It is against the Apostolical Rule to reveal secret sins declar'd in Confession when it is plain that S. Leo only blames the Custom of revealing all saying that all sins are not of that nature as to be fit to be reveal'd And by these precedent authorities we shall the easier understand that famous fact of Nectarius who abolished the Custom of having sins published in the Church and therefore took away the penitentiary Priest whose Office was as I prov'd out of Origen Sozomen and Burchard to enjoyn the publication of some sins according to his discretion It hapned in Constantinople that a foul fact was committed and it was published in the ears of the people and a tumult was rais'd about it and the Remedy was that Nectarius took away the Office and the Custom together Consulentibus quibusdam ut Vnicuique liberum permitteret prout sibi ipse conscius esset consideret ad mysteriorum Communionem accedere poenitentiarium illum presbyterum exauthoravit Every man was thenceforth left to his liberty according to the dictate and confidence of his own conscience to come to the Communion and this afterwards pass'd into a Rite for the manners of men growing degenerate and worse sins being now confess'd than as he supposes formerly they had been the judges having been more severe and the people more modest it was fit enough that this Custom upon the occasion of such a scandal and so much mischief like to follow it should be laid aside wholly and so it was Here is a plain story truly told by Sozomen and the matter is easie to be understood But Bellarmine seeing the practice and doctrine of the Church of Rome pinch'd by it makes a distinction deriv'd from the present Custom of his Church of publick Confession and private saying That Nectarius took away the publick and not the private This I shall have occasion to discuss in the next Section I am now onely to speak concerning the Seal of Confession which from this authority is apparent was not such a sacred thing but that it was made wholly to minister to the publick and private edification of the penitent and the whole Church Thus this Affair stood in the Primitive Church In descending ages when private Confessions grew frequent and were converted into a Sacrament the Seal also was made more tenacious and yet by the discipline of the Church there were divers Cases in which the Seal might be broken up 1. There is a famous Gloss in Cap. Tua nos lib. 4. Decretal tit 1. De Sponsalibus Matrimonio where the Pope answering to a question concerning a pretended contract of marriage says that the marriage is good unless the Inquiring Bishop of Brescia could have assur'd him that the man did never consent or intend the marriage Quod qualiter tibi constiterit non videmus The Gloss upon these words says Imò benè potuit constare quia vir ille hoc ei confitebatur The Bishop might well know it because the man had confessed it to him or because he had revealed it to him in penitential confession For though in Judicial confession before a tribunal no man is to be believed to the prejudice of a third person yet in penitential Confession he is to be believ'd because it is not to be supposed that he then is unmindful of his salvation Where the Gloss observing that he did or might have received it in Confession and yet make use of it in Consultation with his superiors and upon that answer was to pronounce it to be or not to be a marriage and to treat the persons accordingly it follows that the thing it self might be revealed for the good of the penitents soul and this was done by the Cardinal of S. Laurence in the case of a woman introducing a supposititious Child to the inheritance of her husband Lib. 5. decret tit 38. and this revelation of the Confession produc'd a decretal Epistle from the Pope in that particular case Cap. officii de poenit remiss