to the very written Oracles of God yet 't is clear enough that himself Baronius and others of the Roman Faith do use the Authority of these forged Epistles to countenance several Doctrines and Practices wherein the Reformed Church and theirs differ And yet for all this there are several learned Writers of the Roman Church who cannot but acknowledge that such and such Epistles Constitution Recognitions fathered upon their Primitive and Martyred Bishops are shrewdly suspected yea and clearly proved too to be false and counterfeit Thus Lorinus Verborum Domini liber tam est Apocryphus quà m in quibus memorantur Clementis Recognitiones The Book of our Lord's Words is as Apocryphall as the Recognitions of Clemens wherein that Book is mentioned He tells us indeed Clementis Constitutiones paulò majoris sunt fidei the Constitutions of Clemens are of a little more Credit But are these unquestionable no that he denieth Clementis libri Constitutionum non sunt usquequaque indubitatae Authoritatis The Constitutions of Clemens are not of an Authority that is undoubted altogether And what else can we think of those Decretal Epistles that are ascribed to Zephyrinus which contain things foolish ridiculous and false as that the Consecration of the Holy Cup must be in a vessel of Glasse onely that a Bishop must be accused before twelve Judges and that Evidence against him must be made by seventy two Witnesses How contrary is this not onely to Scripture but to those very Canons which are ascribed to the Apostles whereof this is one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to the same purpose the Council of Nice too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Canons according to the Rules of St. Paul require the Testimony two or three Witnesses onely even against a Bishop whereas the pretended Decree of Zephyrinus demands seventy two and that with an Appeal to Rome which is enough to prove it false and forged Such a counterfeit Epistle too was the second of those two fathered upon Pontianus which begins thus Pontianus Sanctae Vniversalis Ecclesiae Episcopus Pontianus the Bishop of the Holy and Vniversal Church This Title in those early days unknown to the World being as yet not claimed nor assumed by any Roman Bishop but afterwards denied and decried by Gregory the Great gives us a fair and clear Evidence that this Epistle is counterfeit and written by some other hand as well as those of Fabianus Stephanus and some other succeeding Bishops with a design to pretend something of Antiquity for the defence of those unwarrantable Doctrines and Practices of the present Roman Church for which they can produce no fair and clear Evidence from the genuine and acknowledged writings of the most ancient Fathers And as for the Decrees Constitutions and Canons of the Bishops of Rome which have sate in that Chair since the time of Sylvester what security have we but that these also may have been changed corrupted and falsified according as the exigence of the Roman Church hath so required Bellarmine tells us that Pope Leo complained that whilst he himself was yet alive the Graecians had corrupted his Epistle to Flavianus and why might not the Latines for their own ends doe as much What reason have we to give credit to such and such Papal Decretals when Bellarmine himself being pressed with a Canon of Zacharias that made against him had little to say but this Zachariae Canon mihi valde suspectus est This Canon of Zacharias I do very much suspect And the truth is we are so much of his mind and have so much cause to be jealous that many Canons and Constitutions ascribed to such and such Bishops of Rome were indeed none of theirs but onely forged and counterfeited that we cannot upon their Authority admit those Doctrines and Practices for which we can find no warrant in the written Word of God But 2. The Testimony of Roman Bishops in the Cause of Traditions is not firm and sure because the Pope at least in matters of this nature notwithstanding their Pretence of his being Infallible may possibly be deceived himself and if so he may deceive us too 'T is the free Concession of Bellarmine and that as he saith wherein all Catholicks do agree Posse Pontificem etiam ut Pontificem cum suo coetu Consiliariorum vel cum Generali Concilio errare in Controversiis facti particularibus quae ex Informatione TestimoniÃsque hominum pendent That the Pope considered as Pope with his private or General Council may erre in particular matters of Fact which depend upon the Information and Testimonies of other men And that seems to be the Case in hand the business of Traditions is a matter of Fact and the whole Controversie under our present Disquisition is onely this Whether Christ delivered to his Apostles the Apostles to the Primitive Bishops they to their immediate Successours and so from Age to Age such and such particular Doctrines and Practices as are now contended for by the Roman Church So that the whole Question in hand being concerned about matters of Fact wherein they themselves acknowledge the Fallibility of the Pope we have little Reason to acquiesce in his Determinations and to be so well satisfied with his Testimony as to think our selves obliged thereby to believe and doe those things which the Scriptures do neither assert nor command But what if the Pope may erre in considerable Points of Faith too and become an Heretick are we obliged to believe his Testimony even then too Photius tells us that by the Canon-Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereticks might not in any Judicature be admitted to bear witness against any Orthodox Christian within the Church And certainly if Heresie be a Crime of that nature as that it hath been thought enough to exclude or evacuate any man's Evidence in Civil Causes we shall have but little reason to admit any person that is as liable to Heresie as other men as an infallible Witnesse in matters of Spiritual and Sacred Concern And that several Bishops of Rome have been not onely shrewdly suspected but publickly accused and condemned too and that of the foulest Heresies 't is not to be denied by any man whose brow is not made of Brass 'T is recorded by several Authours and those of good name and credit that some Roman Bishops have been Monothelites some Montanists some Eutychians some Arrians yea and some downright Atheists too But the Charge being heavy against them and the Honour of the Roman See lying at stake and the Pope's Infallibility also being herein somewhat concerned we must enquire into the Witnesses and see that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 such as deserve to be believed For so justly tender is the Christian Church of the reputation of her Bishops that she will not admit all persons whatsoever to bring in Evidence against them No the sixth Canon of the Second General Council forbids it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
was the day of Christ's Passion their Sabbath of his Buriall and our Lord's day of his Resurrection 'T is mentioned by Tertullian who saith Die Dominico jejunium nefas ducimus To fast on the Lord's day we count it sin 'T is mentioned by Nazianzene who styles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 'T is from the great Probabilities given us in the written Word and the pregnant Testimonies of Antiquity that the Reformed Church doth observe this Tradition which concerns the Lord's day with greater strictness then the Roman They tell us again that the Baptism of Infants is an Apostolicall Tradition we are so far from contradicting them that we do not onely practise it our selves but maintain it against all Opposers because 't is mightily countenanced in Sacred Writ and commended to us by all Antiquity I remember Dionysius the Areopagite if he that goeth under that name be indeed the man tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Children who were yet uncapable to understand the Mysteries of the Gospel were made partakers of Divine Regeneration and saith that the Church observed this Practice 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being taught so to doe by ancient Tradition Accordingly Nazianzene thus adviseth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Hast thou an Infant let him be sanctified from his Infancy And so St. Cyprian and other Bishops give their Judgments Prohiberi non debet Infans qui recèns natus c. The Infant that is but newly born must not be debarred from Baptism Whoever denied this was condemned by the Church and accordingly the Council of Carthage which consisted of two hundred and seventeen Fathers passed this Sentence upon him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Whosoever denieth that little Children newly dropped from their Mothers Womb ought to be baptized let him be Accursed These and the like Authorities do induce us to believe that the Baptism of Infants though no-where in plain terms commanded in Scripture is yet a Divine Tradition and upon that well-grounded Confidence our Church doth as constantly practise and as strongly defend it as ever theirs did or can do They tell us again that the Institution of our Christian Festivals and the observation of Lent are Apostolicall Traditions Well though they will find it a difficult task to prove them such though the first Institution of Lent is by some ascribed to Telesphorus and though about the observation thereof there was and that very early too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doubts and various opinions as Irenaeus and Eusebius tell us yet because our Christian Fasts and Festivals are very suitable to Scripture-Rules and were observed as great helps to and expressions of their Devotion and Piety by our religious Ancestours and indeed the Universality of the Christian Church we do readily embrace and practise both But when our Adversaries press upon us under the notion of Apostolicall Traditions many things of Faith and Worship defined in their late Conventicle of Trent though altogether unknown to the first and purest Ages of the Christian Church and contrary to the written Words we find reason to lie under the Anathema's and Excommunication of the Roman Church rather then to comply witâ— it in those Doctrines and Practices of theirs whicâ— are so exceeding far from being Apostolicalâ—â— They tell us indeed that their Veneration 〈◊〉 Saints is practised juxta Catholicae Apostolicae Ecclesiae usum à primaevis Christianae Religionis temporibus receptum according to the use of the Catholick and Apostolick Church and was received from the beginning of the Christian Faith whereas the Invocation of Saints now practised in the Roman Church is not mentioned by any of the Fathers till above two hundred years after Christ and consequently cannot be imagined to be an Apostolical Tradition And as for the Roman Custom of Praying for the dead by the Practice whereof in former Ages they would fain establish their Doctrine of Purgatory and that especially to keep up the credit of their dear Indulgences though we find this excess of groundless and uselesse Charity used in the Christian Church and that somewhat early too though St. Cyprian in the third Century mentions Oblatio pro Dormitione Deprecatio nomine defunctorum though Tertullian in the same Century mentions Oblationes pro defunctis nay more though Dionysius the Areopagite who if he be the man lived in the first Century tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The holy Priest makes an holy Prayer for or over the dead yet none of all these do assert this Practice to have had its Originall from any Divine or Apostolicall Tradition as the Roman Church contends Tertullian indeed concerning this and some other Practices used in his time confesseth thus Si legem expostules Scripturarum nullam invenies If you require a Scripture-command for this and that there is none to be found upon which score he ascribes these things to Tradition but whence that Tradition took its rise he doth not tell us But the truth is St. Chrysostom doth who in the behalf of persons deceased in the Guilt of sin exhorts his hearers thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let us assist and succour them to our utmost power But what can surviving persons doe for the relief of departed Sinners he answers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let us both pray for them our selves and beseech others to doe so too And that the Dead should be particularly remembred in the Prayers of the Church at the celebration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it was ordained by the Apostles and that not in vain And that this Practice spred and continued in the Church after St. Chrysostom's time is evident from that expression of St. Austine Non parva est universae Ecclesia Authoritas quae in hac consuetudine claret ubi in precibus Sacerdotis quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare funduntur locum suum habet etiam commendatio Mortuorum 'T is clear indeed from these words that to remember the dead in their most solemn Prayers at the celebration of the Eucharist was grown in St. Austine's time the generall Custom of the Church but that this Custom had its Originall from the Apostles he doth not say Nor indeed could this be the Institution of the Apostles that there should be a particular Commemoration of the dead and a solemn form of Prayer put up to God on their behalf at the administration of the Lord's Supper if that Observation be true which Chemnitius ascribes to St. Hierom St. Gregory and others in these words Apostolos ad solam Orationem Dominicam celebrâsse actionem Mysteriorum Divinorum If this be so that the Apostles themselves used no other Prayer but the Lord 's alone at their Celebration of the Eucharist how can it be imagined that those solemn Supplications which in after-times were made for the dead at the Altar should be of
we have a great Encouragement from that Expression of Tertullian Constat omnem Doctrinam quae cum Ecclesiis Apostolicis Matricibus Originalibus Fidei conspiret veritati deputandam id sine dubio tenentem quod Ecclesiae ad Apostolis Apostoli à Christo Christus à Deo accepit c. 'T is manifest that every Doctrine which agreeth with the Apostolick Churches which were the Wombs and Originals of Faith must be esteemed a Truth as holding that which those Churches received from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ and Christ from God So that whatsoever Traditions the Church of Rome can prove to be Apostolical by an unanimous Consent of all the ancient learned and holy Bishops and Doctours who from Age to Age have governed and taught the Church though such Traditions are no-where recorded in the written Word yet being obliged by the universal Testimony of all Antiquity to esteem them Apostolical Institutions and consequently no-way repugnant to Holy Writ we shall most readily receive and practise them upon the very first Conviction For so great a respect hath the Church of England for all her pious Forefathers in Christ that she doth most chearfully follow their Example in every thing that is convenient and laudable and doth pay to venerable Antiquity all that imaginable Reverence which is consistent with that inviolable Rule she walks by which is the written Word of God But 2. Although we are thus ready to embrace all those Doctrines and Practices which can be recommended to us by the general Consent and Approbation of Antiquity yet the Testimonies of such and such particular Fathers which the Romanists produce for the justification of their unwritten Traditions we cannot think our selves obliged to accept nor is it safe to comply with them in all Points whatsoever 'T is the great Prerogative of the Scripture alone to deserve and require our Assent to every thing that is there delivered by every particular Prophet Evangelist and Apostle When once we do but clearly understand the meaning of Divine Revelations and comprehend what such and such a Text doth import there is no room for any farther Scrutiny or Examination but all our business is to believe and practise Thus stands the case with the Word of God every line whereof is of unquestionable Authority but as for the Writings of men how holy or learned soever but not infallibly guided by God's unerring and holy Spirit we have ground enough in all Points and matters of Controversie which the Scriptures do not clearly determine to pause a while suspend our faith and not immediately to give too quick an Assent to such and such Assertions till we have taken mature Advice and deliberately considered what is the matter of such and such Propositions that relate to the Worship of God Points of Faith or other Concerns of the Church as well as who it is that recommends them And for this we have several Reasons 1. That the whole Church of God in after-Ages should without all farther Examination give an immediate Assent to all Propositions Principles Conclusions Doctrines or Practices which are laid down recorded or recommended in the Works of such and such ancient Fathers is a thing which those Fathers themselves did never doe or expect The truth is to give a firm and quick Credit to every thing which such or such a person hath said were an instance of such a Respect as the best of men cannot deserve nor did the best of the Fathers ever require or shew We are in this to imitate St. Austine who told St. Hierom thus Alios Scriptores praeter Canonicos ità lego ut quantâlibet Sanctitate Doctrinâve praepolleant non ideo verum putem quia Ipsi ità senserunt sed quia mihi vel per illos Authores Canonicos vel probabili ratione quà d à vero non abhorreat persuadere potuerunt When I reade any Authours that are not Canonicall how holy or learned soever I do not presently grant this or that to be a truth barely because those Authours thought so c. And as he reserved to himself this liberty of dissent when he found just cause from other mens Writings so did he as willingly allow the same liberty to all other persons who should become the Readers of his So he tells his friend Fortunatianus Talis ego sum in Scriptis aliorum tales volo esse Intellectores meorum Such am I in other mens Works and such would I have other men be in mine But how is that he tells us Neminem velim sic amplecti omnia mea ut me sequatur nisi in iis quibus me non errare perspexerit I would have no man so to credit what I write as immediately to comply with my Judgment except it be in those things onely wherein he perceives me to be in the right 'T is a Golden Rule which he elsewhere gives us Audi dicit Dominus non dicit Donatus aut Rogatus aut Vincentius aut Hilarius aut Ambrosius aut Augustinus sed dicit Dominus Hear and believe not every thing which such and such a man saith but what God saith So then though perhaps we may dissent in some particular matters not determined in the written Word from such and such particular Fathers though we have entred our Dislike and do solemnly protest against some Expressions that have unwarily dropped from some of their Pens yet since these good men have declared themselves to be no-way injured or affronted thereby we do not need or if we did we should not matter a Pardon from his Holiness who wants indeed some better Evidences to confirm the Validity of his Indulgencies and make them saleable in English Markets But 2. To comply with every thing that such and such a Father hath asserted and to receive all their Testimonies indifferently as undoubted Truths is a thing so gross and irrational that even our Adversaries of Rome themselves will not doe it 'T is indeed very usual with them to exclaim against us as persons that have no Reverence for Antiquity but reject the Fathers and tread them under foot but the truth is if it be a fault to dissent from ancient Writers in any thing whatever if our refusal to subscribe to their Opinions in all matters of Controversie may be interpreted as a Contempt done to those excellent Persons from whom in some things we disagree then do we retort this Argument upon our Adversaries and having a just ground of Recrimination we do tell and can easily prove to the world that if this be indeed our Crime it is certainly theirs too That the Church of Rome doth give an universal Assent to whatsoever all the Fathers have written will not be imagined by any person who considers what the Jesuits and other Doctours who well understood the Sense of that Church and durst not openly contradict it have left upon Record I remember that expression of Bellarmine who being urged
with a Sentence of Tertullian against Zephyrinus who was Bishop of Rome had little else to reply but onely this Non esse omnino fidem habendam Tertulliano in hac parte Tertullian in this matter because Bellarmine did not like it is not at all to be believed No nor St. Chrysostom neither if he deliver any thing that contradicts the Romish Faith Alium scopulum vitare Lector debet nè Chrysostomum legens c. saith Maldonate The Reader must avoid another Rock lest perhaps reading St. Chrysostom he run into an Errour And as for those two great Worthies of the Christian Church St. Ambrose and St. Austine Lorinus did not think them infallible when he ventured to say Memoriâ lapsum oportet Ambrostum idémque statuendum de Augustino c. St. Ambrose forgot himself and so did St. Austine too Indeed whatsoever is delivered by Tertullian Chrysostom Ambrose Austine or any other ancient Father how agreeable soever it be to the written Word of God yet if it be inconsistent with the present Traditions and Practices of the Roman Church they will not grant it to be a Truth And if so if the Romanists themselves whenever their Interest doth so require do make so bold with the Fathers as to suspect their Judgments and deny their Authority methinks they should be so ingenuous as to allow us the same liberty of Dissent which they take to themselves If they dissent from Tertullian Chrysostom Ambrose Austine and other Fathers and that in those very matters wherein those Fathers have clearly dogmatically and designedly delivered their Judgments why may not we dissent from Clemens Alexandrinus Origen and some others especially in those things which they have onely rhetorically and accidentally mentioned and yet are now violently drawn forced and wrested to countenance those Articles of the Trent Faith whereof those Fathers did never dream But however what just ground we have to dissent from such and such particular Fathers in such and such particular cases especially in those Points now in Controversie betwixt the Reformed and Roman Church we shall shew in two Particulars 1. The first Reason and that which indeed our Adversaries may justly plead as well as we why we cannot think our selves obliged to comply with every particular Father in every particular thing which they have delivered is Because they were but Men and so might erre and indeed often did and some of them foully too 'T is very usuall with the Champions of the Roman Church to produce the Testimonies of severall persons who are men of great Name and Authority in the Church of God to justifie severall of those Traditions with which we can by no means comply I remember Bellarmine produces and cites Ignatius Dionysius Justin Martyr Irenaeus Origen Clemens and others for whom we have that signal Respect and Veneration which is justly due to their Piety Learning and Antiquity but withall we cannot forget that the very best of the Fathers were subject to Mistakes and Errours whereby they shewed themselves to be but men And the truth is we have so many and so sad Examples of Learned and Pious persons before us who have been miserably deceived by meer Pretensions of Antiquity that we shall not easily suffer our selves to be seduced by the same Delusions into the Belief and Practice of any Traditions except we can find in them what Irenaeus found in those mentioned by Polycarp 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Agreeableness to the written Word of God We cannot forget what great Mischiefs to the Church of God the Authority of Papias Origen and some others did in Primitive times That this Papias was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Disciple of the Apostles the Auditour of St. John the Companion of Polycarp is I think universally granted and that he received such and such Traditions from the Daughters of Philip the Evangelist at Hierapolis was as Eusebius tells us his own Assertion and yet for all that the same Historian informs us that this very man relying too much upon Tradition was so far surprized as to vent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 strange Doctrines And if so shall we think our selves so far obliged to espouse and own all his Opinions because they are old ones as to become Chiliasts and to be imposed upon as Irenaeus himself and many more then were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from that Respect and Veneration which they had for his Antiquity And as for Origen whose Testimony the Church of Rome makes exceeding much of as a great Patron of some Traditions which are advantageous to them we do give him all that Respect which becomes him to receive and us to shew his learned Disputations against Celsus his Confutations of the Psycho-Pannuchists his Conviction and Conversion of Beryllus that Arrian Heretick his readiness to Martyrdom his labours in Preaching Catechizing and Writing have made his Name famous and his Memory venerable in the Church of God But withall had this excellent Person nothing of Errour to allay and stain his Glory Doth the Church of Rome indeed think us or themselves either obliged to embrace every Opinion as an undoubted Truth that hath the Patronage of Origen's Name What if Origen seem as our Adversaries contend to countenance their Doctrine of Purgatory which was doubtless the golden Dream and Invention of Plato must we therefore acknowledge it to be as certain a Truth as that there is an Heaven for Saints and an Hell for Sinners Why doth not Bellarmine give the same Credit to Origen when he discourseth of the Creation of many Worlds as when he discourseth of Purgatory I remember Photius mentions some Doctrines broached by Origen and afterwards promoted by Didymus and Evagrius that were his Followers which I hope the greatest Sticklers for the Roman Religion will not allow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They determined that there should be an end of Hell's endlesse Torments they taught that the very Devils themselves should one day be restored to their former Dignity These Opinions being so welcome to the worst of men grew apace but withall being so destructive to the Christian Religion Justinian the Emperour in the year 551. called the fifth Oecumenicall Council at Constantinople where this Errour of Origen and his Followers by the joynt Suffrages of one hundred and sixty five Bishops was exploded condemned and anathematized as being what Photius rightly calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Encouragement to all manner of Villany even the chief of those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 wicked Opinions which were broached 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Origen when he was out of his wits as Nilus doth inform us And certainly that Doctrine of Purgatory for which the Testimony of Origen is so much urged by the Roman Church deserves the same Censure too as being a considerable Provocation to the Commission of those pleasing Sins the Punishment whereof how long or how short it shall be is according to their Doctrine
Be never merry but onely then when ye see your Brother in Charity These and some few more Sentences not found in Sacred Writ are imputed to our Blessed Saviour and so is that too by some to Christ by others to some Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Be skilfull Exchangers which words are styled in Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Apostolicall expression And the truth is that the Apostles might receive from Christ betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension directions to ordain Rites and Ceremonies that concerned the Administration of God's publick Worship and the exteriour Discipline of the Church and that these Orders and Determinations of his touching the Circumstances of God's Service were delivered to their Successours by word of mouth and were not presently registred we are not forward nor indeed any whit concerned to deny But withall the Church of Rome stands much obliged to prove and that with clear Evidence and unquestionable Authority that those present Traditions of theirs which they do so stifly contend for equall to and in some cases prefer before the written Word are indeed those very Traditions which were recommended to the Church by Christ or his Apostles This I confess the Romanists do pretend and promise to doe but if they fail what then 'T is the confident expression of Bellarmine Non est Audaciae aequare aliquid non scriptum Verbo Scripto 'T is no sawcy thing at all to equall something unwritten to that Word which is written nor doth he think that expression of his too bold Traditio sola sufficit Scripturae non sufficiunt Tradition alone is enough but the Scriptures alone are not sufficient Methinks such persons are much obliged to prove that these Traditions of theirs are indeed of Divine Authority since they have a greater esteem for them then for the known and sure Word of God For if it should happen that these Traditions which are so highly magnified should be found and proved the bare Inventions of men those persons would appear somewhat too bold and sawcy indeed who have preferred them before the certain and infallible Decrees of Heaven This Aquinas well understood and therefore knew himself concerned to maintain the Divine Authority of those Traditions whereof he doth thus pronounce Verbum Dei bifariam dividitur in Scripturam Traditiones The Word of God is twofold Scripture and Tradition Thus Bellarmine too who styles Tradition Verbum Dei non scriptum the unwritten Word of God And their Conventicle of Trent saith that their Traditions were vel ore tenus à Christo vel à Spiritu Sancto dictatae delivered immediately by Christ's own mouth or dictated by his Holy Spirit Thus doth the Church of Rome pretend a full and Divine Authority for several Traditions which they hold though not recorded in our Bibles And if this Assertion of theirs in favour of their Traditions can be proved with as convincing Arguments as those whereby the Authority of the Scripture is confirmed we shall with equall Respect even as the Romanists do embrace them both For though it be certain that the committing of the Word of God to Ink and Paper was an excellent means to preserve it entire and to secure it and us from Frauds Cheats and Falsifications yet the Members of the Reformed Churches have not so far lost their Religion and Reason as once to imagine that the bare writing of the Scripture should create and give it that Authority which is inherent in it Insomuch that if any Traditionall Doctrine or Practice that is now taught and used in the Roman Church can be sufficiently proved to have been originally delivered by Christ or his Apostles we shall as readily believe and doe it as any thing else whatsoever that is required or delivered in any part of the Written Word But if bold and confident Affirmations be enough to justifie Unwritten Doctrines and Vsages what Religion what Sect what Heresie will want such and such Pretences to plead for the Vindication of it self 'T is well known that the very Heathens pretended that as Plato words it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Disposition and Institution of their Laws such especially as concerned their Religion how absurd soever was from God It is the observation of Bellarmine himself In Alcorano passim legimus ipsum Alcoranum de Coelo à Deo missum It was it seems the pretence of that grand Impostour Mahomet that even his Alcoran came down from Heaven and was dictated by God Eusebius tells us that Menander who was indeed but a Sorcerer and the real disciple of Simon Magus did pretend himself to be sent from Heaven And that famous Heretick Cerinthus whose very presence made St. John fly out of the Bath who was an Enemy to the written Word of God did make his Followers believe that he received his Doctrines though detestable enough by Revelation from Angels But what sober person gave any credit to him And what if the case stand thus with the Roman Church what if those Traditions which they father upon Christ and his Apostles were indeed none of theirs Sure we are it was so with those superstitious Jews who in our Saviour's time owned and stifly maintained as the Papists now do a twofold Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a written Law and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an unwritten Law or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 secondary Laws 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hearings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Law in the mouth and generally styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Traditions These Traditions they received from the great Synagogue that Synagogue derived them from the Prophets the Prophets from the Elders the Elders from Joshua Joshua from Moses and Moses himself from God so they pretended But notwithstanding these fair Insinuations and plausible Pretences of theirs to render their superstitious Rites and Customes the more acceptable to the ignorant and credulous Multitude what was indeed their true Original we learn from Christ and his Evangelists who style them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Traditions of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Traditions of the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Traditions of men and our Blessed Saviour speaking to the Pharisees calleth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your Traditions not Moses his not the Prophets not God's but your own And as it was thus in the Jewish Church so may it well be in the Roman too 't is very probable that many Traditions which there are ascribed to Christ and his Apostles might deduce their Original from some other hand Such counterfeit Traditions do we reade of that were obtruded upon the Church in the Apostles names very early indeed even whilst the Apostles themselves were yet alive So much doth that expression of St. Paul seem to intimate We beseech you brethren that ye be not troubled neither by word nor by letter as from us Grotius tells us Multi fabricabant Epistolas sub Apostolorum nomine There were many
non dixit temerarium est velle praesumere dicere To affirm what those things were which Christ himseIf did not now declare were rash and bold Quis nostrûm dicat ista vel illa sunt Who of us can tell whether it were this or that And yet for all this whatever St. Austine thinks that Jesuite Maldonate as if he knew what Christ was pleased as yet to conceal tells us with more of Confidence then Truth Dicimus ex hoc loco constare Christum non omnia dixisse quae ad salutem nostram putabat pertinere idémque fecisse Spiritum Sanctum credendum c. From the warrant of this Text we do affirm that Christ told not his Disciples whatever he thought pertinent to our Salvation and that the Holy Ghost did not afterwards doe it neither we have cause to believe Nay to make way for Ecclesiastical Traditions and the Pope's Authority to create new Articles of Faith he makes bold to adde thus much Idem ab Apostolis factum ut non omnia scripta multa etiam nè vivâ voce traderent The same thing was done by the Apostles too insomuch that they did not deliver all matters of Salvation in their Writings no nor many so much as by word of mouth 'T is strange to think into what Absurdities and Contradictions the Romanists do run themselves that they may justify those Doctrines and Practices which they are loath to part with For this Jesuite Maldonate declares his opinion that there are some matters of Salvation that were neither taught by Christ nor by his Spirit nor by his Apostles either by Writing or Tradition and yet Cardinal Bellarmine doth positively affirm that the Church of Rome holds no Doctrines maintains no Traditions save onely such as they can clearly prove to be from Christ or his Apostles But as to those forenamed Discourses wherein our Blessed Saviour did privately instruct his Apostles and whereupon the Roman Church doth mightily ground their Doctrine of Tradition though it cannot be certainly discovered what was the very Subject and particular Arguments of our Saviour's frequent Talk with his Disciples at his several Apparitions to them after his Resurrection yet perhaps some probable guesses may be given and accordingly several Conjectures are offered us by Interpreters So Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. What were those many things which Christ had to say to his Apostles which they could not bear He answers thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. It was the design of our Blessed Saviour to teach his Disciples the utter abolition of the Ceremoniall Law and the Mosaicall Ordinances So St. Chrysostom guesseth too 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Whether our Saviour speaks of the Abrogation of the Law c. And to this Christ might well refer when he said I have yet many things to say but ye cannot bear them now considering how hard it was for them who were Jews and the professed disciples of Moses to embrace a new Religion and quit the Principles of that wherein they had been born and bred Nor indeed had this Discourse as yet been seasonable because the Ceremoniall Law was not abrogated till the Sacrifice Death and Passion of Christ which then was not actually accomplished But besides this Guesse of Origen's and Chrysostom's St. Austine gives us some ground for another when he tells us Mori pro Christo nondum idonei erant Apostoli The Apostles were not as yet fit and strong enough to die for Christ Which expression giveth us a fair Intimation of St. Austine's Judgment concerning our Saviour's words I have many things yet to say but about what probably about their Sufferings and Martyrdom but saith Christ ye cannot bear them now But why not now Surely it was now a time of trouble and sorrow with them their hearts were almost broken already with the consideration of their dear Master's approaching Death and Passion and therefore saith St. Austine Nunquid debuit illis ovibus dici in illo Tentationis articulo quòd certare usque ad mortem pro veritate oportebat pro Christi nomine vel Doctrina sanguinem fundere Was it seasonable for Christ to tell his Apostles in this juncture of time and hour of Temptation since as yet they were but as sheep infirm and weak that they must expect to shed their bloud and suffer death for the Truths Doctrines and Name of Christ No our Saviour was pleased to reserve these Lessons that as yet might have seemed too harsh as Origen words it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a fitter Opportunity namely the time after his own Passion and Resurrection That these Opinions of Origen Chrysostom and Austine concerning the matter of our Saviour's personall Discourses with his Apostles betwixt his Resurrection and Ascension which the Romanists urge for their Traditions are but conjecturall we do acknowledge but withall we do avouch that they are ten times more probable then that of Lorinus For that the many things which the Apostles could not yet bear and therefore Christ did not deliver till after his Resurrection should be such as concerned the Abolition of the Mosaicall Law or the Disciples own Sufferings rather then the Authority of the Romane Bishop the Invocation of Saints and other superstitious Doctrines and Practices now taught and used in the Roman Church as delivered by Christ in his forenamed private Discourses with his Apostles is much more consonant to Christian Religion humane Reason and the Authority of the written Word And if so if we may take the Judgment of Origen Chrysostom and Austine whose Opinions in this matter are countenanced by Holy Writ rather then the Judgment of Lorinus whose Opinion in this case the Scriptures themselves oppose though there be in this business no Certainty on either side yet if we have fairer Probabilities on our part then the Romanists have on theirs if it be more likely that the many things which Christ had to say before his Passion but did not for prudentiall considerations actually declare till after his Resurrection might concern as the forenamed Fathers probably thought the Abrogation of the Jewish Religion the Calling of the Gentiles and the Martyrdom of his Apostles rather then those unwarrantable Traditions for which the Romanists do now contend how then comes Bellarmine to assert that they are not written But upon the whole matter the Truth is this Since 't is altogether impossible to find out what those many things were which Christ had to teach his Disciples before his Death but did not doe it because as yet they could not bear them till after his Resurrection 't is equally impossible to prove that they are or are not registred But if the Romanists are of another mind and will undertake by infallible Testimonies to demonstrate to us what were the particular matters of our Saviour's severall Discourses at the time of his severall Apparitions to his Apostles before his Ascension then will we also