faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
nature an extension of matter and of that which hath parts added to one another and yet here is extension and consequently several parts distant from one another but still there is nothing extended nor any matter nor any thing that hath parts And the like may be said of other accidents 4. If it could be imagined that the substance of the Bread and Wine was abolished by consecration though it is not usual for the blessing of God to destroy but preserve the thing he blesseth the accidents or appearances thereof only remaining and that the substance of Christs Body and Blood should be there substituted without any corporeal accidents even this could not be Transubstantiation according to the Romish description thereof For if a corporeal substance should cease to be its accidents or modifications remaining this must be by annihilation and if there be a new substance this must be by a new production not a changing the former substance into a latter since corporeal substances are not capable of being changed but by the difference of their modifications or accidents but the ceasing or abolishing of the substance it self which is the being of a thing the subject matter which must be supposed in the changing things is wholly removed 22. And 5. That there must be new matter continually prepared in the Sacramental elements out of which the true substance of the Body and Blood of Christ is to be produced this also includes manifest contradiction For then the Body and Blood of Christ must be supposed to be produced out of a different matter at a different time and in a different manner from that Body which was born of the Blessed Virgin and in which he assumed our nature and yet this Body which is so many ways differing from that substantial Body which is ascended into Heaven must be acknowledged to be substantially the same When I consider such things as these with which this Romish Doctrine is full fraught I must acknowledge that the belief of Transubstantiation includes so much of self-denial that it is a believing against Reason But there is one thing wanting which hinders it from being an act of Christian self-denial or of true Religion and that is that it is not a believing God or Christ who never declared any such Doctrine but must resolve it self into the believing the declaration of the Roman Church which both Scotus and Cajetan cited by the Reverend (q) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins make the necessary ground and support for this Doctrine 23. What account may be given that so many knowing men in the Church of Rome should own such unreasonable and unaccountable Doctrines And I have sometimes set my self to consider hour it should come to pass that so many understanding and learned men as are in the Church of Rome should receive such monstrous Doctrines as this and some others are and I have given my self some satisfaction by observing 1. That education and Principles once imbibed and professed have a mighty force upon many mens minds insomuch that bad notions embraced do almost pervent their very capacities of understanding as appears in the followers of many Sects and in the Pagan Philosophers who set them selves against Christianity and these things especially when linked with interest have such a commanding influence upon many men of understanding that they hinder them from attending to the clearest evidences against their assertions as was manifest from the Scribes and Pharisees in our Saviours time who generally stood up for their Traditions against his Doctrine and Miracles also And they of the Church of Rome are politickly careful in the training up and principling the more knowing part of their youth in their Doctrines 2. That when gross corruptions formerly prevailed in that Church through the blindness and superstition of ignorant and degenerate ages the politick governing part think it not expedient now to acknowledge those things for errors lest they thereby lose that reverence they claim to their Church when they have once acknowledged it to have erred and not to be infallible And therefore all these things must be owned as points of faith and such other things added as are requisite to support them 3. Many more modest and well disposed persons acquiesce in the determination of the Church and its pretence to infallibility and by this they filence all objections and suffer not any doubtful enquiry since whatsoever the Doctrine be no evidence can outweigh that which is infallible And these also are the less inquisitive from the odious reprensentations which are made of them who depart from the Romish Doctrine and from their being prohibited the use of such Books which might help to inform them better 4. Others are deterred from making impartial search into truth by the severity of that Church against them who question its received Doctrines both in the tortures of the Inquisition and in the loud thundrings of its Anathemas 5. The specious and pompous names of the Churches Tradition Antiquity Vniversality and uninterrupted succession have a great influence upon them who have not discovered the great falshood of these pretences And very many knowing men have not made such things the business of their search and others who have made search are willing to take things according to the sense and interpretation the favourers of that Church impose upon them and they are herein influenced by some of the things above mentioned 6. The just judgment of God may blind them who shut their eyes against the light that through strong delusions they should believe a lye 24. Fifthly This Romish Doctrine is contrary to the holy Scriptures The Scripture declareth the Body of Christ to be in the Sacrament and our Church acknowledgeth that (r) Art of Relig. Art 28. this Body is given taken and eaten in the Sacrament but then it tells us that this is only after an heavenly and spiritual manner Transubstantiation is against the Scripture and this is according to the sense of the Scriptures as I noted n. 16. But the Scripture is so far from owning Transubstantiation to be the manner of Christs presence that it plainly declares the elements to remain after the consecration and at the distribution of them S. Paul therefore mentions not only the Bread which we break 1 Cor. 10 16. but speaking also of receiving the Eucharist thrice in three verses together he expresseth it by eating that Bread and drinking that Cup 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and this must suppose the element of Bread to be remaining when the Sacrament was administred to the Communicants But (Å¿) Coster Enchir. some object that Bread here is not to be understood of that which is properly and substantially Bread but of Christ who is called the bread of life But 1. The Apostle having spoken before of Bread and the Cup 1 Cor. 11.24 25. where he understood thereby that which was properly and substantially Bread and Wine and
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
great veneration as being founded upon the highest evidence since no evidence can be above infallible certainty and there can be no evidence against it but what appears to be such is a mistaken fallacy and therefore no doubts ought to be admitted for there cannot be any need of reforming the Doctrine of such a Church By this method also so far as men believe this they are kept in a peaceable subjection but in a way of fraud and neglect of truth We account all honest and prudent ways to promote peace with truth to be desireable But if stedfastness in errors such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees or of any Hereticks or Schismaticks be more desirable than to understand or embrace the truth then may the devices of the Roman Church be applauded which have any tendency to promote peace And yet indeed all their other projects would signifie little if it were not for the great strictness and severity of their Government This pretence to Infallibility is in the consequence of it blasphemous because as it pretends to be derived from God it makes him to approve and patronize all their gross errors and Heretical Doctrines And if any other persons should have the confidence to require all they say to be received upon their authority as unquestionable and infallibly true though it appear never so unlikely to the hearers or be known by them to be false such a temper would not be thought tolerable for converse but it is only admired in those of Rome where there is as little reason to admit it as any where else and no proof at all thereof but very much to be said to confute it For 5. First It is hard to believe The asserters of Infallibility are not agreed who is the keeper thereof that that Church should have been possessed of Infallibility for above 1600 years which doth not yet agree where to fix this Infallibility It is great pity that if they have Infallibility they should not know where it is And it is strange it should be accompanied with so much uncertainty that those of the Romish Communion should still disagree and be to seek who the person or persons is or are that are Infallible and whether any be such or not Many of the Romish Church claim Infallibility to belong to the Pope This way goes Bellarmine and many others who assert the judgment of Councils Whether the Pope whether General or Provincial to receive their firmness from the Pope's Confirmation and then (e) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 1 2 3. asserts that he cannot err in what he delivers to the Church as a matter of Faith And yet (f) de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 30. he grants that the Pope himself may be a Heretick and may be known to be such and by falling into Heresie may fall from being Head or Member of the Church and may be judged and punished by the Church And this is to give up his Infallibility since he who may fall into Heresie and declare it may err in what he declares And (g) Theol. Mor. l. 2. Tr. 1. c. 7. n. 1 2. Layman who asserts that the Pope in his own Person may fall into notorious Heresie and yet that in what he proposeth to the whole Church he is by Divine Providence infallible still acknowledgeth that this latter assertion is not so certain that the contrary should be an error in Faith Yea he admits it possible and to be owned by grave Authors such as Gerson Turrecremata Sylvester Corduba and Gr. de Valentia that the Pope may propose things against the Faith And this is to profess his Infallibility to be uncertain and indeed to be none at all And some of the Popes have been so unwary as in their Publick Rescripts to let fall such expressions which betrayed themselves to have no confidence of their own Infallibility Pope Martin the fifth determined a case proposed concerning the (h) Extrav Com. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 1. sale of a yearly Revenue to be no Vsury because one of the Cardinals had given him an account that such parts were allowed to be lawful by the Doctors Now it is not like that if that Pope thought his own judgment to be Infallible that he would profess himself to proceed in his Declaration upon the judgment of others And Pope Innocent the third considering those words of S. Peter Submit your selves therefore to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as Supreme c. would have it observed that the King is not expresly called Supreme (i) Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. Solite sed interpositum for sitan non sine causa tanquam but this word as is interposed perhaps not without cause but for sitan and perhaps are not a stile becoming the pretence to Infallibility since the one acknowledgeth and the other disclaims the doubtfulness of the thing declared But so much modesty was very needful in this Epistle when both this Observation it self and many other things in that Epistle were far enough from being infallibly true as the founding the Pope's authority upon Jer. 1.10 and on God's creating two great Luminaries and such like things of which above 6. But others of the Romish Church or a General Council own the infallible judgment in matters of Faith to be only fixed in a general Council That Adrian the sixth was of this Opinion is owned by (k) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine to whom (l) Lâ—ym ubi sup Layman adds Gerson and others of the French Church Now there is much more to be said for this than for the former Notion And though a General Council cannot claim absolute infallibility of judgment in all cases because it is possible the erring Party may happen in some cases to be the greater number as appeared in some of the Arian Councils which so far as concerned the greatness of them bad fair for the Title of General ones Yet if a General Council be regularly convened and proceed orderly with a pious intention to declare truth and without design of serving interests and Parties there is so much evidence concerning Matters of Faith that it may be justly concluded that such a Council will not err in them but that its Determinations in this case are infallibly true But the admitting the Infallible Decision of such a General Council in points of Faith is so far from the interest of the Church of Rome that the eager promoters of the Popish interest will by no means close with this For a General Council having respect to the whole Catholick Church and not being confined to the particular Roman limits The Church of Rome can upon this principle plead no more for any Infallibility resident in it than the Church of Constantinople or the Church of England may do To this purpose the General of the Jesuits Lainezius (m) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p.
Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
may maintain his ground of suspense with a Might it not be otherwise If he may do so is this any fault in the Rule of Faith or any excuse to him to suspend his assent when he can make no rational exception Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive so long as some Egyptians said Might they not be otherwise than from God and was not all that Christ did and spake enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God and a Rule of Faith because the Jews not only said May it not be otherwise but that it is otherwise and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith If this satisfie not suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time there should have been or were some of this Authors principles who thought Faith a Vice if not founded on demonstration and would smile at any man who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it and so should refuse to assent to and believe S. Paul when others searching the Scriptures did believe Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse to say that these sceptical Vnbelievers acted more rationally than S. Paul's Converts and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures did betray their reason and their Faith was a Vice when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit and declared them to have searched diligently § 4. He comes to the fifth property that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction yet we acknowledge that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition and is such that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it if sufficient evidence will prevail with them And this we assert concerning Scripture He now supposeth a Deist to enquire How we know the Book of Scripture to be Gods Word and supposeth us to answer By its excellencies These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence especially as he saith to eyes enlightned by faith and do further strengthen and satisfie them yet we need not nor do not assert this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men without taking in how these Books were received and delivered in the Church as we formerly shewed But he saith his Deist will shew you Texts against known science and in his judgement contradictions Will he shew Texts against known science but what if he cannot and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion shall any reject so excellent a Writing because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities Nor where there is proof given of this being Gods Word can seeming contradictions to his judgment be sufficient not to receive it since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God and to understand aright all things written by the Pen-men of Scripture it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History measures proverbial expressions and the like and then he might reconcile as learned men have done many things which now to him seem contrary But he saith his Deist will shew you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture as that God hath hands feet and passions like ours Here as his former words are unsavoury his latter are untrue Scripture speaks indeed of Gods hands and feet but no where saith he had such like ours Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture have a true literal sense if that may be called literal which is tropical and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions as well as all other Writers and all Discoursers where the sense is easily discernable to reason which is requisite to be used that we may understand any Writing Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason and the pondering other places of Scripture which plainly speak God to be a Spirit and considering likewise how these words of hands and feet c. are oft used in a figurative sense this will plainly convince that they must be understood so when they are applied to God When the Romanists by Tradition deliver that the Pope is the Head of the Church will they not expect that mans common reason and what they otherwise teach of the Church should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head and not that they should forthwith imagine that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head should have the outward shape of Man Woman or Beast Thus Celsus whose Arguments against Christianity were much of the nature of this Discoursers makes this an Objection against Christians that they speak unworthily of God as of the work of his hands the mouth of God and the voice of God And Origen lib. 6. cont Cels thought it sufficient to answer that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual not a corporeal sense and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture he might thence know that Christians would not think otherwise of God It is an unchristian assertion to charge the letter of the Scripture which is the very words of the God of Truth with heresie where we have sure ground of it's interpretation both from other Scripture from Reason Against the latter he objects that then we disown the Scripture Rule and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule I answer when we include Scripture we cannot disown it yet withal we own Reason as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases as well in Scripture as elsewhere he who doth not this either doth not understand Phrases or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason Yea we do profess to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed since we are certain that God gave the Scriptures as a further revelation to man who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with But he further in § 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by and these from Tradition or what we have heard and received Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by but discern the evidence plainly in it self and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith In Texts of Scripture which appear more
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
New Testament writing and Eusebius relates that S. Mark carried his written Gospel and preached it in Egypt Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 11. and S. Peter himself made use of S. Paul's Writings and commended them 2 Pet. 3.15 16. and so did all the Ancient Fathers of Apostolical Writings He is bold to say That the Revolters from Primitive method closed with Scripture as the Rule But in truth when the World erred by vain Tradition it was none other than God himself who wrote the ten Commandments and gave the Law of Moses and the Prophets to guide the Israelites And when Pharisaism that great Heresie was maintained by Tradition they who laid Scripture as the Rule against it were none other than Christ and his Apostles who referred to the Scriptures of the Old Testament and gave forth the Scriptures of the New Testament But he saith Scripture as it is made the Rule of Faith is brought to the vilest degree of contempt and every upstart Heresie fathers it self upon it But who contemns it not Protestants who make it their Rule and they who do will be highly guilty as were the despisers of Jesus who was also contemned and despised of men But is this a cause of contempt if all Heresies pretend to it do they not all pretend to the right worshipping the true God the true following of Christ and owning Christian Religion as well as to the Scriptures and are these excellent things the more contemptible because they pretend to them yet it is false that all Heresies have pretended to Scripture For as some have denied Scripture as it is witnessed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as some have gone to revelation and secret wayes of delivery of Doctrine as the same Authors shew and the History of Simon Magus Basilides Marcion Manes and others evidence so others have pretended to the publick Church-Tradition continued to their time Thus did the Heresie of Artemon in Eus Hist Eccles lib. 5. c. 27. who declared That Christ was only man and their Ancestors they said had declared this unto them to be not only that which the Apostles received from the Lord but that which they generally taught and was continued until the times of Victor and that Zephyrinus who succeeded Victor at Rome and in whose time these Hereticks lived corrupted this teaching It seems this Heresie had numerous followers or Attestors in that it is there said in Eusebius it might have had much probability if it had not been contradicted by the Scriptures and the Writings of the Ancient Brethren Yea these very Hereticks did indeavour to alter and corrupt the Scriptures so far they were from making them a Rule He further sayes The many Sects in England flow from this Principle of Scripture being a Rule of Faith and it is a wonder this doth not oblige men to renounce that Principle which is the necessary Parent of such disorders This hath been answered Disc 3. n. 3 4. so far as concerns difference of opinions But that all the Sects in England do arise from this opinion of the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith is very far from truth for First it is certain that some of these Sects do not profess it to be their Rule I suppose he knows there are some of his perswasion that make Tradition their Rule and he knows there are others who pretend to be guided by the Light within them and the way of redressing these Sects is by receiving this general truth Secondly other Sects or Parties of men there are who indeed profess to follow these Scriptures as their Rule but it is not their owning but their not right using them which is the occasion of their error it is their over rashly entertaining their own conceptions without sufficient and unprejudiced inquiry as if they were plain in Scripture and necessary Doctrines when indeed they are not and the true way for healing these distempers is by laying aside such rashness and prejudice resolving to close with that only as necessary Doctrine which upon impartial inquiry appears plain in Scriptures and to use serious diligence in such inquiry and this is to act according to Protestant Principles yea according to the Doctrine of Christ who did not give such direction to the Sadduces who strictly professed to own the Law but denied the Resurrection that the way to be free from their error was to reject that Rule but blamed them as not knowing the Scriptures and declared that therefore they did err and if this was truly heeded all disorderly Sects would be at an end But on the contrary should we reject these excellent discoveries of God because they have been abused by the sin of man to the promoting many Sects where should we leave when Christians imbraced the Doctrine of Jesus and what was delivered by the Apostles many Sects hence took occasion all to pretend to this Doctrine must Christianity therefore be also disclaimed and with much greater reason must not all Controversial Enquiries and speculations in Theology be abandoned because they are the Parents of many Sects and Divisions even amongst the Papists and must not all reasonings and apprehensions be disclaimed because they are the original of so many disputes and different Sects both in Philosophy and Divinity This would be the way to renounce being men and being Christians Thus the rejecting the Scriptures would be taking Poyson instead of Cure yea it would be as if the food used amongst civilized Nations should be prohibited and their civil rights disclaimed because many abuse the former by intemperance to surfeits and Diseases and the latter is the occasion of War Strife and Contention and therefore that men should live only on Acorns and such other Fruits of the Field and without any Possessions as Wild men that they may be thereby out of these dangers Who sees not that temperance and a peaceable spirit would be the best preservatives from these dangers and would make the state of man and of the World excellent and though there might then remain some infirmities in the Constitution either of the Body Natural or Politick yet none so great as would be occasioned by rejecting the course of a civilized life so if the abovementioned Protestant Principles were put in practice there might remain some different apprehensions and opinions yet none such as would be either dangerous or disturbing but as the persons might have Faith and Salvation so both Church and State might injoy their peace and quiet An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it BEfore I come to disprove what is delivered by this Author on the behalf of his way of Tradition it will be requisite first to state the Question concerning Oral and Practical Tradition and to shew what we grant concerning it and what we deny that so it may after appear how far we have cleared the truth of the Protestants Assertion We assert the
This same History is related also both by Clemens and by Papias and after this Mark preached in Egypt that same Gospel which he had written Thus Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 10 11. and to the same purpose relating the words of Clemens lib. 6. c. 14. But our Discourser tells us He dare affirm that Presbyterians and Protestants adhere to their Faith because their Fathers or Pastors taught them it and not upon the evidence of Scriptures letter to their own private judgements because they who are brought up under Mr. Baxter are apt to follow him and others Mr. Pierce To this I answer That Protestants value the judgements of their Teachers if they think them to be learned and good men but yet in the Articles of Christian Faith and the great truths of God they do discern other grounds and surer to rely on than the opinion of Teachers and therefore whatever Teacher should contradict such truths they would not follow him And if any persons are so unstable as in such things to be led away by the Authority of any men they are far from being grounded Protestants In some matters more difficult or Controversial many Protestants are not capable of being better satisfied than by the judgment of their Pastors and are to be commended for following them yet in this case they own not their judgment as a Rule of their Faith but the best help to their understanding in a case of difficulty But if any Protestant by misapprehension do close with such things controversial as necessary points of Faith if afterwards he discerns them matters of Controversie not clear in Scripture or that the contrary is rather true and grounded on Scripture he will then submit his former apprehensions to the greater evidence now received And by this means through diligent examining very great multitudes of Protestants who have given up themselves impartially to follow Scripture truth have received some opinions different from some particular opinions of their Parent or Teacher And even all other Protestants who are not capable of making trial of the grounds of all controverted opinions yet unanimously will acknowledge that the trial of any truths by the Scripture is much more considerable than by any Teachers judgment and therefore if they were capable they would much rather chuse to be stedfastly fixed in any truth by the former than to be only perswaded to it by the latter Whence it appears that Protestants generally own only the Scriptures for their Rule And were there ever any who desired to be instructed in Philosophy or any Science designing therein to follow reason as their Rule who were not as much guided by their Teachers or Instructers as Protestants are by theirs that is to value their Authority or opinion until by examination of it by the Rule they should discern it an error § 6. He tells us That Objections made against a Prophetical afflatus and against the res traditae or things delivered instead of Tradition it self can have no force against his opinion I shall not dispute the truth of these things but shall so far satisfie this Authour as to assure him my following answer shall proceed neither of these waies § 7. He tells us The first Property of the Rule of Faith doth agree to Tradition to wit it is evident to all as to its existence because we see and hear daily sounds and actions about Practical Doctrines conveyed down to us But is this all that this Authour thinks necessary to be proved Did he not demand much more concerning Scripture than that the Book might be seen and the words heard did he not then require proof that Scriptures are Gods word c. Surely it is not only requisite that some thing should be delivered and received but at least it must be necessary for every Generation to know that all that Faith which the former received and professed is fully delivered and rightly received by them For since as himself saith in this Paragraph Tradition is the open conveyance of Doctrines if they be either not delivered or not received there is no conveyance and so a failure of the thing it self which is Tradition Now we assert that there can be no certainty of any such exact delivery in any one Generation since the Apostles daies and that for these reasons First because many matters especially in difficult things may be mistaken for want of right understanding and then these mistakes will be delivered That they are mistaken by many appears by the disagreement of great numbers and disputes about several Doctrines whether they be de fide or not and about the sense of Papal Decrees and Canons of Councils whence it is certain they do not all apprehend the truth or at least will not confess they do which will as much overthrow Tradition Secondly It 's possible that through the prevalency of corruption and sin in a. Generation of men they may much lose that knowledge of God which they had even in matters of Faith and then cannot deliver it aright It 's certain it was thus in the Generations after Noah in that great point concerning the true God and his Worship and there was then as much to be said from the nature of Tradition as now among Papists and therefore there can be now no security to the contrary unless the piety of all Ages could be demonstrated which the great complaints of the Teachers of several Ages renders impossible Thirdly because through the working of mans thoughts in apprehending and considering and explaining truths many things are concluded as consequences and explications of truths which were not received from the former age thus in almost all the Books and Discourses of the Papists and in the Book of this Authour are many particular assertions considerations and speculations which were not received from the open Tradition of the foregoing Age and they are here delivered and may hence by others be received Fourthly there may also be a combination through great viciousness or disrelish of truth against some particular truth which opposeth either the outward interest or the corrupt life Thus God complains of the Jews Jer. 5.30 The Prophets prophesie falsely and the Priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so Fifthly there may possibly be an omission of the delivery of many things to be delivered and true and I dare say it is impossible for this Author to prove upon his Principles that all truths are handed down from one Generation to another either amongst the Learned or the Vulgar and yet it will concern him to do it concerning every revealed truth since he rejects or at least will not own the distinction of truths into fundamental and not fundamental All these things considered there can be no certainty that there is any sure Tradition § 8. He saith The second Property belongs to Tradition to wit it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to any inquirer For it is certain if
Tradition § 11. He proceeds to the sixth Property That it is certain in it self because this will prove the fourth fifth and seventh Now though this be not true that what is certain in its self can satisfie the piercing Wits and convince obstinate Adversaries and be ascertainable unto us because there may be a certainty in the thing which is not discerned and it is not the being but the evidence of certainty submitted to that works these effects else could there be no dissatisfaction in any thing since all truth is certainly in it self truth yet if he can prove the certainty of Tradition I shall over and above yield the rest This he thus goes about to prove Since Faith must be certain and must have a certain Rule he hath as he saies shewed that Scripture is not certain therefore Oral Tradition is This loose Argument deserves no better answer than that I have shewed Scripture is certain in it self therefore Oral Tradition is not Yet I must tell him his Argument is otherwise faulty than in supposing his having proved Scripture not certain for there is something besides Scripture which is a better guide or leader to the Faith than the Oral Tradition and that is the Doctrine of the Primitive Church as preserved in the Ancient Fathers or approved Writers of their time For though they were men and might in some things mistake and therefore their testimony is much inferiour to Scripture yet since they lived in times near the Apostles and when the vigour of Christian piety was much continued the Doctrines then received are more like to be truth than what is now owned in the Church of Rome after many successions of Ages and great degeneracy of life even in the dreggs of time And we have as much and more reason to think these men both capable of knowing Doctrines then delivered as the Faith of Christ and faithful in relating them as we can have to judge so concerning any persons now in the Church of Rome But that there is not an agreement in all considerable points in what was then delivered and owned by the Fathers and the present Traditions of the Romish Church may be collected from one instance I shall hereafter mention Disc 8. and so far as concerns this Author from their Rule of Faith which shall be discussed in the end of this Book § 12. He would prove the certainty of Tradition in that he saith It hath for its basis the best nature in the Vniverse man's and that not in speculations which may mistake by passion but his eyes and ears which are necessarily subject to the operations of nature and this in most many times every day which is a much higher certainty than a sworn Witness hath of what he saw or heard but once These upon serious inquiry appear empty vain words For doth Faith consist only in seeing and hearing Must there not be a delivering and receiving which supposeth conceptions and many other acts of the mind He who considers this aright will find the hasis of Tradition to be like Fame's basis a man clad with all his infirmities with a memory that may let things slip especially if they be numerous as revealed truths are with an understanding that may mistake especially in things difficult as many truths are with affections that may disrelish or slight them if corruption prevail as it may oft do in the members of the Church with imaginations which may alter or add somewhat when they think they only explain and yet still may they not deliver all they know and remember In this case he who may be certain that he hath heard such and such words delivered may remain very uncertain whether they be true or not And he who is a Witness in any Court may be much more sure that what he once saw or heard if he perfectly remember it was so heard or seen by him than any man can be of the true relation of things he hath oft heard spoken by men who took them themselves upon others relations and they on others and so on So that the great imperfection of Tradition is chiefly as to the delivery of it by former Ages which this Author doth not so much as touch of here in his proof of its certainty and what pretensions he makes use of in after Discourses shall be answered in their place But what he saith That in most many times every day are these impressions made upon their senses this may be true concerning some Christian truths but to assert this concerning all truth is such an apparent falsity as no ingenuous man could be guilty of For it is plain that in many things they of the Romish Church cannot agree which is truth and have had in many Cases Councils and Decrees to determine what things are matters of Faith and in many other things they are yet undetermined which could not be if these things were daily cleared to their senses unless they be men of much duller sense than the rest of mankind are § 13. He reminds of what he had said before § 8. That it is as evident that while the next Age believes and practises as the former Age did they are of the same Faith as it is that to believe the same is to believe the same But this is not at all to the purpose concerning Oral Tradition only this Discourser pleaseth himself generally in shifting off or wholly omitting matters difficult and sometimes going about to prove what no Adversary would dissent in But there is no certainty in the way of Tradition as we have above shewed that any Age doth in all things believe as the former Age held See n. 13 14. § 14. He tells his Reader That Dissenters or Doubters can say nothing against the way of Tradition not with all the quirks ingenuously misused Logick and abused into Sophistry can furnish them with Indeed what he hath hitherto pleaded for Tradition hath been nothing else but disingenuously abused Logick and Sophistry but what he now asserts is a bold daring to let his Reader know that under some contrived expressions he will strain to vent any falshood though never so gross Will he say that nothing can be said against this Rule when he cannot but know that Protestants who dissent from it do say very much against it yea they say so much as they know can never be solidly answered Yea that we may see how little he designs truth in his Discourse he who here would perswade his Reader that nothing can be said against his way of Oral Tradition yet Disc 7. § 1. himself tells him of somewhat that seems mainly to prejudice it and spends that Discourse in Answer Though indeed much more than that is by us observed against Tradition He concludes § 15. from his Discourse that the four last conditions of the Rule of Faith agree to Tradition but since by Trial his Discourse appears very unsound and faulty I conclude from the
detection of his falshood that they are not agreeable to Tradition and that Tradition is not the Rule of Faith An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori § 1 2. HE propounds How know we that Tradition was ever held to by any and tells us he oweth a clearing of this to his former Discourse But he saith the carriage of Protestants makes this inquiry needless for if they had not faulted the Rule but only pretended men had failed it they might have deluded the World with some colour that they had held to the Doctrine of Ancestors and only deserted us because we deserted Ancestors formerly but if they fault the Rule they judge Tradition ever stood our friend and would overthrow them else they had no more efficacious way to ruine us than to oppose us upon those Principles laid in the former Discourse since the renouncers of Tradition a little after the Primitive times when they pretend we fell might be easily discovered To answer this its requisite first to understand the meaning Now his inquiry of Tradition being held to ever I conceive signifies thus much whether every Age hath designed the careful receiving holding and delivering all things owned by the former Generation in the same way as they were thence delivered and also whether they have effectually performed this And if this could be proved Protestants would grant his former Discourse satisfactory so far as concerns Tradition being the Rule of Faith The proof of this is highly necessary when he hath to do with Protestants because they therefore fault this Rule of Tradition because they know it such as cannot be probably expected to be long held to nor can ever be demonstrated or rationally proved to have been thus held to at any time unless by recourse to another Rule of Trial. Wherefore since we know the Rule insufficient which Papists relie on we delude not but with truth and evidence assure the World that we desert them only because they have deserted the Doctrine of Ancestors formerly Whether this was by mistake or by perverseness and wilfulness it is not necessary for us to know or declare since we do discover the difference of their Doctrine from that of their Ancestors partly by the writing of Fathers who shew what Doctrine they received and principally from the testimony of the Scriptures which assures us what was the Doctrine in the beginning preached by the Apostles Now when we give evidence that they have deserted the Primitive Doctrine it is a very vain proposal to require of us to discover who were the first Renouncers for though some Protestants have done somewhat to this purpose and some Renouncers may be manifested yet since neither Protestants nor Papists can know all particular designs or actings of men in former Generations and whatever may be known by History upon the Principles of this Discourser must not be believed especially since this is neither the only way nor the best way to shew Primitive Doctrines disowned I may well conclude that the proposal it self is both needless and unreasonable Will this Authour assert that Gentilism pretended to be held from their Fathers was a Tradition truly derived from Noah unless the person or persons can be named to him who were the first deserters of Noah's Doctrine or must the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees be owned as the Doctrine of Moses until the Authours of the first corruptions of those Traditions can be found out or could not our Saviour and his Apostles condemn such Traditions unless they first declared the Authors of them Doth he think it would be reason or madness if a temperate man in a sick state should say to his Physician I am sure I was in health and have indeavoured to keep my body in the same good temper I was in and therefore until I can have evidence given me what time and by what act my Distemper began I will not be perswaded but that I am still in health Or if an house that was once firm and strong now is cracked or decaied or burnt down can this be no otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated than by examining when the first crack or beginning of decay was occasioned and by what means and when it was set on fire and by whom And shall he who sees this house ready to moulder down or in its ashes think it reasonable to deny or doubt that it is either decaied or burnt if he cannot be satisfied in the former inquiries I know Papists have generally more wit than to act upon such reasonings as these in purchasing such houses and therefore I have the more reason to suspect that they do not mean honestly in urging such frivolous things in concernments of Religion Yet this Discourser further deludes his Reader in saying we pretend they fell a little after the Primitive times by which he interprets himself to mean times which had a vicinity to the Apostles as if Protestants did indeed grant that Popery as it now is was held and practised ever since a little after the Apostles whereas this Discourser cannot but know that Protestants do generally assert that though some corruptions might creep into the Church soon after the Apostles daies yet in the chief points of Controversie between Protestants and Papists we do assert that for the first six hundred Years the genuine Writings of the Fathers do favour the Protestants assertions and in many things very long after and therefore that those Popish assertions are of later original § 3 4 5. He tells us That such is Gods goodness that the Rule of Faith hath that in it which obligeth the generality not to desert it That Tradition is actually indefectible he undertakes to demonstrate à priori from proper Causes and à posteriori from a now-a-daies experienced effect His grounds for the former are these First the Christian Doctrine was at first unanimously setled in the hearts of great multitudes in several parts of the World Secondly this Doctrine was by all those believed to be the way to Heaven and the deserting it the way to damnation whence the greatest hopes and fears imaginable ingaged them to adhere to it Thirdly hopes and fears strongly applied are causes of actual will Lastly this was feasible the things were knowable and within their power Therefore from Age to Age a great number would continue to hold themselves and teach their Children as themselves had been taught that is would follow and stick to Tradition I now come to examine these four grounds Concerning the first there was indeed Christian Doctrine firmly setled in multitudes and very great numbers that is so much of the Christian Doctrine as was requisite for them to know or all the great and most necessary Christian truths but that all matters of Faith or all Divine truth declared by Christ and his Apostles was firmly fetled in all the faithful can never
appellation of Catholick they must be content with other names as Lutherans Zuinglians Protestants c. He who observes the former part of this Paragraph will find it to be an acknowledging all his former Discourse ineffectual for if the formerly mentioned Motives may want application if Discipline be neglected and false tenets may be taking if Governours be not vigilant than all the pretended security of truth being preserved in the way of Oral Tradition must depend upon the supposed goodness and care of such persons as are to administer the Discipline of the Church and since there have been many bad Councils it is certain there have been bad and careless Church Governours and there cannot any security be given that these Governours might not sometimes cherish the false Doctrines and oppose the true and thereby the more effectually destroy the way of Oral Tradition But though there may be defection from truth this Discourser here seems to venture to find a way how the deliverers of Tradition may be known I will now examine all his Characters above recited First They who forsake truth are not alwaies an inconsiderable number in respect of the other When the ten Tribes served the Calves in Dan and Bethel they were a greater number than those who remained to Worship at Jerusalem In Elijah's time it was in Israel but a small number in comparison of the whole that did not bow their knees to Baal In the time when Christ was first manifested in the flesh the Dissenters from the Scribes and Pharisees in their pernicious Doctrines were not the greater number and when Arianism most prevailed the greater part of the Christian Church did acknowledge and own it for truth so that if the greater number have oft imbraced false Doctrine in points of Faith there can be no evidence from such numbers which is the true Doctrine Secondly Nor can the Professors of the true Doctrine be known by standing upon an uninterrupted succession of Doctrine publickly attested if by this he understands as he must the Oral and not the Scriptural way of attesting though even in the latter some may stand upon having what they have not and so likewise in the former for by this Rule the Scribes and Phasees and Talmudists who stand upon a constant succession of their Doctrine from Moses and Ezra must be acknowledged to hold truth where they differ from and contradict the Apostles and Christians nor can there be any reason why standing upon Tradition from Christ should be a security for truth when standing upon Tradition from Moses who was a faithful deliverer was no security yea by this Rule as hath been before observed Paganism would be defended for a true Religion and the Jews worshipping of Baalim and in the Christian state the Heresie of Artemon denying the Divinity of Christ since all these pretended a right to the most publick and open way of Oral Tradition Thirdly Nor are they to be accounted for Hereticks who make use of Criticisms for though nothing more than common reason and capacity is necessary to understand the main Doctrines of Christian Faith yet if all the users of Critical Learning in matters of Religion or points of Faith were to be condemned for Hereticks then not only Learned Protestants but all the most eminent writers among the Papists must be accounted Hereticks yea and even all the Fathers who have left any Books to us of considerable bigness must be taken into the number Yea the blessed Apostle S. Paul made use of Critical observation against the leven of the false Apostles in the Churches of Galatia Gal. 3.16 To Abraham and his Seed were the promises made he saith not unto Seeds as of many but as of one And to thy Seed that is Christ Yet I suppose this Discourser will not dare to say that S. Paul was in the error or Heresie because he made use of Criticisms and his opposers in the truth who pleaded a successively delivered Doctrine amongst the Jews Fourthly Nor can the true receivers of Christian Doctrine be known by being called Catholicks for first though the name of a Catholick be deservedly honoured by Christians and the persons who truly answer that name yet it was not the name whereby the Apostles did first call them who held the true Christian Faith but they were called Christians yea some both of the Ancients and of the Learned Moderns assert that this name of Catholick was not at all in use in the Apostles daies however that which then was not the chief name commonly applied to them who hold the truth can by no shew of reason be proved to be now the Character to know which hold the true Faith Secondly is it necessary they must be called Catholicks by all men or only by themselves and men of their own way if it be sufficient that they of their own way call them Catholicks then even the Arians must be acknowledged to have held the truth who published their Confession in the presence of Constantius under the name of the Catholick Faith as is asserted by Athanasius De Synodis Arim. and Seleucia and by this Rule Papists indeed will come in but if this was enough who sees not that it would be in the power of any party of men to evidence to the world that their Heresies are truths by their declaring themselves by the name of Catholicks But if it be necessary that they must be generally called Catholicks by them who differ from them then it would likewise follow that it is in the power of the Adversaries of the truth to take away from the holders of truth that certain Character whereby they may be known to hold truth if they refuse to call these holders of truth by the name of Catholick and it will likewise follow that their holding of truth must be judged of by the opinions or words of opposers and not from their own Doctrines and Positions And yet by this Rule the Papists must not be owned for holders of the truth for Protestants do not generally give them the name of Catholicks nor acknowledge them to be truly such but to be Schismaticks We indeed oft call them by the name of Roman Catholicks or Pseudocatholicks and when ever any Protestants call them Catholicks they mean those who call themselves so and would be so owned in the same manner as our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees Builders saying he was the stone which the builders refused Thirdly Nor is it possible there should be any such latent virtue in the name Catholick to shew who hold the truth more than was in the Old Testament in being called the Children of the Prophets and the Covenant which God made with Abraham the followers of Moses and the Keepers of the Law which were terms applied to the unbelieving Jews in and after the times of Christ Fifthly Nor is it the mark of an Heretick to be called by some other appellation than that of Catholick for if
read such a Position in a Book as that I hear or see other things in converse in the world Now since what is thus delivered by Protestants to their Children is so delivered because it appears to be the scripture-Scripture-Doctrine this is an establishing and holding to not a rejecting and throwing by the Scripture as a Rule But while we own Scripture as a Rule there is no more reason why Protestants should tolerate men to contradict what is plainly and evidently deducible from Scripture under pretence of holding to it as a Rule than there is that in a case of Rebellion one who is to indeavour to suppress the rebellion should be suffered to assault the King when he plainly appears to be the King under pretence that he took him to be a Rebel Yet as to matters not fully clear in Scripture Protestants do allow differences of Opinion if managed peaceably and that it may appear that we are not violent prosecutors of our own apprehensions only because they are so the Laws of England condemn nothing for Heresie but that which was so declared by one of the four first General Councils But what he intimates of obliging to act that is if with good conscience to hold as themselves do makes me think he designs chiefly to reflect upon prudential constitutions such as are amongst us the Oaths of Obedience and Supremacy and matters of Liturgy and Conformity But in none of these things do Protestants desert this Principle of Scripture being the Rule of Faith For Protestants who hold this assertion never intended to exclude the use of prudential Rules and Constitutions for the advantage both of Civil and Ecclesiastical Societies but such Constitutions they neither own nor press as matters of Faith nor as Gods Commands in themselves necessary to salvation In this case if Protestant Rulers oblige to nothing as prudential orderly and decent but what they are well satisfied that it is lawful according to Gods word and agreeable thereunto and for other ends expedient and not needlesly burthensome which appears the common case of all Protestant Churches they no way swerve from Scripture-Rule Yea if here any Protestant Rulers should err and urge as lawful decent and prudential what is indeed sinful and evil in this case they sin and practically swerve from the true Rule as men do in all acts of sin and mistakes of judgement but they do in no wise intentionally disown this Rule of Scripture since they hold fast this as a firm Principle that if any thing which they require to be practised as lawful can be fully manifested to be against Scripture they will rather reject that Constitution than oppose the Scripture and will acknowledge that their Subjects ought to obey the Scripture rather than such commands But he tells us That these Dissenters from Protestants do guide themselves to their best capacity by the Scriptures Letter which is the Rule their persecutors Protestants who punish them for not obeying taught them and made use of themselves when they brake from the Romish Church I answer 1. It is much to be feared that many who dissent from the Protestant Churches in these matters prudential do not act according to their best capacities but some from passion and self-will some from the applause of a party others from pride and a sinful resolution not to disown what they once unadvisedly and erroneously took up 2. Yet I doubt not but very many who dissent from the prudential Rules of the Protestant Churches or particularly of the Church of England do act according to the best light they have of Scripture truth yet have they not the same reasons and grounds to justifie them that Protestants have to justifie themselves in departing from Popery for we rejected Popery not only because we could not discern whether it was lawful or not by the Scripture-Rule but because in matters plain in Scripture we did clearly discern it sinful by clear Scripture-evidence which plain evidence Dissenters from the Church of England cannot have nor can they pretend it unless it be rashly under passion or preconceived prejudice But for those who act according to the best light they have from Scripture which will suppose them willing to be better informed we Protestants no way dislike but highly approve of their Rule and of them for designing to follow it so far as we can discern such persons And as the Protestant Doctrine asserts that all things necessary to salvation are plain in Scripture so we doubt not but these persons and all other who according to their best capacities close with the Faith there delivered and practise the duties there required are in the way to salvation nor can they err in matters fundamental But still they may err in some other matters and particularly about the lawfulness of some things prudential nor did Protestants ever assert that they who designed to follow Scripture to the best of their light could in nothing be subject to error where they have not a discovery of clear evidence which in all things all inquirers may possibly not attain Yet I must further declare that if this design of following Scripture according to mens best capacity were more followed and all passions prejudices and unchristian suspicions laid aside amongst all Dissenters the number of them who dissent from the Protestant Churches upon the best light of Scripture they have would in a short time be reduced to a very few 3. Where in any case such persons as these are punished it is not for designing to follow Scripture but for not obeying some prudential lawful commands in a case where their mistake is the cause of their not obeying not is it any more a condemning their design to follow Scripture than in Civil Laws and Constitutions when any one is impleaded in a Court because he for want of good Counsel acts what he by mistake thinks to be according to Law but is cast as not having acted according to the Law the Judge should be thought to punish this man unjustly because he designed obedience to the Law yea to punish him for designing this obedience to the Law Some such inconveniences as these are like to be in Civil things while men are liable to mistakes and something is capable of being mistaken but these things concern not at all the Rule of Faith or the rejecting the Scripture from being the Rule of Faith From what hath been said it is easie to vindicate the Protestants from the following self-contradictions he chargeth upon Hereticks The first of which is to reform upon pretence of Scriptures Letter being the Rule and afterwards in practice to desert that Rule in their carriage towards others This Rule Protestants desert not since they propound nothing to be assented to by any as a matter of Faith but what they judge certainly evident in Scripture nor require they any thing to be practised as orderly but what they discern or judge not contrary to Scripture 2. Nor
to be in many things blameable more than the Papists at this day as dissimulation infidelity and the like which were the faults by Leo charged on the Manichees but not by Gelasius charged on them he writes of but still in that fault for which Gelasius condemns them he writes against the Papists at this day are altogether guilty of it that is in dividing the Sacrament or not receiving both Bread and Wine which he saith cannot be without great Sacriledge Nor can any here make a third reply upon any rational ground that it then was Sacrilegious to have administred only in one kind because the known practice and Canons of the Roman Church required administration in both kinds But since it hath in after times declared this practice mutable and ordered the Communion to be given only in one kind it is not now sacrilegious For this answer will not agree with the intent of these words and the Doctrine formerly received in the Roman Church The reason why Gelasius declared it great sacriledge to take this Sacrament in one kind alone is intimated sufficiently in this Canon not to refer to the Churches Constitution but the Sacraments Institution in that he calls both species or kinds one and the same Mysterie and sayes this one and the same Mysterie cannot be divided without grand sacriledge which is to referr us to the nature of the thing it self and its Institution as being not mutable Yea further the ancient Tradition of the Roman Church held as a Point of Doctrine that the Elements in the Eucharist ought to be administred according to what Christ instituted that is the Bread and Wine to be given to the Laity distinctly and separately because Christ gave them so then cannot this third Reply reconcile the present Doctrine of the Roman Church with what was formerly delivered To shew this I could produce many testimonies but shall only instance in Julius a Roman Bishop in a Canonical Epistle to the Bishops of Egypt recorded also in Gratian de Consecrat Dist 2. Cum omne Where he declares that he had heard of some who contrary to the Divine Orders and Apostolical Institutions consecrated Milk instead of Wine others who deliver to the people the Eucharist dipped For it is read in the truth of the Gospel Jesus took Bread and the Cup and having blessed it gave it to his Disciples But for that they gave the Eucharist dipped to the people they have received no testimony produced out of the Gospel in which he commends to us his body and his blood for the commendation is rehearsed separately of the Bread and separately of the Cup. In which words he makes Christs Institution a Rule by which he condemns other practices different from it and from this Institution he requires that both the Bread and the Cup be separately given and this even with reference to the Laity or as he speaks to the people to whom it was delivered and by this Rule he condemned the giving the Bread dipped in Wine whereas both should be given asunder so doth Gelasius by the same condemn the receiving only in one kind when it should be received in both All this considered the former Tradition of the Roman Church may from this instance appear to condemn the late Tradition as sacrilegious and therefore I may conclude that the same Tradition hath not been alwayes kept to as may appear by preserved Monuments out of which instances may be easily multiplied An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority § 1. BVt saith he some may say all this is nature if the Objector means reason wrought upon by Motives laid by Gods special goodness to bring man to bliss I wonder what else is supernaturality But this point is out of my road otherwise than to shew how Christian Tradition is strengthened above the greatest humane testimony whatever by those Motives which we rightly call assistances of the Holy Ghost Not to examine his Notion of supernaturality and the assistances of the Holy Ghost because they concern not the Discourse in hand I shall only tell him what Protestants or any other men who are true to reason would say to this Discourse and that is that what he hath said hitherto is of so low natural evidence and so far from reason that in this way the Christian can have no more evidence of the truth of Christian Religion than an Heathen may have of the truth of Paganism nor is there any such certainty in Tradition concerning the main Body of Christs Doctrine as is comparable to many other matters of humane testimony § 2 3. He observes the Mahometans Tradition for Mahomets existence will convey the truth thereof to the Worlds end if followed and Protestants acknowledge it hath had the force hitherto to be followed And the Tradition in the Church for the main Body of Christs Doctrine far exceeds that of the Turks for Mahomets existence because supposing the quality of the testifiers equal much greater multitudes in divers Countreys were testifiers of Christs Doctrine being converted by powerful Miracles than the few witnesses of Mahomets existence it is easier for those few Syrians or Arabians to conspire to a lye than for these Christians nor can Christians be so easily mistaken concerning Christian Doctrine In answer to this I in the first place grant That there is an Historical Traditionary certainty amongst the Turks concerning the existence of Mahomet and it is very reasonable that rather more should be allowed to the Tradition of Christians than of Mahometans But that it may truly appear how far Tradition may be relyed on for the conveyance of truth we must distinctly consider the matters delivered Of which some things there are which are not probably capable of mistake nor liable to be perverted and to receive a mixture of much falshood and have this advantage that the delivery of them from one to another doth still continue and no interest perswades the generality of men to deny or indeavour the concealing of them Now all these properties agree to the assertion of Mahomets existence amongst the Turks to the delivery of the Being of a God among the Gentiles to Moses being the great Prophet among the Jews and to Jesus being the Christ and I may add S Peter and S. Paul c. being his Apostles among the Christians thus the fame of a good or true Writer may be continued amongst Historians and in these things and many other such like I will grant it is not only possible but probable that Tradition may convey a certainty But there are other things lyable to mistake whence in many matters of common fame sufficiently known to the first Relater by the misapprehension of them who hear the relation the ordinary report is oft-times false or else 2. They are subject to be perverted or are concealed and not delivered which hath been
that with many it doth not work its effect in the former it may be much feared to want its effect in the latter especially since there have been many Hereticks § 10. They who do not to others what they would have done to themselves this is because they are swayed by some temporal good but this cannot be in the Church supposing sanctity in it because in virtue and glory we have not the less when others have the more but rather we have the more also so that here Fathers must do the greatest hurt to their Children without the least good to themselves if they should deceive them But alas Is this Discourser such a stranger to the world that when he hath proved as it is easie to do that it is highly irrational for any man to chuse any sin he would thence conclude for certain that there are no such sinners in the world How evident is it that there hath been so much want of Sanctity that many either to please their own fancies or to promote their own interests have depraved the true Religion or corrupted the Christian Doctrine But in these cases as in all acts of sin men do not aim at the evil and hurt that follows but at the seeming good and delight § 11. Christian Doctrine hath the advantage of the greatest universality wisdom and goodness of the recommenders § 12. Nature will teach all a care of their off spring but Christianity more and chiefly in matters of endless misery and happiness § 13. Consider credit he who will lie perniciously and to friends how ill is this esteemed Chiefly if this be against the highest Motives and with the greatest confidence and Oaths This is of all other cases most disgraceful in matters which concern Christs Doctrine chiefly if in a Pastor against his particular Oath to preach Christs Doctrine truly Nor can the world of Fore-Fathers all conspire to this villany Yet it is certain notwithstanding the recommendations of the Christian Doctrine it may be both mistaken and depraved Nor doth love of off-spring take place actually against all setting examples of sin nor against ignorance and mistakes nor in Jews and Hereticks did it take place against corrupting worship Nor have all men been so tender of their credit Many Hereticks have been self-condemned There were who said of Christ let us kill him and the inheritance shall be ours Simon knew and was Baptized into the Christian Doctrine and yet thoughts of credit did not keep him from perverting it Yea men gain credit at least with a party by their erring explications if they be plausible and take with the multitude and then alone can they become Traditions However some there are who value not esteem either with men or with God who knowing the judgement of God that they which do such things are worthy of death not only do them but take pleasure in them that do them And if by such weak considerations as these above mentioned though the truth of the contrary is generally known in the world this Authour would conclude that Pastors can never deliver amiss and therefore whatever any Histories say to the contrary there never were erroneous Bishops in the Eastern or Western Churches or any places whatever I doubt he would be put to wonderful puzzles to reconcile the present Doctrines in all Churches Yet if Protestants may not as men of reason judge that Pastors have erred because all Histories and the present differences in Religion manifest it they will still as Christians believe that S. Peters Spirit was more infallible than this Discoursers who hath assured us 2 Pet. 2.1 2. That there shall be false Teachers who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies and many shall follow their pernicious wayes § 14. He concludeth with a flourish That every virtue and Science would contribute to Traditions certainty which would require he saith a large Volume to shew But that we may judge what this large Volume would be he gives us a taste wherein is nothing else but empty and frothy words Arithmetick lends her numbring and multiplying faculty to scan the vast number of testifiers Geometry her proportion to shew the infinite strength of certainty in Tradition c. But if such words as these were considerable this Discourser may receive a return more truly Arithmetick cannot number and determine the many possible and probable wayes of erring in Tradition Geometrical proportions cannot discover how manifold and great defects appear in the receiving the Body of Christs Doctrine by Tradition more than in the acknowledgement of Mahomets existence nor how great a proportion of men there are in the Church who have delivered their own opinions and speculations to one who only testifieth what he received Logick will discover the Sophistry in the pretended Arguments for Tradition Nature will evidence the great possibility of mans mistake or neglect in the way of Tradition Morality will shew the great corruption of man whereby he is lyable every where to err and miscarry Historical prudence will shew the failing of Tradition both in Jews and Gentiles and many Christian Nations overspread with known and confessed errors and will thence conclude that it is possible for any Nation or particular Church by Oral Tradition to neglect the faithful preserving truth Political Principles will evidence according to the practice of all Civil Policies that writing is a more exact way to convey down Laws and Rules of Order than Tradition is Metaphysicks with its speculations will evidence the very notion of Oral Tradition of the whole Body of Christs Doctrine to this Age to be an aiery vanity Divinity will discover much of the great wisdom and goodness of God in giving us the Scriptures rather than in leaving us to the uncertain and dangerous way of Tradition Controversie will evidence the uncertainty of almost every thing in Faith if it had no other Basis than mere Oral Tradition without any written support So that after all the survey of his several Discourses where nothing is solidly spoken for Tradition I may well conclude that this way of Tradition is defectible ANSWER TO HIS COROLLARIES AFter these several Discourses he deduceth forty one Corollaries built upon them all which must needs fall with the ruine of their foundation Yet that they may not pass without due Censure I shall briefly deduce other opposite Corollaries and for the most part directly contrary to them from our Discourse Corol. 1. They may of right pretend to Faith who hold not to Tradition since they have a sufficient Rule of Scripture and Motives enough to believe Disc 2.3 4. But they have no sure-footing in the Faith who depend only on this Oral Tradition since it is both a fallible and actually a false guide Disc 5.6 8. Cor. 2. They may pretend to be a Church and a true Church who own not Oral Tradition because they may be a number of Faithful Cor. 1. but whoever followeth any way of such Tradition cannot
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
what ever was written of him brethren is accomplished and is true So far S. Austin there cited and approved So that we see they grounded all along upon the Scriptures and the necessary consequence of his having two wills from his having two Natures And when in this Council was read the Type of Paul Bishop of Constantinople wherein he prohibited all disputes about Christ's having or not having two wills the Council liked his intention to have all contention cease but declared their dislike of his dealing alike with the truth and the error yet they determined that if he could have and had shewed by the approbation of Scripture that both were equally subject to reproof or praise his Type had been well All this considered there is no more in the words cited by this Discourser to prove they made Oral Tradition their Rule than when the Church of England declares her consent with any Confessions of others or any Doctrines of the Fathers and shall say We agree to all there spoken it could be thence concluded that the Church of England hath Oral Tradition for her Rule of Faith SECT III. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith NExt he produceth the Council of Sardica which is the only Council by him produced within the first six hundred years after Christ Out of the Synodical Epistle of that Council sent to all Bishops he citeth these words We have received this Doctrine we have been taught so we hold this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession Let us consider the place cited more largely This Council declared that the Hereticks contended that there were different and separate Hypostases by which word that Council tells us those Hereticks meant Substances of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost But we have received and been taught this and have this Catholick Tradition Faith and Confession that there is one Hypostasis or Substance of the Father Son and Holy Ghost But 1. How did these Fathers receive this They presently add That the Father cannot be named or be without the Son is the testimony of the Son himself saying I am in the Father and the Father in me and again I and my Father are one 2. This Council of Sardica was held not long after the first Council of Nice and received this faith from it and in this Council of Sardica the Catholick Bishops did establish the determination of faith in the Council of Nice Socr. lib. 2. c. 20. And after the end of this Council Hosius and Protogenes the leading men in the Council wrote to Julius Bishop of Rome testifying that all things in the Council of Nice were to be accounted ratified by them which they explained as they saw need Sozom. 3.11 Wherefore that which was the Rule of Faith in that first and famous Council of Nice is likewise owned to be the sufficient Rule by the Council of Sardica especially if this was any way declared by that Nicene Council in the same manner as if now any English Convocation should by publick writing declare their establishing and receiving the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles it must needs be concluded that they own that to be the Rule of Faith which is there declared to be such Concerning the first Council of Nice I shall discourse after enquiry into the second Nicene Council which he next applyes himself to in his Discourse SECT IV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice THe last Council he produceth is the second Council of Nice whose Authority if it was indeed on his side yet would it no way tend to determine this Controversie and he cannot but know that Protestants have no great esteem for that Council having these several things rationally to object against it 1. That it was a Council above eight hundred years after Christ not only celebrated in that time when the purity of Primitive Doctrine was much declined but even the matters therein declared concerning the worship of Images were innovations and not agreeable to the more ancient Church 2. That this Council cannot in reason be pretended to declare the general Tradition of the Church Catholick when it is certain that immediately before it a Council of 330 Bishops at Constantinople defined the contrary and the like was presently after it done by a German Council 3. They delivered that as the sense of the Church Catholick which was not such nor will the present Roman Church acknowledge it to be such in Act 5. of that Council when the Book of John of Thessalonica was read wherein it was asserted That the sense of the Catholick Church was that Angels and Souls of men were not wholly incorporeal but had Bodies and therefore were imitabiles picturâ as Binius hath it representable by Pictures Tharasius and the Synod approved of it Yet here Carranza in his Collection of the Councils adds a Note that this is not yet determined by the Church and observes that many of the Fathers asserted the Angels to be wholly incorporeal whom the first Synod of Lateran seems to follow Pamelius puts it among the Paradoxes of Tertullian Parad. 7. which S. Austin condemned to assert the Souls of men to have any effigies and colour and both Pamelius upon Tertul. and Baron ad an 173. n. 31. derive the original of this Opinion from the Montanists 4. It is evidenceable by many instances that they satisfied themselves with very weak proof both from Scriptures and from the Fathers as hath been by several Protestant Writers shewed Yet as bad as this Council was which was bad enough I assert That it was not of this Discoursers judgment that Oral Tradition is the Rule of Faith In order to the evidencing of which I shall first examine his citations His first citation is out of Act. 2. We imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess Which words I suppose he took out of Carranza where they are curtly delivered for sure had he read them as they are at large in the Council he would never have been so mistaken as to have applied them to Oral Tradition The words more at large are thus spoken by Tharasius Patriarch of Constantinople and approved by the Synod Adrian Primate of old Rome seems to me to have written clearly and truly both to our Emperours and to us and hath declared the ancient Tradition of the Church to be right Wherefore we also searching by the Scriptures by inquiring arguing and demonstrating and also being imbued with the precepts of the Fathers have so confessed and do confess and will confess and do confirm the force of the Letters read So that whatever is here spoken concerning a Rule of Faith must be this that that which upon inquiry may be made appear by Arguments and Demonstrations to be the Doctrine of the Scripture and accords with the ancient Fathers is delivered to us by the Rule of Faith And is this
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
and spake evil of their Governours And they were frequently turbulent and tumultuous But by the Evangelical Doctrine only the Humble and Lowly can enter into Heaven The Son of God himself so far promoted Submission to all in Authority that he was obedient to his Parents was himself baptized of John And the New Testament earnestly enjoins upon us Obedience to them who have the Rule over us and denounceth Damnation to those who resist the higher Powers 6. And lastly They left themselves and their Followers at a licentious Liberty in many weighty Matters of Doctrine and Practice They could suffer their Hands to be Polluted by devouring Widows Houses and their Tables by Extortion and Excess They made void the Commands of God by their Traditions and were such Casuists as to allow Swearing by Heaven and Earth and to account such Oaths as those by the Temple and the Altar to leave no Obligation when Swearing by the Gold of the Temple or the Gift upon the Altar did oblige And it is manifest from this fifth chapter of St. Matthew that according to their strictest Rules they gave allowance to inward Wrath and Hatred and Lust if it did not break forth in open Murther or Adultery as was noted by Tertullian Tert. de Idolat c. 2. who also observeth how strictly extensive our Saviour's Doctrine is even against the unchast Eye and inward Wrath or in the phrase of St. John That he that hateth his Brother is a Murtherer But the excellent Christian Rules of Life which command the inward Man and far out-do the loose Principles of the Pharisees are many of them proposed by the Blessed Jesus in this and the following Chapters and are included under that Sanction at the close of this Sermon on the Mount that he that hears these words of his and doth them not is likened to him who builds his House on the Sand which ends in a dreadful fall And Vertuous Practices are so far from pleading any allowance from Christianity that Whosoever breaks the least Commandment and teacheth Men so shall be called least or not be accounted of in the Kingdom of Heaven These things I have discoursed of are sufficient to shew the gross miscarriages of the Pharisaical Righteousness in opposing the necessary Duties of Unity Meekness Sincerity true Religious Piety Obedience and Universal Holiness and therefore this could be no safe way to the Kingdom of Heaven I now come to the second Enquiry How stands the case of those Societies who lay the chief claims to Christianity as to their exceeding or not exceeding the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees in these particulars And here I shall not ransack the remote and distant parts of the World but take notice only of those with which we are concerned as the Church of England the present Roman Church and the Dissenting Parties among us Nor shall I strain resemblances to make the Cases appear Parallel but shall take notice of things as they really are to observe how far there is a likeness to or compliance with the Spirit of Pharisaism And here I profess that I seriously wish well to all Men of what Party soever and therefore whatever I shall say that speaks the error or danger of any of them is not out of design to cast reproach upon them but out of this true Charitable End to warn others to take heed thereof and I should be glad if it might make any of them consider of the error of their way 1. Concerning Separation and Division This was esteemed by the ancient Church as an heinous Crime St. Chrysostom equals it with Heresy Chr. in Eph. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. and St. Cyprian makes it a greater offence than that of the Lapsi The Church of England is clear herein it owns and professeth the Catholick and Apostolick Faith and Doctrine and none other and appoints a way of Worship agreeable thereto and so gives no cause to warrant any Separation from her Our Case with respect to the Romish Church is in part like that of the Apostles with regard to the Scribes and Pharisees whilest they professed the true Christian Doctrine and worshipped God after the way which was unjustly called Heresy Joh. 12.42 the Pharisees sentenced such to be put out of the Synagogue And the Talmud of the Venice Edition hath been observed to affirm That Jesus himself was Excommunicated with the Shammatha or great Excommunication And because we as we ought reject the evil and corrupt Romish Doctrines and Practices they censure us as Hereticks and let fly their Anathema's in various Canons of Trent and yearly denounce their Excommunications in the Bull in Coena Domini And besides this we cannot join in the main part of the Romish Worship without embracing their Superstitious and Idolatrous Practices Nor have they any Right of Jurisdiction over us And all this acquits us from the Crime of Schism in our Reformation But they at Rome though they keep to their publick Worship as the Pharisees did are yet grossly guilty of Schism by unjustly rejecting all other Christian Churches who make use of their own just Rights and are not more ready to submit to St. Peters pretended Successor and his Impostures than to the Precepts and Doctrines of his and our Lord and Master And herein they pass Sentence as the Pharisee did against the Publican upon them who are better than themselves Other Parties at home practise Divisions in an higher degree than the Pharisees did openly separating themselves from the publick Assemblies of our Christian Worship 2. Concerning fierceness and furiousness of Zeal Our Church entertains no Bloody nor Uncharitable Doctrines or Tenents its Rules concerning Government contain as much mildness as can consist with Peace and Order and its Practice rather more by reason of the distemper and disorder of the minds of Men. But such is the Romish fierceness that in the highest violation of Charity they exclude other Churches from Salvation And their furious Zeal appears by Fire and Faggot by bloody Inquisitions Massacres and Rebellions by Horrid Treasons and cruel Conspiracies of which the World hath had and we have abundant Evidence These things are so unlike Christianity and Jesus the Saviour that they betray themselves to be from the Abaddon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 When Espencoeus a learned Doctor of Paris Esp in 1. T◠Digr l. 2. had observed how the ancient Canons obliged all the Clergy against engaging in War and Blood he acknowledgeth and smartly taxeth the contrary practice of the late Romish Church and her Bishops as herein degenerating from the Spirit of Christianity veteris Gentilismi ritu with a greater suitableness to the temper of Pagans And in other Dissenting Parties it is too manifest how prone their forward and leading Men are to censorious Uncharitableness and rash Judging and how ready they have been unjustly to take up the Sword and pursue the Interest of their Party with War and Blood with
better State for such charitable Hopes And whosoever are engaged in any of those Evils which were included in Pharisaism and condemned in Christianity had need carefully to reflect on themselves and heartily and timely to amend But if any should be offended at a Discourse that represents to them the Danger of their Practices and should be more ready to censure it as uncharitable than to weigh and consider it they may know that as this speaks a very bad Temper of Mind prevailing in them so the letting Men alone in their sinful Actions is so far from being any part of that Charity which our Saviour practised or enjoined that it is more agreeable with the Temper of the Evil One who is willing that they who do amiss should continue in their Evil be flattered therein and not so consider thereof as to forsake it Secondly Let all who are of our Church and whoever embrace the true Catholick Communion be careful and serious in practising Holiness and Righteousness Our Doctrine and Profession condemneth and disowneth all unsound Principles and corrupt Practices And as the more devout Jews daily blessed God that they were born Jews and not of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Gentiles so have we great reason to praise God that we live in this excellent Church and are thereby free from various Snares to which many others are exposed But if amongst us Debauchery Profaneness or Irreligion prevail upon any Persons whomsoever such Wickedness of Life will exclude Persons of the purest Profession and Belief from ever entring into Heaven St. Austin sometimes warns against this Aug. de Civ Dei l. 20. c. 9. de fid oper as a considerable Defect in the Pharisees Righteousness that while they sate in Moses's Chair our Lord tells us they say but do not If ever we will be happy our Practice must answer our Profession the Doctrine of Christianity is a Doctrine according to Godliness and must be improved to that End An Heretical or Schismatical Life as some ancient Writers call that vicious Conversation which separates the Man from the Ways of God and Religion is the more unaccountable and inexcusable when it contradicteth and crosseth the most Catholick Profession and the best Rules of Duty clearly proposed Wherefore let us be careful that as the Righteousness required in the Doctrine of our Church in conformity to the Gospel of our Saviour doth greatly exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees so may that of our Lives also in conformity to that Doctrine Which God of his Mercy grant through the Merits of our holy and blessed Saviour To whom c. FINIS BOOKS Printed for and Sold by Ric. Chiswell SPeed's Maps and Geography of Great Britain and Ireland and of Foreign Parts Dr. Cave's Lives of the Primitive Fathers in 2 Vol. Dr. Cary's Chronological Account of Ancient Time Sir Tho. Herbert's Travels into Persia c. B. Wilkin's real Character or Philosophical Language Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity Guillim's Display of Heraldry with large Additions Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation of the Church of England in 2 Vol. Account of the Confessions and Prayers of the Murderers of Esquire Thynn Burlace's History of the Irish Rebellion Herodoti Historia Gr. Lat. cum varils Lect. Bishop Sanderson's Sermons with his Life Fowlis's History of Romish Conspir Treas and Usurpat Dalton's Office of Sheriffs with Additions Office of a Justice of Peace with Additions Lord Cook 's Reports in English Edmunds on Caesar's Commentaries Sir John Davis's Reports Judge Yelverton's Reports The Laws of this Realm concerning Jesuits Seminary Priests Recusants the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance explained by divers Judgments and Resolutions of the Judges with other Observations thereupon by Will. Cawley Esq Josephus Antiquities and Wars of the Jews with Figures QVARTO DR Littleton's Dictionary Latin and English Bishop Nicholson on the Church Catechism History of the late Wars of New-England D. Outram de Sacrificiis Bishop Taylor 's Disswasive from Popery Parkeri Disputationes de Deo The Magistrates Authority asserted in a Sermon By James Paston Dr. Jane's Fast Sermon before the Commons 1679. Mr. John Jame's Visitation Sermon April 9. 1671. Mr. John Cave's Fast Sermon on 30 of Jan. 1679. Assize Sermon at Leicester July 31. 1679. Dr. Parker's Demonstration of the Divine Authority of the Law of Nature and the Christian Religion Mr. William's Sermon before the Lord Mayor 1679. History of the Powder Treason with a vindication of the proceedings relating thereunto Speculum Baxteriunum or Baxter against Baxter Mr. Hook's new Philosophical Collections Bibliotheca Norfolciana sive Catalogus Lib. Manuscript impress in omni Arte Lingua quos Hen. Dux Norfolciae Regiae Societati Londinensi pro scientiae naturali promovenda donavit OCTAVO BIshop Wilkin's Natural Religion Dr. Ashton's Apology for the Honours and Revenues of the Clergy Lord Hollis's Vindication of the Judicature of the House of Peers in the Case of Skinner Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Appeals Jurisdiction of the House of Peers in Case of Impositions Letters about the Bishops Votes in Capital Cases Dr. Grew's Idea of Philological History on Roots Spaniard's Conspiracy against the State of Venice Dr. Brown's Religio Medici with Digby's Observations Dr. Sympson's Chymical Anatomy of the York-shire Spaws with a Discourse of the Original of Hot Springs and other Fountains Hydrological Essays with an Account of the Allum Works at Whitby and some Observations about the Jaundice Organon Salutis or an Instrument to cleanse the Stomach With divers new Experiments of the Vertue of Tobacco and Coffee with a Preface of Sir Henry Blunt Dr. Cave's Primitive Christianity in three parts Ignatius Fuller's Sermons of Peace and Holiness Dr. Sanway's Unreasonableness of the Romanists Record of Urines The Tryals of the Regicides in 1660. Certain genuine Remains of the Lord Bacon in Arguments Civil Moral Natural c. with a large account of all his Works by Dr. Tho. Tennison Dr. Puller's Discourse of the Moderation of the Church of England Sir John Munson's Discourse of Supreme Power and Common Right Dr. Henry Bagshaw's Discourses on select Texts Mr. Seller's Remarks relating to the State of the Church in the three first Centuries The Country-man's Physician Dr. Burnet's account of the Life and Death of the Earl of Rochester Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England History of the Rights of Princes in the Disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices and Church-Lands Markham's Perfect Horseman Dr. Sherlock's Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet's Unreasonableness of Separation A Vindication of the Defence of Dr. Stillingfleet in Answer to Mr. Baxter and Mr. Lob about Catholick Communion The History of the House of Estee the Family of the Dutchess of York Sir Rob. Filmer's Patriarcha or Natural Power of Kings Mr. John Cave's Gospel to the Romans Lawrence's Interest of Ireland in its Trade and Wealth stated DVODECIMO HOdder's Arithmetick Grotius de Veritate Religionis Christiana Bishop Hacket's Christian Consolations An Apology for a Treatise of Humane Reason Written by M. Clifford Esq VICESIMO QVARTO VAlentine 's Devotions Pharmacopoeia Collegii Londinensis reformata Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell AN Historical Relation of the Island of Ceylon in the East-Indies Together with an Account of the detaining in Captivity the Author and divers other English-men now living there and of the Author 's miraculous Escape Illustrated with Fifteen Copper Figures and an exact Map of the Island By Capt. Robert Knox a Captive there near 20 years Folio Mr. Camfield's two Discourses of Episcopal Confirmation Octavo Bishop Wilkin's Fifteen Sermons never before Extant Mr. John Cave's two Sermons of the Duty and Benefit of Submission to the Will of God in Afflictions Quarto Dr. Crawford's serious Expostulation with the Whigs in Scotland 4o. A Letter giving a Relation of the present state of the Difference between the French King and the Court of Rome to which is added The Pope's Brief to the Assembly of the Clergy and their Protestation Published by Dr. Burnet Sir James Turner's Pallas Armata or Military Essays of the ancient Grecian Roman and Modern Art of War Folio Mr. Tanner's Primordia Or The Rise and Growth of the first Church of God described Octavo A Letter writ by the last Assembly General of the Clergy of France to the Protestants inviting them to return to their Communion together with the Methods proposed by them for their Conviction Translated into English and examined by Dr. Gilb. Burnet Octavo Dr. Cave's Dissertation concerning the Government of the ancient Church by Bishops Metropolitans and Patriarchs more particularly concerning the ancient Power and Jurisdiction of the Bishops of Rome and the Encroachments of that upon other Sees especially Constantinople Octavo Dr. John Lightfoot's Works in English in two Volumes Folio Mr. Selden's Janus Anglorum Englished with Notes To which is added his Epinomis concerning the ancient Government and Laws of this Kingdom never before Extant Also two other Treatises written by the same Author One of the Original of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Testaments the other of the Disposition or Administration of Intestates Goods Now the first time published Folio Jus Regium or the Foundations of Monarchy in general and more especially of the Monarchy of Scotland maintain'd against Buchanan Napthali Dolman Milton c. By Sir George Mackenzie His Majesties Advocate in Scotland Octavo Several Discourses viz. Of Purity and Charity Of Repentance Of seeking first the Kingdom of God By Hezekiah Burton D.D. Published by John Tillotson Dean of Canterbury Octavo FINIS