the worship of God through Jesus Christ and the participation of eternal good things to follow So that The Church is a Company of men and women professing the saving doctrine of Jesus Christ. This is the Church in sensu forensi and in the sight of men But because glorious things are spoken of the city of God the Professors of Christs Doctrine are but imperfectly and inchoatively the Church of God but they who are indeed holy and obedient to Christs laws of faith and manners that live according to his laws and walk by his example these are truly and perfectly the Church and they have this signature God knoweth who are his These are the Church of God in the eyes and heart of God For the Church of God are the body of Christ but the meer profession of Christianity makes no man a member of Christ Nither circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth any thing in Christ Jesus nothing but a new creature nothing but a faith working by love and keeping the Commandements of God Now they that do this are not known to be such by Men but they are onely known to God and therefore it is in a true sense the invisible Church not that there are two Churches or two Societies in separation from each other or that one can be seen by men and the other cannot for then either we must run after the Church whom we ought not to imitate or be blind in pursuit of the other that can never be found and our eyes serve for nothing but to run after false fires No these two Churches are but one Society the one is within the other They walk together to the house of God as friends they take sweet Counsel together and eat the bread of God in common but yet though the men be visible yet that quality and excellency by which they are constituted Christs members and distinguish'd from meer Professors and outsides of Christians this I say is not visible All that really and heartily serve Christ in abdito do also profess to do so they serve him in the secret of the heart and in the secret chamber and in the publick Assemblies unless by an intervening cloud of persecution they be for a while hid and made less conspicuous but the invisible Church ordinary and regularly is part of the visible but yet that onely part that is the true one and the rest but by denomination of law and in common speaking are the Church not in mystical union not in proper relation to Christ they are not the House of God not the Temple of the Holy Ghost not the members of Christ and no man can deny this Hypocrites are not Christs servants and therefore not Christs members and therefore no part of the Church of God but improperly and equivocally as a dead man is a man all which is perfectly summ'd up in those words of S. Austin De doctr Christ. lib. 3. cap 22 saying that the body of Christ is not bipartitum it is not a double body Non enim revera Domini corpus est quod cum illo non erit in aeternum All that are Christs body shall reign with Christ for ever And therefore they who are of their father the Devil are the synagogue of Satan and of such is not the Kingdom of God and all this is no more then what S. Paul said Rom. 9. 6. They are not all Israel who are of Israel Rom. 2. 28 29. and He is not a Jew that is one outwardly but he is a Jew that is one inwardly Now if any part of mankind will agree to call the universality of Professors by the title of the Church they may if they will any word by consent may signifie any thing but if by Church we mean that Society which is really joyn'd to Christ which hath receiv'd the holy Spirit which is heir of the Promises and the good things of God which is the body of which Christ is head then the invisible part of the visible Church that is the true servants of Christ onely are the Church that is to them onely appertains the spirit and the truth the promises and the graces the privileges and advantages of the Gospel to others they appertain as the promise of pardon does that is when they have made themselves capable For since it is plain and certain that Christs promise of giving the spirit to his Apostles was meerly conditional Joh. 14. 15 16. If they did love him If they did keep his Commandments Since it is plainly affirmed by the Apostle that by reason of wicked lives men and women did turn Apostates from the faith since nothing in the world does more quench the spirit of wisdom and of God than an impure life it is not to be suppos'd that the Church as it signifies the Professors onely of Christianity can have an infallible spirit of truth If the Church of Christ have an indefectibility then it must be that which is in the state of grace and the Divine favour They whom God does not love cannot fall from Gods love but the faithful onely and obedient are beloved of God others may believe rightly but so do the Devils who are no parts of the Church but Princes of Ecclesia Malignantium and it will be a strange proposition which affirms any one to be of the Church for no other reason but such as qualifies the Devil to be so too For there is no other difference between the Devils faith and the faith of a man that lives wickedly but that there is hopes the wicked man may by his faith be converted to holiness of life and consequently be a member of Christ and the Church which the Devils never can be To be converted from Gentilism or Judaism to the Christian faith is an excellent thing but it is therefore so excellent because that is Gods usual way by that faith to convert them unto God from their vain conversation unto holiness That was the Conversion which was designed by the preaching of the Gospel of which to believe meerly was but the entrance and introduction Now besides the evidence of the thing it self and the notice of it in Scripture Ephes. 2. 1 2 3 4 5. let me observe that this very thing is in it self a part of the article of faith for if it be asked What is the Catholick Church the Apostles Creed defines it it is Communio Sanctorum I believe the holy Catholick Church that is the Communion of Saints the conjunction of all them who heartily serve God through Jesus Christ the one is indeed exegetical of the other as that which is plainer is explicative of that which is less plain but else they are but the same thing which appears also in this that in some Creeds the latter words are left out and particularly in the Constantinopolitan as being understood to be in effect but another expression of the same Article To the same sense exactly Clemens of
words of Scripture and the Apostles Creed for a sufficient rule of their faith but are threatned with damnation if they do not believe whatever their Church hath determin'd and yet they neither do nor can know it but by the word of their Parish Priest or Confessor it lies in the hand of every Parish Priest to make the People believe any thing and be of any religion and trust to any Article as they shall choose and find to their purpose The Council of Trent requires Traditions to be added and received equal with Scriptures they both not singly but in conjunction making up the full object of faith and so the most learned and indeed generally their whole Church understands one to be incomplete without the other and yet Master White who I suppose tells the same thing to his Neighbours affirms that it is not the Catholick position That all its doctrines are not contain'd in Scripture which proposition being tied with the decree of the Council of Trent gives a very good account of it and makes it excellent sense Thus Traditions must be receiv'd with equal authority to the Scripture saith the Council and wonder not for saith Master White all the Traditions of the Church are in Scripture You may believe so if you please for the contrary is not a Catholick doctrine But if these two things do not agree better then it will be hard to tell what regard will be had to what the Council says the People know not that but as their Priest teaches them And though they are bound under greatest pains to believe the whole Catholick Religion yet that the Priests themselves do not know it or wilfully mis-report it and therefore that the people cannot tell it it is too evident in this instance and in the multitude of disputes which are amongst themselves about many considerable Articles in their Catholick religion Vide Wadding of Immac oncept p. 282. p. 334. alibi Pius Quintus speaking of Thomas Aquinas calls his doctrine the most certain rule of Christian religion And divers particulars of the religion of the Romanists are prov'd out of the revelations of S. Briget which are contradicted by those of S. Katherine of Siena Now they not relying on the way of God fall into the hands of men who teach them according to the interest of their order or private fancy and expound their rules by measures of their own but yet such which they make to be the measures of salvation and damnation They are taught to rely for their faith upon the Church and this when it comes to practise is nothing but their private Priest and he does not always tell them the sense of their Church and is not infallible in declaring the sense of it and is not always as appears in the instance now set down faithful in relating of it but first consens himself by his subtilty and then others by his confidence and therefore in is impossible there can be any certainty to them that proceed this way when God hath so plainly given them a better and requires of them nothing but to live a holy life as a superstructure of Christian Faith describ'd by the Apostles in plain places of Scripture and in the Apostolical Creed in which they can suffer no illusion and where there is no Uncertainty in the matters to be believ'd IV. The next thing I observe is that they all talking of the Church as of a charm and sacred Amulet yet they cannot by all their arts make us certain where or how infallibly to find this Church I have already in this Section prov'd this in the main Inquiry by shewing that the Church is that body which they do not rely upon but now I shall shew that the Church which they would point out can never be certainly known to be the true Church by those indications and signs which they offer to the world as her characteristick notes S. Austin in his excellent Book De Vnitate Ecclesiae Lib. de Vnit. Eccles. cap. cap. 17. Ergo in Scripturis Canonicis eam Ecclesiam requiramus cap. 3. affirms that the Church is no whereto be found but in Praescripto legis in prophetarum praedictis in Psalmorum cantibus in ipsius Pastoris vocibus in Evangelistarum praedicationibus laboribus hoc est in omnibus Sanctorum canonicis authoritatibus in the Scriptures only And he gives but one great note of it and that is adhering to the head Jesus Christ for the Church is Christ's body who by charity are united to one another and to Christ their Head and he that is not a member of Christ cannot obtain salvation And he adds no other mark but that Christ's Church is not this or that viz. not of one denomination but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dispersed over the face of the earth The Church of Rome makes adhesion to the head Bellarm. de Eccles Militant lib. 3. cap. Sect. Nostra autem Sententia not Jesus Christ but the Bishop of Rome to be of the essential constitution of the Church Now this being the great Question between the Church of Rome and the Greek Church and indeed of all other Churches of the world is so far from being a sign to know the Church by that it is apparent they have no ground of their Faith but the great Question of Christendom and that which is condemn'd by all the Christian world but themselves is their foundation And this is so much the more considerable because concerning very many Heads of their Church it was too apparent that they were not so much as members of Christ but the basest of Criminals and Enemies of all godliness And concerning others that were not so notoriously wicked they could not be certain that they were members of Christ or that they were not of their Father the Devil The spirit of truth was promis'd to the Apostles upon condition and Judas fell from it by transgression But the uncertainties are yetgreater Adhering to the Pope cannot be a certain note of the Church because no man can be certain who is true Pope For the Pope if he be a Simoniac is ipso facto no Pope as appears in the Bull of Julius the 2d And yet besides that he himself was called a most notorious Simoniac Sixtus Quintus gave an obligation under his hand upon condition that the Cardinal d'Este would bring over his voices to him and make him Pope that he would never make Hierom Matthew a Cardinal which when he broke the Cardinal sent his Obligation to the King of Spain who intended to accuse him of Simony but it broke the Pope's heart and so he escaped here and was reserved to be heard before a more Unerring Judicatory And when Pius Quartus used all the secret arts to dissolve the Council of Trent and yet not to be seen in it and to that purpose dispatch'd away the Bishops from Rome he forbad the Archbishop of
wills some are scarce worth the remembring and are of an obsolete and worn-out authority Now if these men say true then they prove a tradition or else nothing will prove it but a consent absolutely Universal which is not to be had For on the other side They that speak against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin particularly Cardinal Cajetan bring as he says the irrefragable testimony of fifteen Fathers against it others bring no less then two hundred and Bandellus brings in almost three hundred and that will go a great way to prove a Tradition But that this also is not sufficient see what the other side say to this They say that Scotus and Holcot and Vbertinusde Casalis and the old Definition of the University of Paris and S. Ambrose and S. Augustine are brought in falsely or violently and if they were not yet they say it is an illiteral disputation and not far from Sophistry to proceed in this way of arguing For it happens sometimes that a multitude of Opiners proceeds onely from one famous Doctor and that when the Donatists did glory in the multitude of Authors S. Austin answer'd that it was a sign the cause wanted truth when it endeavour'd to relie alone upon the authority of many and that it was not fit to relate the sentiment of S. Bernard Bonaventure Thomas and other Devotes of the Blessed Virgin as if they were most likely to know her priviledges and therefore would not have denied this of Immaculate Conception if it had been her due For she hath many devout servants the world knows not of and Elisha though he had the spirit of Elias doubled upon him yet said Dominus celavit à me non indicavit mihi and when Elias complain'd he was left alone God said he had 7000 more And the Apostles did not know all things and S. Peter walk'd not according to the truth of the Gospel and S. Cyprian err'd in the point of rebaptizing hereticks For God hath not given all things unto all persons that every age may have proper truths of its own which the former age knew not Thus Salmeron discourses and this is the way of many others more eminent who make use of authority and antiquity when it serves their turn and when it does not it is of no use and of no value But if these things be thus then how shall Tradition be prov'd if the little remnant of the Dominican party which are against the Immaculate Conception should chance to be brought off from their opinion as if all the rest of the other Orders and many of this be already it is no hard thing to conjecture that the rest may and that the whole Church as they will then call it be of one mind shall it then be reasonable to conclude that then this doctrine was and is an Apostolical Tradition when as yet we know and dare say it is not That 's the case and that 's the new doctrine but how impossible it is to be true and how little reason there is in it is now too apparent I see that Vowing to Saints is now at Rome accounted an Apostolical doctrine but with what confidence can any Jesuite tell me that it is so when by the Confession of their chief parties it came in later than the fountains of Apostolical Doctrines De cultu S S. lib. 3. c. 9. Sect. Praetereà When the Scriptures were written the use of vowing to Saints was not begun saith Bellarmine and Cardinal * Contre le Roy Jaques Perron confesses that in the Authors more neer to the Apostolical age no footsteps of this custom can be found Where then is the Tradition Apostolical or can the affirmation of the present Church make it so To make a new thing is easie but no man can make an old thing The consequence of these things is this All the doctrines of faith and good life are contain'd and express'd in the plain places of Scripture and besides it there are and there can be no Articles of faith and therefore they who introduce other articles and upon other principles introduce a faith unknown to the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primitive Church And that the Church of Rome does this I shall manifest in the following discourses SECTION IV. There is nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Apostolical Churches did not believe IN the first Part of the Dissuasive it was said that the two Testaments are the Fountains of Faith and whatsoever viz. as belonging to the faith came in after these foris est is to be cast out it belongs not to Christ and now I suppose what was then said is fully verified And the Church of Rome obtruding many propositions upon the belief of the Church which are not in Scripture and of which they can never shew any Universal or Apostolical Tradition urging those upon pain of Damnation imposing an absolute necessity of believing such points which were either denyed by the Primitive Church or were counted but indifferent and matters of opinion hath disordered the Christian Religion and made it to day a new thing and unlike the great and glorious Founder of it who is the same yesterday and to day and for ever The charge here then is double they have made new Necessities and they have made new Articles I chuse to speak first of their tyrannical Manner of imposing their Articles viz. every thing under pain of damnation The other of the new Matter is the subject of the following Sections First then I alledge that the primitive Church being taught by Scripture and the examples Apostolical affirm'd but few things to be necessary to salvation They believed the whole Scriptures every thing they had learn'd there they equally believ'd but because every thing was not of equal necessity to be believ'd they did not equally learn and teach all that was in Scripture But the Apostles say some othes say that immediately after them the Church did agree upon a Creed a Symbol of Articles which were in the whole the foundation of Faith the ground of the Christian hope and that upon which charity or good life was to be built There were in Scripture many Creeds the Gentiles Creed Matth. 16. 16. Martha's Creed the Eunuch's Creed S. Peter's Creed 1 Joh. 4. 2. 15. S. Paul's Creed To believe that God is and that he is the rewarder of them that seek him diligently To believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God Joh. 20. 31. 11. 27. that Jesus is come in the flesh Hebr. 11. 6. 69. that he rose again from the dead these Confessions were the occasions of admirable effects by the first the Gentiles come to God by the following Matth. 16. 17. blessedness is declar'd salvation is promis'd to him that believes and to him that confesses this God will come and dwell in him and he shall dwell in God and this belief
all the Apostles constituted very many Bishops in divers places if the Apostles were not made Bishops by Peter certainly the greatest part of Bishops will not deduce their original from Peter This is Bellarmine's argument by which he hath perfectly overthrown that clause of Pius quartus his Creed that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches He confesses she is not unless S. Peter did consecrate all the Apostles he might have added No nor then neither unless Peter had made the Apostles to be Bishops after himself was Bishop of Rome for what is that to the Roman Church if he did this before he was the Roman Bishop But then that Peter made all the Apostles Bishops is so ridiculous a dream that in the world nothing is more unwarrantable For besides that S. Paul was consecrated by none but Christ himself it is certain that he ordain'd Timothy and Titus and that the succession in those Churches ran from the same Original in the same Line and there is no Record in Scripture that ever S. Peter ordain'd any not any one of the Apostles who receiv'd their authority from Christ and the Holy Spirit in the same times altogether which thing is also affirm'd by a Institut moral part 2 l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Altera opinio Azorius and b De tripl virt Theolog. disp 10. Sect. 1. n. 5. 7. Suarez who also quotes for it the Authority of S. c Quaest. Vet. N. Test. q. 97. Austin and the Gloss. So that from first to last it appears that the Roman Church is not the Mother-Church and yet every Priest is sworn to live and die in the belief of it that she is However it is plain that this assumentum and shred of the Roman Creed is such a declaration of the old Article of believing the Catholick Church that it is not onely a direct new Article of faith but destroys the old By thus handling the Creed of the Catholick Church we shall best understand what they mean when they affirm that the Pope can interpret Scripture authoritativè and he can make Scripture Ad quem pertinet sacram Scripturam authoritativè interpretari Ejus enim est interpretari cujus est condere He that can make Scripture can make new Articles of faith surely Much to the same Purpose are the words of Pope Innocent the fourth Innocent 4. in cap. super eo de Bigamis He cannot onely interpret the Gospel but adde to it Indeed if he have power to expound it authoritativè that is as good as making it for by that means he can adde to it or take from the sense of it But that the Pope can do this that is can interpret the Scriptures authoritativè sententialitèr obligatoriè so as it is not lawful to hold the contrary is affirm'd by Augustinus Triumphus a Qu. 67. a. 2. Turrecremata b Lib. 2. c. 107. and Hervey c De potestate Papae And Cardinal Hosius d De expresso Dei verbo in Epilogo goes beyond this saying That although the words of the Scripture be not open yet being uttered in the sense of the Church they are the express words of God but uttered in any other sense are not the express word of God but rather of the Devil To these I only adde what we are taught by another Cardinal who perswading the Bohemians to accept the Sacrament of the Lords Supper in one kind tells them and it is that I said before If the Church Card. Cusan Epâ—st 2. ad Bâ—hâ—mâ—s de usu Communionis p. 833. viz. of Rome for that is with them the Catholick Church or if the Pope that is the Virtual Church do expound any Evangelical sense contrary to what the current sense and practice of the Catholick Primitive Church did not that but this present interpretation must be taken for the way of Salvation For God changes his judgement as the Church does Epist. 3. p. 838. So that it is no wonder that the Pope can make new Articles or new Scriptures or new Gospel it seems the Church of Rome can make contrary Gospel that if in the primitive Church to receive in both kindes was via salutis because it was understood then to be a precept Evangelical afterwards the way of Salvation shall be changed and the precept Evangelical must be understood To take it in one kind But this is denyed by Balduinus In 1. Decret de summa Trinitate fide Cathol n. 44. 15. dist Canones who to the Question Whether can the Pope find out new Articles of Faith say's I answer Yes But not contrary It seems the Doctors differ upon that point but that which the Cardinal of Cusa the Legat of P. Nicolas the fifth taught the Bohemians was how they should answer their objection for they said if Christ commanded one thing and the Council or the Pope or the Prelates commanded contrary they would not obey the Church but Christ. But how greatly they were mistaken the Cardinal Legat told them Epist 2. ad Bohemos p. 834. edit Basil. A. D. 1565. Possible non est Scripturam quamcunque sive ipsa praeceptum sive consilium contineat in eos qui apud Ecclesiam existunt plus auctoritatis ligandi haebere aut solvendi fideles quà m ipsa Ecclesia voluerit aut verbo aut opere expresserit and in the third Epistle he tells them The authority of the Church is to be preferr'd before the Scriptures In piorum Clypeo qu 29. artit 5. The same also is taught by Elysius Nepolitanus It matters not what the primitive Church did no nor much what the Apostolical did Pighius Hierarch l. 1. c. 2. For the Apostles indeed wrote some certain things not that they should rule our Faith and our Religion but that they should be under it that is they submit the Scriptures to the Faith nay even to the Practice of the Church For the Pope can change the Gospel said Henry the Master of the Roman Palace Ad legatos â—ohemicos sub Felice Papa A. D. 1447. vide Polan in Dan. 11. 371. and according to place and time give it another sense insomuch that if any man should not believe Christ to be the true God and man if the Pope thought so too he should not be damn'd said the Cardinal of S. Angelo And Silvester Prierias * Sylvest Prierias cont Lutherum Conclu 56. expressly affirmed that the authority of the Church of Rome and the Pope's is greater than the authority of the Scriptures These things being so notorious I wonder with what confidence Bellarmine can say That the Catholicks meaning his own parties do not subject the Scripture but preferre it before Councils and that there is no controversie in this when the contrary is so plain in the pre-alledged testimonies but because his conscience check'd him in the particular he thinks to escape with a distinction
the next best had been to have suppress'd and forgotten it instantly for as it came in by zeal and partiality in the hands of the Cappadocian Bishops so it was fed by pride and faction in the hands of the Donatists and it could have no determination but the mere nature of the thing it self all the Apostles and Ministers of Religion were commanded to baptize in water in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and this was an admission to Christianity not to any sect of it and if this had been consider'd wisely so it had been done by a Christian Minister in matter and form there could be no more in it And therefore the whole thing was to no purpose so far was it from being an Article of Faith 4. The next pretence is that the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son is an Article of our Faith and yet no where told in Scripture and consequently tradition must help to make up the object of our Faith To this some very excellent persons have oppos'd this Consideration that the Greeks and Latins differ but in modo loquendi and therefore both speaking the same thing in differing words show that the Controversie it self is trifling or mistaken But though I wish them agreed yet when I consider that in all the endeavours for Union at the Council of Florence they never understood one another to purposes of peace I am apt to believe that those who would reconcile them shew their piety more than the truth of the thing and that the Greeks and Latins differ'd intirely in this point But then that on the Latin side there should be a tradition Apostolical can upon no other account be pretended but that they could not prove it by Scripture or shew any Ecclesiastical law or authority for it Now if we consider that the Greeks pretend their doctrine not only from Scripture but also from immemorial tradition that is that they have not innovated the doctrine which their Fathers taught them and on the other side that the Latins have contrary to the Canon of the Council of Ephesus superadded the clause of Filióque to the constantinopolitan-Constantinopolitan-Creed and that by authority of a little Convention of Bishops at Gentilly neer to Paris without the consent of the Catholick Church and that by the Confession of Cardinal Perron Contr. le Râ—y Jaques p. 709. not only the Scripture favours the Greeks but Reason also because it is unimaginable that the same particular effect should proceed from two principles in the same kind and although the three Persons created the world yet that production was from the Divine essence which is but one principle but the opinion of the Latius is that the Holy Ghost proceeds from two Persons as Persons and therefore from two principles it will be very hard to suppose that because all this is against them therefore it is certain that they had this from Apostolical tradition The more natural consequence is that their proposition is either mistaken or uncertain or not an article of Faith which is rather to be hop'd lest we condemn all the Greek Churches as Infidels or perverse Hereticks or else that it can be deriv'd from Scripture which last is indeed the most probable and pursuant to the doctrine of those wiser Latins who examin'd things by reason and not by prejudice But Cardinal Perron's argument is no better than this Titius was accus'd to have deserted his station in the Battel and carried false Orders to the Legion of Spurinna He answers I must either have received Orders from the General or else you must suppose me to be a Coward or a Traytor for I had no warrant for what I did from the Book of Military Discipline Well what if you be suppos'd to be a Coward or Traytor what hurt is in that supposition But must I conclude that you had Order from the General for fear I should think you did it on your own head or that you are a Traytor That 's the case Either this proposition is deriv'd to us by Apostolical tradition or we have nothing else to say for our selves well Nempe hoc Ithacus velit The Greeks allow the argument and will say thus You had nothing to say for your selves unless we grant that to you which is the Question and which you can never prove viz. that there is for this Article an Apostolical tradition but because both sides pretend that let us try this thing by Scripture And indeed that 's the only way And Cardinal Perron's argument may by any Greek be inverted and turned upon himself For he saying It is not in Scripture therefore it is a tradition of the Church it is as good an argument It is not deliver'd to us by universal Tradition therefore either it is not at all or it is deriv'd to us from Scripture and upon the account of this for my part I do believe it 5. The last instance of Cardinal Perron is the observation of the Lord's Day but this is matter of discipline and external rite and because it cannot pretend to be an article of faith or essentially necessary doctrine the consideration is differnt from the rest And it is soon at an end but that the Cardinal would fain make some thing of nothing by telling that the Jews complain of the Christians for changing Circumcision into Baptism and the Saturday-sabbath into the Dominical or Lord's-day He might as well have added They cry out against the Christians for changing Moses into Christ the Law into the Gospel the Covenant of works into the Covenant of faith Ceremonies into substances and rituals into spiritualities And we need no further inquiry into this Question but to consider Perron ibid. 710. what the Cardinal says that God did the Sabbath a special honour by writing this ceremonial alone into the summary of the moral law Now I demand Whether there be not clear and plain Scripture for the abolishing of the law of Ceremonies If there be then the law of the Sabbath is abolished It is part of the hand-writing of ordinances which Christ nail'd to his Cross. Now when the Sabbath ceases to be obligatory the Church is at liberty but that there should be a time sanctified or set apart for the proper service of God I hope is also very clear from Scripture and that the circumstances of religion are in the power of the presidents of religion and then it will follow from Scripture that the Apostles or their Successors or whoever did appoint the Sunday-festival had not onely great reason but full authority to appoint that day and that this was done early and continued constantly for the same reason and by an equal authority is no question But as to the Sabbath S. Paul gave express order that no man should be judged by any part of the ceremonial law and particularly name 's the Sabbath-days Colos. 2. 16. saying They all were a shadow of things
only as a Doctor but as a Prince by Empire and Command as Princeps Ecclesiae The Sorbon can Declare as well as he upon the Catholick Faith if it be only matter of skill and learning but to declare so as to bind every man to believe it to declare so as the Article shall be a point of Faith when before this Declaration it was not so quoad nos this is that which is pretended be declaring And so this very Gloss expounds it adding to the former words The Pope can make an Article of Faith if an Article of Faith be taken not properly but largely that is for a Doctrine which now we must believe whereas before such declaration we are not tied to it These are the words of the Gloss. The sense of which is this There are some Articles of Faith which are such before the declaration of the Church and some which are by the Churches declaration made so some were declar'd by the Scriptures or by the Apostles and some by the Councils or Popes of Rome after which declaration they are both alike equally necessary to be believ'd and this is that which we charge upon them as a dangerous and intolerable point For it says plainly that whereas Christ made some Articles of Faith the Pope can make others for if they were not Articles of Faith before the declaration of the Pope then he makes them to be such and that is truely according to their own words facere Articulum fidei this is making an Article of Faith Neither will it suffice to say that this Proposition so declar'd was before such a declaration really and indeed an Article of Faith in it self but not in respect of us For this is all one in several words For an Article of Faith is a relative term it is a Proposition which we are commanded to believe and to confess and to say This is an Article of Faith and yet that no man is bound to believe it is a contradiction Now then let it be considered No man is bound to believe any Article till it be declar'd as no man is bound to obey a Law till it be promulgated Faith comes by hearing till there be hearing there can be no Faith and therefore no Article of Faith The truth is Eternal but Faith is but temporary and depends upon the declaration Now then suppose any Article I demand did Christ and his Apostles declare it to the Church If not how does the Pope know it who pretends to no new Revelations If the Apostles did not declare it how were they faithful in the house of God Acts 20. 27. and how did S. Paul say truly I have not failed or ceased 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to declare to annunciate to you all the whole Counsel of God But if they did say true and were faithful and did declare it all then was it an Article of Faith before the Pope's Declaration and then it was a sin of ignorance not to believe it and of malice or pusillanimity not to confess it and a worse sin to have contradicted it And who can suppose that the Apostolical Churches and their descendants should be ignorant in any thing that was then a matter of Faith If it was not then it cannot now be declar'd that it was so then for to declare a thing properly is to publish what it was before if it was then there needs no declaration of it now unless by declaring we mean preaching it and then every Parish Priest is bound to do it and can do it as well as the Pope If therefore they mean more as it is certain they do then Declaring an Article of Faith is but the civiller word for Making it Christ's preaching and the Apostles imposing it made it an Article of Faith in it self and to us other declaration excepting only teaching preaching expounding and exhorting we know none and we need none for they only could do it and it is certain they did it fully But I need not argue and take pains to prove that by Declaring they mean more than meer Preaching Themselves own the utmost intention of the Charge The Pope can statuere Articulos fidei that 's more than declare meerly it must be to appoint to decree to determine that such a thing is of necessity to be believ'd unto salvation Art 27. Certum est in manâ— Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere articulos fide c. and because Luther said the Pope could not do this he was condemn'd by a Bull of Pope Leo. But we may yet further know the meaning of this For their Doctors are plain in affirming that the Pope is the Foundation Turrecrem l. 2. cap. 107. rule and principle of faith So Turrecremata For to him it belongs to be the measure and rule and science of things that are to be believ'd and of all things which are necessary to the direction of the faithful unto life Eternal And again It is easie to understand that it belongs to the Authority of the Pope of Rome Idem ibid. as to the general and principal Master and Doctor of the whole World to determine those things which are of faith and by consequence to publish a Symbol of Faith to interpret the senses of Holy Scriptures to approve and reprove the sayings of every Doctor belonging to Faith Hence comes it to pass that the Doctors say that the Apostolical See is call'd the Mistress and Mother of Faith And what can this mean but to do that which the Apostles could not do that is Extravag de vâ—rb signifi cap quia Quorundum gloss to be Lords over the Faith of Christendom For to declare only an Article of Faith is not all they challenge they can do more As he is Pope he can not only declare an Article of Faith but introduce a new one And this is that which I suppose Augustinus Triumphus to mean Qu. 59 art 1. when he says Symbolum novum condere ad Papam solum spectat and if that be not plain enough he adds Art 2. As he can make a new Creed or Symbol of Faith so he can multiply new Articles one upon another Vide Salmeron orolog in comment in Epist. ad Roman part 3 p. 176. Sect. Tertiò dicitur For the conclusion of this particular I shall give a very considerable Instance which relies not upon the Credit and testimony of their Doctors but is matter of fact and notorious to all the World For it will be to no purpose for them to deny it and say that the Pope can only declare an Article but not make a new one For it is plain that they so declare an old one that they bring a new one in they pretend the old Creed to be with Child of a Cushion and they introduce a suppositious Child of their own The Instance I mean is that Article of the Apostles Creed I believe the holy Catholick Church
The Question is made What is meant by it They that have a mind to it understand it easily enough it was a declaration of the coming of the Messias into the world the great proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Shiloh or he that was to come For whereas the Jews were the Inclosure and peculiar people of God at the comming of the Messias it should be so no more but the Gentiles being called and the sound of the Gospel going into all the world it was no more the Church of the Jews but Ecclesia totius mundi the Church of the Universe the Universal or Catholick Church of Jews and Gentiles of all people and all Languages Now this great and glorious mystery we confess in this Article that is we confess that God hath given to his Son the Heathen for an Inheritance and the utmost parts of the world for a possession that God is no respecter of persons Acts 10. 35. but in every Nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him This is the plain sense of the Article and renders the Article also highly considerable and represents it as Fundamental and it is agreeable with the very Oeconomy of the Gospel and determines one of the greatest questions that ever were in the world the dispute between the Jews and Gentiles and is not only easie and intelligible but greatly for Edification Now then let us see how the Church of Rome by her Head and Members expound or declare this Article I believe the Holy Catholick Church so it is in the Apostles Creed I believe one Holy Catholick and Apostolick Church so the Nicene Creed Here is no difference and no Commentary but the same thing with the addition of one word to the same sense onely it includes also the first Founders of this Catholick Church as if it had been said I believe that the Church of Christ is disseminated over the world and not limited to the Jewish pale and that this Church was founded by the Apostles upon the rock Christ Jesus But the Church of Rome hath handled this Article after another manner she hath explain'd it so clearly that no wise man can believe it she hath declar'd the Article so as to make it a new one and made an addition to it that destroys the principal Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam omnium Ecclesiarum Matrem Magistram agnosco I acknowledge the holy Catholick and Apostolick Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all Churches And at the end of this declaration of the Creed it is added as at the end of the Athanasian This is the true Catholick faith without which no man can be saved And this is the Creed of Pope Pius the fourth enjoyn'd to be sworn by all Ecclesiasticks secular or Religious Now let it be considered Whether this Declaration be not a new Article and not onely so but a destruction to the old 1. The Apostolical Creed professes to believe the Catholick or Universal Church The Pope limits it and calls it the Catholick Roman Church that by all he means some and the Vniversal means but particular But besides this 2. It is certain this must be a piece of a new Creed since it is plain the Apostles did no more intend the Roman Church should be comprehended under the Catholick Church than as every other Church which was then or should be after And why Roman should be put in and not the Ephesine the Caesarean or the Hierosolymitan it is not to be imagined 3. This must needs be a new Article because the full sense and mystery of the old Article was perfect and complete before the Roman Church was in being I believe the holy Catholick Church was an Article of faith before there was any Roman Church at all 4. The interposing the Roman into the Creed as equal and of the extent with the Catholick is not onely a false but a malicious addition For they having perpetually in their mouths That out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation and now against the truth simplicity interest and design of the Apostolical Creed having made the Roman and Catholick to be all one they have also establish'd this doctrine as virtual part of the Creed that out of the Communion of the Church of Rome there is no Salvation to be hoped for and so by this means damn all the Christians of the world who are not of their Communion and that is the far biggest part of the Catholick Church 5. How intolerable a thing it is to put the word Roman to expound Catholick in the Creed when it is confess'd among * Driedo de dogmat Eccl. lib. 4. c. 3. p. 3. themselves that it is not of faith that the Apostolick Church cannot be separated from the Roman and * Lib. 4. de Pontif. Rom. c. 4. Sect. At secundum Bellarmine proves this because there is neither Scripture nor Tradition that affirms it and then if ever they be separated and the Apostolick be remov'd to Constantinople then the Creed must be chang'd again and it must run thus I believe the holy Catholick and Apostolick Constantinopolitan Church 6. There is in this declaration of the Apostolical Creed a manifest untruth decreed enjoyn'd profess'd and commanded to be sworn to and that is that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches when it is confessed that S. Peter sate Bishop at Antioch seven years before his pretended coming to Rome and that Hierusalem is the Mother of all Churches For the Law went forth out of Sion and the Word of the Lord from Hierusalem Apud Baron AD. 382. n 15. and therefore the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople in the Consecration of S. Cyril said Vide etiam S. Basil tom 2. ep 30. Greg. Theol. We shew unto you Cyril the Bishop of Jerusalem which is the Mother of all other Churches The like is said of the Church of Cesarea with an exception onely of Jerusalem quae prope mater omnium Ecclesiarum fuit ab initio nune quoque est nominatur quam Christiana respublica velut centrum suum circulus undique observat How this saying of S. Gregory the Divine can consist with the new Roman Creed I leave it to the Roman Doctors to consider In the mean time it is impossible that it should be true that the Roman Church is the Mother of all Churches not onely because it is not imaginable she could beget her own Grand-mother but for another pretty reason which Bellarmine hath invented Though the Ancients every where call the Roman Church the Mother of all Churches Lib. 1. de Rom. and that all Bishops had their Consecration and Dignity from her Pontif. c. 23. Sect. Secunda ratio yet this seems not to be true but in that sense because Peter was Bishop of Rome he ordain'd all the Apostles and all other Bishops by himself or by others Otherwise since
are apt to be earnest in their perswasion and over-act the proposition and from being true as he supposes he will think it profitable and if you warm him either with confidence or opposition he quickly tells you It is necessary and as he loves those that think as he does so he is ready to hate them that do not and then secretly from wishing evil to him he is apt to believe evil will come to him and that it is just it should and by this time the Opinion is troublesome and puts other men upon their guard against it and then while passion reigns and reason is modest and patient and talks not loud like a storm Victory is more regarded than Truth and men call God into the party and his judgments are us'd for arguments and the threatnings of the Scripture are snatched up in haste and men throw arrows fire-brands and death and by this time all the world is in an uproar All this and a thousand things more the English Protestants considering deny not their Communion to any Christian who desires it and believes the Apostles Creed and is of the Religion of the four first General Councils they hope well of all that live well they receive into their bosome all true believers of what Church soever and for them that erre they instruct them and then leave them to their liberty to stand or fall before their own Master It was a famous saying of Stephen the Great King of Poland that God had reserved to himself three things 1. To make something out of nothing 2. To know future things and all that shall be hereafter 3. To have the rule over Consciences It is this last we say the Church of Rome does arrogate and invade 1. By imposing Articles as necessary to salvation which God never made so Where hath God said That it is necessary to salvation that every humane Creature should be subject to the Roman Bishop Extrav de Majorit obedien Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae Creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici But the Church of Rome says it and by that at one blow cuts off from Heaven all the other Churches of the world Greek Armenian Ethiopian Russian Protestants which is an Act so contrary to charity to the hope and piety of Christians so dishonourable to the Kingdom of Christ so disparaging to the justice to the wisdom and the goodness of God as any thing which can be said Where hath it been said That it shall be a part of Christian Faith To believe that though the Fathers of the Church did Communicate Infants yet they did it without any opinion of necesty And yet the Church of Rome hath determin'd it in one of her General Councils Sess. 1. cap. 4 as a thing Sine Controversiâ Credendum to be believ'd without doubt or dispute It was indeed the first time that this was made a part of the Christian Religion but then let all wise men take heed how they ask the Church of Rome Where was this part of her Religion before the Council of Trent for that 's a secret and that this is a part of their Religion I suppose will not be denied when a General Council hath determin'd it to be a truth without controversie and to be held accordingly Where hath God said that those Churches that differ from the Roman Church in some propositions cannot conferre true Orders nor appoint Ministers of the Gospel of Christ and yet Super totam materiam the Church of Rome is so implacably angry and imperious with the Churches of the Protestants that if any English Priest turn to them they re-ordain him which yet themselves call sacrilegious in case his former Ordination was valid as it is impossible to prove it was not there being neither in Scripture nor Catholick tradition any Laws Order or Rule touching our case in this particular Where hath God said that Penance is a Sacrament or that without confession to a Priest no man can be sav'd If Christ did not institute it how can it be necessary and if he did institute it yet the Church of Rome ought not to say it is therefore necessary for with them an Institution is not a Command though Christ be the Institutor and if Institution be equal to a Commandment how then comes the Sacrament not to be administred in both kinds when it is confessed that in both kinds it was instituted 2. The Church of Rome does so multiply Articles that few of the Laity know the half of them and yet imposes them all under the same necessity and if in any one of them a man make a doubt he hath lost all Faith and had as good be an Infidel for the Churche's Authority being the formal object of Faith that is the only reason why any Article is to be believ'd the reason is the same in all things else and therefore you may no more deny any thing she says than all she says and an Infidel is as sure of Heaven as any Christian is that calls in question any of the innumerable propositions which with her are esteem'd de fide Now if it be considered that some of the Roman doctrines are a state of temptation to all the reason of mankind as the doctrine of Transubstantiation that some are at least of a supicious improbity as worship of Images and of the consecrated Elements and many others some are of a nice and curious nature as the doctrine of Merit of Condignity and Congruity some are perfectly of humane inventions without ground of Scripture or Tradition as the formes of Ordination Absolution c. When men see that some things can never be believ'd heartily and many not understood fully and more not remembred or consider'd perfectly and yet all impos'd upon the same necessity and as good believe nothing as not every thing this way is apt to make men despise all Religion or despair of their own Salvation The Church of Rome hath a remedy for this and by a distinction undertakes to save you harmless you are not tied to believe all with an explicite Faith it suffices that your Faith be implicite or involved in the Faith of the Church that is if you believe that she says true in all things you need inquire no further So that by this means the authority of their Church is made authentick for that is the first and last of the design and you are taught to be sav'd by the Faith of others and a Faith is preached that you have no need ever to look after it a Faith of which you know nothing but it matters not as long as others do but then it is also a Faith which can never be the foundation of a good life for upon ignorance nothing that is good can be built no not so much as a blind obedience for even blindly to obey is built upon something that you are bidden explicitely to believe viz.
the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of it Now then for the quotations themselves I hope I shall give a fair account 1. The words quoted Lect. 40. in Can. Missae are the words of Biel when he had first affirmed that Christs body is contained truly under the bread and that it is taken by the faithful all which we believe and teach in the Church of England he adds Tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum that is the way of Transubstantiation an sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentibus panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Biblii and that 's the way of Consubstantiation so that here is expressely taught what I affirm'd was taught that the Scriptures did not express the doctrine of Transubstantiation and he adds that concerning this there were Anciently divers opinions Thus far the quotation is right But of this man there is no notice taken But what of Scotus He saith no such thing well suppose that yet I hope this Gentleman will excuse me for Bellarmines sake who says the same thing of Scotus as I do and he might have found it in the Margent against the quotation of Scotus if he had pleas'd Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. His words are these Secondly he saith viz. Sect. Secundò dicit Scotus that there is not extant any place of Scripture so express without the declaration of the Church that it can compel us to admit of Transubstantiation And this is not altogether improbable For though the Scriptures which we brought above seem so clear to us that it may compel a man that is not wilful yet whether it be so or no it may worthily be doubted since most learned and acute men such as Scotus eminently was believe the contrary Well! But the Gentleman can find no such thing in Ocham I hope he did not look far for OCham is not the man I mean however the printer might have mistaken but it is easily pardonable because from O. Cam. meaning Odo Cameracensis it was easie for the printer or transcriber to write Ocam as being of more public name But the Bishop of Cambray is the man that followed Scotus in this opinion Vbi suprae and is acknowledged by Bellarmine to have said the same that Scotus did he being one of his docti acutissimi viri there mentioned Contra. Captiv Now if Roffensis have the same thing too Babyl c. 1. this Author of the letter will have cause enough to be a little ashamed And for this I shall bring his words speaking of the whole institution of the Blessed Sacrament by our Blessed Saviour he says Neque ullum hic verbum positum est quo probetur in nostra Missa veram fieri carnis sanguinis Christi praesentiam I suppose I need to say no more to verifie these citations but yet I have another very good witness to prove that I have said true and that is Salmeron who says that Scotus out of Innocentius reckons three opinions not of heretics Tom. 9. tract 16. p. 108. p. â—10 but of such men who all agreed in that which is the main but he adds Some men and writers believe that this article cannot be proved against a heretic by Scripture alone or reasons alone Lib. 1. de Euchar c. 34. And so Cajetan is affirm'd by Suarez and Alanus to have said and Melchior Canus perpetuam Mariae virginitatem conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi non ita expressa in libris Canonicis invenies Page 37. vide Letter p. 18. sed adeo tamen certa in fide sunt ut contrariorum dogmatum authores Ecclesia haereticos judicarit So that the Scripture is given up for no sure friend in this Q. the article wholy relies upon the authority of the Church viz. of Rome who makes faith and makes heresies as she please But to the same purpose is that also which Chedzy said in his disputation at Oxford In what manner Christ is there whether with the bread Transelemented or Transubstantiation the Scripture in open words tells not But I am not likely so to escape Pag. 38. for E. W. See also the letter to a friend p. 19. talkes of a famous or rather infamous quotation out of Peter Lombard and adds foul and uncivil words which I pass by but the thing is this that I said Petrus Lombardus could not tell whether there was a substantial change or no. I did say so and I brought the very words of Lombard to prove it and these very words E. W. himself acknowledges Si autem quaeritur qualis fit ista conversio an formalis an substantialis vel alterius generis definire non sufficio I am not able to define or determine whether that change be formal or substantial So far E. W. quotes him but leaves out one thing very material viz. whether besides formal or substantial it be of another kinde Now E. W. not being able to deny that Lombard said this takes a great deal of useless pains not one word of all that he says being to the purpose or able to make it probable that Peter Lombard did not say so or that he did not think so But the thing is this Biel reckon'd three opinions which in Lombards time were in the Church the first of Consubstantiation which was the way which long since then Luther followed The second that the substance of bread is made the flesh of Christ but ceases not to be what it was But this is not the doctrine of Transubstantiation for that makes a third opinion which is that the substance of bread ceases to be and nothing remains but the accident Quartam opinionem addit Magister that is Peter Lombard adds a fourth opinion that the substance of bread is not converted but is annihilated this is made by Scotus to be the second opinion Now of these four opinions all which were then permitted and disputed Vbi supra Peter Lombard seems to follow the second but if this was his opinion it was no more for he could not determine whether that were the truth or no. But whether he does or no truly I think it is very hard for any man to tell for this question was but in the forge not polished not made bright with long handling And this was all that I affirm'd out of the Master of Sentences I told of no opinion of his at all but that in his time they did not know whether it viz. the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true or no that is the generality of the Roman Catholics did not know and he himself could not define it And this appears unanswerably by Peter Lombards bringing their several sentiments in this article and they that differ in their judgements about an article and yet esteem the others Catholic may think what
The Second Part OF THE DISSUASIVE FROM POPERY In Vindication of THE FIRST PART And further REPROOF and CONVICTION OF THE ROMAN ERRORS By Jer. Taylor Chaplain in Ordinary to King CHARLES the First and late Lord Bishop of Downe and Conner Curavimus Babylonem non est Sanata LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the Kings most Excellent Majesty at the Angel in S. Bartholomew's Hospital MDCLXVII DIEV ET MON DROIT SOIT · QVI · MAL · Y · PEâ—â—â—â— A Table of the SECTIONS The Introduction in Answer to J. S. The first Book contains Eleven Sections SECTION I. OF the Church shewing That the Church of Rome relies upon no certain foundation for their faith Page 1 Sect. II. Of the sufficiency of Scriptures to Salvation 63 Sect. III. Of Traditions 102 Sect. IV. That there is nothing of necessity to be believ'd which the Apostolical Churches did not believe 144 Sect. V. That the Church of Rome pretends to a power of introducing into the Confessions of the Church new Articles of Faith and endeavors to alter and suppress the old Catholick Doctrine 171 Sect. VI. Of the Expurgatory Indices in the Roman Church 192 Sect. VII The uncharitableness of the Church of Rome in her judging of others 205 Sect. VIII The insecurity of the Roman Religion 222 Sect. IX That the Church of Rome does teach for Doctrines the Commandments of Men 236 Sect. X. Of the Seal of Confession 239 Sect. XI Of the imposing Anricular Confession upon Consciences without authority from God 249 The Second Book contains Seven Sections SECTION I. OF Indulgences Page 1 Sect. II. Of Purgatory 13 Sect. III. Of Transubstantiation 56 Sect. IV. Of the half Communion 86 Sect. V. Of Service in an unknown Tongue 98 Sect. VI. Of the worshipping of Images 106 Sect. VII Of Picturing God the Father and the Holy Trinity 145 IMPRIMATUR THO. TOMKINS R. R mo in Christo Patri ac Domino Dno GILBERTO Divinâ Providentià Archi-Episcopo Cantuariensi à Sacris Domesticis Junii 29 0 1667. Ex Aedibus Lambethanis THE INTRODUCTION BEING An Answer to the fourth Appendix to J. S. his Sure Footing intended against the General way of procedure in the Dissuasive from Popery WHen our Blessed Saviour was casting out the evil spirit from the poor Daemoniac in the Gospel he asked his name and he answered My name is legion for we are many Legion is a Roman word and signifies an Army as Roman signifies Catholic that is a great body of men which though in true speaking they are but a part of an Imperial Army yet when they march alone they can do mischief enough and call themselves an Army Royal. A Squadron of this legion hath attempted to break a little Fort or Outwork of mine they came in the dark their names concealed their qualities unknown whether Clergy or Laity not to me discovered only there is one pert man amongst them one that is discovered by his sure footing The others I know not but this man is a man famous in the new science of controversie as he is pleased to call it I mean in the most beauteous and amiable part of it railing and calumny The man I mean is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Confident the man of principles and the son of demonstration Dr. H. H. and though he had so reviled a great Champion in the Armies of the living God that it was reasonable to think he had cast forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the fiery darts of the wicked one yet I find that an evil fountain is not soon drawn dry and he hath indignation enough and reviling left for others amongst whom I have the honour not to be the least sufferer and sharer in the persecution He thought not fit to take any further notice of me but in an Appendix The fourth appendix to sure footing the Viper is but little but it is a Viper still though it hath more tongue than teeth I am the more willing to quit my self of it by way of introduction because he intends it as an Organum Catholicum against the General way of the procedure which I have us'd in the Dissuasive and therefore I suppose the removing this might 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 make my way smoother in the following discourses I will take no other notice of his evil language his scorn and reproach his undervaluing and slighting the person and book of the Dissuader as he is pleased sometimes to call me but I shall answer to these things as S. Bernard did to the tempation of the Devil endeavouring to hinder his preaching by tempting to vanity I neither began for you nor for you will I make an end but I shall look on those Rhetorical flowers of his own but as a fermentum his spirit was troubled and he breathed forth the froth as of an enraged Sea and when he hath done it may be he will be quiet if not let him know God will observe that which is to come and require that which is past But I will search and see what I can find of matter that is to be considered and give such accounts of them as is necessary and may be useful for the defence of my Book and the justification of my self against all ruder charges And after I have done so I shall proceed to other things which I shall esteem more useful The first thing I shall take notice of is his scornful and slight speaking of Scripture affirming that he is soonest beaten at this weapon that it is Sampsons hair it is the weakest part in the man And yet if it be the weakest it is that which S. Paul calls the weakness and foolishness of preaching more strong and more wise than all the wisdom of man When the Devil tempted our Blessed Saviour he us'd Scripture but Christ did not reprove his way of arguing but in the same way discovered his fraud Scriptum est said the Tempter yea but scriptum est said Christ to other purposes than you intend and so would I. S. have proceeded if he had been at all in love with the way But he thinks he hath a better and the wonder is the less that the Gentleman does not love the Scriptures or at least gives too much suspicion that he does not for he hath not yet proved himself by his writings to be so good a Christian as to love his enemies or his reprovers But however he is pleased to put a scorn on Scripture expressions it were much better if he and his Church too would use them more and express their articles they contend for and impose them on the Christian world in the words and expressions of Scripture which we are sure express the minde of God with more truth and simplicity than is done by their words of art and expressions of the Schools If this had been observed Christendom at this day had had fewer controversies and more truth and more charity we should not
partly and shall in the sequel largely make good In the mean time whether it be principle or conclusion let us see what is objected against it or what use is made of it For I. S. says it is an improv'd and a main position But then he tells us the reason of it is because No heretic had arisen in those days denying those points and so the Fathers set not themselves to write expresly for them but occasionally only Let us consider what this is no heretic had arisen in those days denying these points True but many Catholics did and the reason why no heretics did deny those things was because neither Catholic nor heretic ever affirm'd them Well! but however the Roman controvertists are frequent for citing them for divers points Certainly not for making vows to Saints not for the worship of images nor for the half Communion for these they do not frequently cite the Fathers of the first 300. years It may be not but for the ground of our faith the Churches voice or tradition they do to the utter overthrow of the Protestant cause They do indeed sometimes cite something from them for tradition and where ever the word tradition is in Scripture or the Primitive Fathers they think it is an argument for them just as the Covenanters in the late wars thought all Scripture was their plea where ever the word Covenant was nam'd But to how little purpose they pretend to take advantage of any of the primitive Fathers speaking of tradition I shall endeavour to make apparent in an inquiry made on purpose Sect. 3. In the mean time it appears that this conclusion of mine was to very good purpose and in a manner confess'd to be true in most instances and that it was so in all was not intended by me Well! but however it might be in the first three ages yet he observes that I said that in the succeeding ages secular interest did more prevail and the writings of the Fathers were vast and voluminous and many things more that both sides eternally and inconfutably shall bring sayings for themselves respectively And is not all this very true He cannot deny it but what then why then he says I may speak out and say all the Fathers after the first three hundred years are not worth a straw in order to decision or controversie and the Fathers of the first three hundred years spoke not of our points in difference and so there is a fair end of all the Fathers and of my own Dissuasive too for that part which relies on them which looks like the most authoritative piece of it There is no great hurt in this If the Fathers be gone my Dissuasive may go too it cannot easily go in better company and I shall take the less care of it because I have I. S. his word that there is a part of it which relies upon the Fathers But if the Fathers be going it is fit we look after them and see which way they go For if they go together as in many things they do they are of very good use in order to decision of controversie if they go several ways and consequently that Controvertists may eternally and irrefutably bring sayings out of them against one another who can help it No man can follow them all and then it must be tried by some other topic which is best to follow but then that topic by it self would have been sufficient to have ended the Question Secondly If a disputer of this world pretends to rely upon the authority of the Fathers he may by them be confuted or determin'd The Church of Rome pretends to this and therefore if we perceive the Fathers have condemned doctrines which they approve of or approve what they condemn which we say in many articles is the case of that Church then the Dissuasive might be very useful and so might the Fathers too for the condemnation of such doctrines in which the Roman Church are by that touchstone found too blame And where as I. S. says that the first three ages of Christianity medled not with the present controversies it is but partly true for although many things are now adays taught of which they never thought yet some of the errors which we condemn were condemn'd then very few indeed by disputation but not a few by positive sentence and in explications of Scripture and rational discourses and by parity of case and by Catechetical doctrines For rectum est Index sui obliqui they have without thinking of future controversies and new emergent heresies said enough to confute many of them when they shall arise The great use of the Fathers especially of the first three hundred years is to tell us what was first to consign Scripture to us to convey the Creed with simplicity and purity to preach Christs Gospel to declare what is necessary and what not And whether they be fallible or infallible yet if we find them telling and accounting the integrity of the Christian faith and treading out the paths of life because they are persons whose conversation whose manner and time of living whose fame and Martyrdom and the venerable testimony of after-ages have represented to be very credible we have great reason to believe that alone to be the faith which they have describ'd and consequently that whatever comes in afterwards and is obtruded upon the world as it was not their way of going to heaven so it ought not to be ours So that here is great use of the Fathers writings though they be not infallible and therefore I wonder at the prodigious confidence to say no worse of I. S. to dare to say that as appears by the Dissuader the Protestants neither acknowledge them infallible nor useful Nay that this is my fourth Principle He that believes Transubstantiation can believe any thing and he that says this dares say every thing for as that is infinitely impossible to sense and reason so this is infinitely false in his own Conscience and experience And the words which in a few lines of his bold assertion he hath quoted out of my book confute him but too plainly He tells us so saith I. S. the Fathers are a good testimony of the doctrine deliver'd from their Forefathers down to them of what the Church esteemed the way of salvation Do not I also though he is pleas'd to take no notice of it say that although we acknowledge not the Fathers as the Authors and finishers of our faith yet we owne them as helpers of our faith and heirs of the doctrine Apostolical That we make use of their testimonies as being as things now stand to the sober and the moderate the peaceable and the wise the best the most certain visible and tangible most humble and satisfactory to them that know well how to use it Can he that says this not acknowledge the Fathers useful I know not whether I. S. may have any credit as he is one of the
capacitie of being Catholick or Universal for that which hath no distinct Being can have no distinct Promises no distinct capacities but the promises are made to all Churches and to every Church onely there is this in it if any Church of one denomination shall be cut off other branches shall stand by faith and still be in the vine The Church of God cannot be without Christ their head and the head will not suffer his body to perish Thus I understand the meaning of the Churches being the pillar and ground of truth Just as we may say Humane understanding and the experience of mankind is the pillar and ground of true Philosophy but there is no such abstracted Being as Humane understanding distinct from the understanding of all individual men Every Universal is but an intentional or notional Being so is the word Catholick relating to the Church if it be understood as something separated from all particular Churches and I do not find that it is any other ways us'd in Scripture than in the distributive sense So S. Paul The care of all the Churches is upon me that is he was the Apostle of the Catholick Church of the Gentiles And so I teach in all the Churches of the Saints And in this sense it is that I say the Apostles have in the Creed comprehended all the Christian world all the the congregations of Christ's servants in the word Catholick But then 2. It is to be considered that this Epithet of the Church to be the pillar and ground of truth is to be understood to signifie in opposition to all Religions that were not Christian. The implied Antithesis is not of the whole to its parts but of kind to kind it is not so called to distinguish it from conventions of those who disagree in the house of God but from those that are out of the house meaning that whatever pretences of Religion the Gentile Temples or the Jewish Synagogues could make truth could not be found among them but only in those who are assembled in the name of Christ who profess his faith and are of the Christian Religion for they alone can truly pretend to be the conservers of truth to them only now are committed the Oracles of God and if these should fail Truth would be at a loss and not be found in any other Assemblies In this sense S. Paul spake usefully and intelligibly for if the several conventions of separated and disagreeing Christians should call themselves as they do and always did the Church the question would be which were the Church of God and by this rule you were never the nearer to know where truh is to be found for if you say In the Church of God several pretend to it who yet do not teach the truth and then you must find out what is truth before you find the Church But when the Churches of Christians are distinguish'd from the Assemblies of Jews and Turks and Heathens she is visible and distinguishable and notorious and therefore they that love the truth of God the saving truth that makes us wise unto salvation must become Christians and in the Assemblies of Christians they must look for it as in the proper repository and there they shall find it 3. But then it is also considerable What truth that is of which the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground It is only of the saving truths of the Gospel that whereby they are made members of Christ the house of God the temples of the Holy Spirit For the Spirit of God being the Churches teacher he will teach us to avoid evil and to do good to be wise and simple to be careful and profitable to know God and whom he hath sent Jesus Christ to increase in the knowledge and love of them to be peaceable and charitable but not to entertain our selves and our weak Brethren with doubtful disputations but to keep close to the foundation and to superstruct upon that a holy life that is God teaches his Church the way of salvation that which is necessary and that which is useful 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that which will make us wise unto salvation But in this School we are not taught curious questions Unedifying notions to unty knots which interest and vanity which pride and covetousness have introduc'd these are taught by the Devil to divide the Church and by busying them in that which profits not to make them neglect the wisdom of God and the holiness of the Spirit And we see this truth by the experience of above 1500 years The Churches have troubled themselves with infinite variety of questions divided their precious unity destroyed charity and instead of contending against the Devil and all his crafty methods they have contended against one another and excommunicated one another and anathematiz'd and damn'd one another and no man is the better after all but most men are very much the worse and the Churches are in the world still divided about questions that commenc'd twelve or thirteen ages since and they are like to be so for ever till Elias come which shows plainly that God hath not interested himself in the revelations of such things and that he hath given us no means of ending them but Charity and a return to the simple ways of Faith And this is yet the more considerable because men are so far from finding out a way to end the questions they have made that the very ways of ending them which they propounded to themselves are now become the greatest questions and consequently themselves and all their other unnecessary questions are indeterminable their very remedies have increased the disease And yet we may observe that God's ways are not like ours and that his ways are the ways of truth and Everlasting he hath by his wise providence preserv'd the plain places of Scripture and the Apostles Creed in all Churches to be the rule and measure of that faith by which the Churches are sav'd and which is only that means of the unity of Spirit which is the band of peace in matters of belief And what have the Churches done since To what necessary truths are they after all their clampers advanc'd since the Apostles left to them that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that sound form of words and doctrine What one great thing is there beyond this in which they all agree or in which they can be brought to agree He that wisely observes the ways of God and the ways of man will easily perceive that God's goodness prevails over all the malice and all the follies of mankind and that nothing is to be relied upon as a rule of truth and the wayes of peace but what Christ hath plainly taught and the Apostles from him for he alone is the Author and Finisher of our Faith he began it and he perfected it and unless God had mightily preserved it we had spoil'd it Now to bring all this home to the
and understood the meaning of the Council as well as any except the Legats and their secret Juncto wrote books against one another and both sides brought the words of the Council for themselves and yet neither prevailed Sancta Croce the Legat who well enough understood that the Council intended not to determine the truth yet to silence their wranglings in the Council let them dispute abroad but the Council would not end it by clearing the ambiguity And since this became the mode of Christendom to do so upon design it can be no wonder that things are left Uncertain for all the Decrees of Councils It is well therefore that the Church of Rome requires Faith to her Conclusions greater than her Premisses can perswade It is the only way of escaping that is left them as being conscious that none of their Arguments can enforce what they would have believ'd And to the same purpose it is that they teach the Conclusions and definitions of Councils to be infallible though their Arguments and Proceedings be fallible and pitiful and false If they can perswade the world to this they have got the Goal only it ought to be confess'd by them that do submit to the definition that they do so mov'd to it by none of their Reasons but they know not why I do not here enter into the particular examination of the matters determined by many Councils by which it might largely and plainly appear how greatly General Councils have been mistaken This hath been observed already by many very learned men And the Council of Trent is the greatest instance of it in the world as will be made to appear in the procedure of this Book But the Romanists themselves by rejecting divers General Councils have as I have above observ'd given proof enough of this That all things are here Uncertain I have prov'd and that if there be error here there can be no certainty any where else Bellarmine confesses So that I have thus far discharg'd what I undertook But beyond this there are some other particulars fit to be consider'd by which it will yet further appear that in the Church of Rome unless they will rely upon the plain Scriptures they have no sure foundation instance in those several Articles which some of the Roman Doctors say are de fide and others of their own party when they are press'd with them say they are not de fide but the opinions of private Doctors That if a Prince turn Heretick that is be not of the Roman party he presently loses all right to his temporal Dominions That the Pope can change Kingdoms taking from one and giving to another this is esteemed by the Jesuits a matter of Faith It is certa indubitata definita virorum clarissimorum sententia said Creswel the Jesuit in his Philopater F. Garnet said more it is Totius Ecclesiae quidem ab antiquissimis temporibus consensione recepta doctrina It is receiv'd saith Creswel by the whole School of Divines and Canon-Lawyers nay it is Certum de fide It is matter of Faith I know that the English Priests will think themselves injur'd if you impute this Doctrine to them or say It is the Catholick Doctrine and yet that this power in Temporals that he can depose Kings sometimes is in the Pope Contr. Barclai cap. 3. Non opinio sed certitudo apud Catholicos est said Bellarmine It is more than an opinion it is certain amongst the Catholicks Now since this is not believ'd by all that call themselves Catholicks and yet by others of greatest note it is said to be the Catholick Doctrine to be certain to be a point of Faith I desire to know Where this Faith is founded which is the house of Faith where is their warrant their authority and foundation of their Article For if an English Scholar in the Colledge at Rome had in confession to F. Parsons Creswel Garnet Bellarmine or any of their parties confessed that he had spoken against the Pope's power of deposing Kings in any case or of any pretence of killing Kings it is certain they could not have absolved him till he had renounc'd his Heresy and they must have declar'd that if he had died in that perswasion he must have been damned what rest shall this poor man have or hope for He pretends that the Council of Constance had declar'd for his opinion and therefore that his and not theirs is certain and matter of Faith They tell him no and yet for their Article of Faith have neither Father nor Council Scripture nor Reason Tradition nor Ancient Precedent where then is this foundation upon which the article is built It lies low as low as Hell but can never be made to appear and yet amongst them Articles of faith grow up without root and without foundation but a man may be threatned with damnation amongst them for any trifle and affrighted with clappers and men of clouts If they have a clear and certain rule why do their Doctors differ about the points of faith They say some things are articles of faith and yet do not think fit to give a reason of their faith for indeed they cannot But if this be the way of it amongst Roman Doctors they may have many faiths as they have Breviaries in several Churches secundum usum Sarum secundum usum Scholae Romanae and so without ground or reason even the Catholicks become hereticks one to another it is by chance if it happen to be otherwise 2. What makes a point to be de fide If it be said The decision of a General Council Then since no General Council hath said so then this proposition is not de fide that what a General Council says is true is to be believed as matter of faith for if the authority be not de fide then how can the particulars of her determination be de fide for the conclusion must follow the weaker part and if the Authority it self be left in uncertainty the Decrees cannot be infallible 3. As no man living can tell that a Council hath proceeded rightly so no man can tell when an Article of faith is firmly decreed or when a matter is sufficiently propounded or when the Pope hath perfectly defin'd an article of all this the Canon law is the Greatest testimony in the world where there is Council against Council Pope against Pope and among so many decrees of faith and manners it cannot be told what is and what is not certain For when the Popes have sent their rescripts to a Bishop or any other Prelate to order an affair of life or doctrine either he wrote that with an intent to oblige all Christendom or did not If not why is it put into the body of the laws for what is a greater signature or can pass a greater obligation then the Authentick Code of laws But if these were written with an intent to oblige all Christendom how come they to be prejudic'd
Caution to the Christians but also of Opposition to the Gnosticks who were very busie in pretending ancient traditions This is the discourse of that great Christian Philosopher S. Clement from which besides the direct testimony given to the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of Faith or Questions in Religion we find him affirming that the Scriptures are a certain and the only demonstration of these things they are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the rule of judging the controversies of faith that the tradition Ecclesiastical that is the whole doctrine taught by the Church of God and preach'd to all men is in the Scripture and therefore that it is the plenary and perfect repository of tradition that is of the doctrine deliver'd by Christ and his Apostles and they who believe not these are Impious And lest any man should say that suppose Scripture do contain all things necessary to Salvation yet it is necessary that tradition or some infallible Church do expound them and then it is as long as it is broad and comes to the same issue S. Clement tells us how the Scriptures are to be expounded saying that they who rely upon them must expound Scriptures by Scriptures and by the analogy of faith Comparing spiritual things with spiritual one place with another a part with the whole and all by the proportion to the Divine Attributes This was the way of the Church in S. Clement ' s time and this is the way of our Churches But let us see how this affair went in other Churches and times and whether there be a succession and an Universality of this doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture in all the affairs of God The next is Tertullian Contr. Hermog cap. 22. who writing against Hermogenes that affirm'd God made the world not out of nothing but of I know not what praeexistent matter appeals to Scripture in the Question whose fulness Tertullian adores Let the shop of Hermogenes show that this thing is written If it be not written let him fear the Wo pronounc'd against them that adde to or take from Scripture Against this testimony it is objected that here Tertullian speaks but of one question De verb. Dei lib 4. c. 11. Sect. So Bellarmine answers and from him E. W. and A. L. To which the reply is easie Profert undecimo For when Tertullian challenges Hermogenes to show his proposition in Scripture he must mean that the fulness of the Scripture was sufficient not onely for this but for all Questions of religion or else it had been an ill way of arguing to bring a negative argument from Scripture against this alone For why was Hermogenes tied to prove this proposition from Scripture more than any other Either Scripture was the rule for all or not for that For suppose the heretick had said It is true it is not in Scripture but I have it from tradition or it was taught by my forefathers there had been nothing to have replied to this but that It may be he had no tradition for it Now if Hermogenes had no tradition then indeed he was tied to shew it in Scripture but then Tertullian should have said let Hermogenes shew where it is written or that it is a tradition for if the pretending and proving tradition in case there were any such pretense in this Question had been a sufficient answer then Tertullian had no sufficient argument against Hermogenes by calling for authority from Scripture but he should have said If it be not scriptum or traditum written or delivered let Hermogenes fear the wo to the adders or detracters But if we will suppose Tertullian spoke wisely and sufficiently he must mean that the Scripture must be the Rule in all Questions and no doctrine is to be taught that is not taught there But to put this thing past dispute Tertullian himself extends this rule to an universal comprehension And by this instrument declares that hereticks are to be confuted Take from the hereticks that which they have in common with the heathens viz. their Ethnick learning and let them dispute their questions by Scripture alone and they can never stand By which it is plain that the Scripture is sufficient for all faith because it is sufficient to convince all heresies and deviations from the faith For which very reason the hereticks also as he observes attempted to prove their propositions by arguments from Scripture for indeed there was no other way because the Articles of faith are to be prov'd by the writings of faith De Praescript that is the Scripture that was the Rule How contrary this is to the practice and doctrine of Rome at this day we easily find by their Doctors charging all heresies upon the Scriptures as occasion'd by them and forbidding the people to read them for fear of corrupting their weak heads nay it hath been prohibited to certain Bishops to read the Scriptures lest they become hereticks And this folly hath proceeded so far that Erasmus tells us of a Dominican In Epist. who being urg'd in a Scholastical disputation with an argument from Scripture cried out It was a Lutheran way of disputation and protested against the answering it which besides that it is more than a vehement suspicion that these men find the Scriptures not to look like a friend to their propositions it is also a manifest procedure contrary to the wisdom religion and Oeconomy of the primitive Church The next I note Tract 5. in Matth. versus finem is Origen who when he propounded a Question concerning the Angels Guardians of little children viz. When the Angels were appointed to them at their Birth or at their Baptism He addes You see Vide etiam Origen bomil 25. in Matth. homil 7. in Ezek. hom l. â— in Jerem. Quos locos citat Bellarm. ubi supra Sect. Secundò profert he that will discuss both of them warily it is his part to produce Scripture for testimony agreeing to one of them both That was the way of the Doctors then And Scripture is so full and perfect to all intents and purposes that for the confirmation of our discourses Scripture is to be brought saith Origen * Jesum Christum scimus Deum quaeriâ—us verba quae dicta sunt juxta personae exponere dignitatem Quapropter necesse nobis est Scripturas sanctas in testimonium vocare sensus quippe nostri enarrationes sine his testibus non habent fidem We know Jesus Christ is God and we seek to expound the words which are spoken according to the dignity of the person Wherefore it is necessary for us to call the Scriptures into testimony for our meanings and enarrations without these witnesses have no belief To these words Bellarmine answers most childishly saying that Origen speaks of the hardest questions such as for the most part traditions are not about But it is evident that therefore Origen requires testimony of
difference S. Basil here declar'd that as formerly he had it always fixt in mind to fly every voice every sentence which is a stranger to the doctrine of the Lord so now also at this time Ibidem in seqâ—entibus viz. when he was to set down the whole Christian Faith Neither can there be hence any escaping by saying * Truth will out pag. 3. that nothing indeed is to be added to the Scriptures but yet to the faith something is to be reckoned which is not in Scripture For although the Church of Rome does that also putting more into the Canon than was among the Jews acknowledged or by the Primitive Church of Christians yet besides this S. Basil having having said Vbi supra Whatsoever is not in the Scriptures is not of faith and therefore it is a sin he says also by certain consequence That to add to the Scriptures is all one as to add to the Faith And therefore he exhorts even the Novices to study the Scriptures In Regul brev reg 95. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for to his 95th question Whether it be fit for Novices presently to learn the things of the Scripture he answers It is right and it is necessary that those things which appertain to use every one should learn from the Scriptures both for the replenishing of their mind with piety as also that they may not be accustomed to humane traditions By which words he not onely declares that by the Scriptures our minds are abundantly fill'd with piety but that humane traditions by which he means every thing that is not contain'd in Scripture are not to be receiv'd but ought to be and are best of all banish'd from our minds by entertaining of Scripture To the same purpose are his words in his Ethicks Moral Regul 26. Whatsoever we say or do ought to be confirm'd by the testimony of Divinity inspired by Scriptures both for the full persuasion of the good and the confusion or damnation of evil things There 's your rule that 's the ground of all true faith And therefore S. Athanasius speaking concerning the Nicene Council Epist. ad Epicteâ—um Corinthiorum Episc. made no scruple that the question was sufficiently determin'd concerning the proper Divinity of the Son of God because it was determin'd and the faith was expounded according to the Scriptures and affirms that the faith so determin'd was sufficient for the reproof of all impiety meaning in the Article of Christ's Divinity and for the establishment of the Orthodox faith in Christ. De Incarnat Nay he affirms that the Catholick Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear any thing in religion that is a stranger to Scripture it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written Which words I the rather remark Idem Athanas. in Exhort ad Monachos because this Article of the Consubstantiality of Christ with the Father is brought as an instance by the Romanists of the necessity of tradition to make up the insufficiency of Scripture But not in this onely but for the preaching of the truth indefinitely Moral contra Gentiles in 〈◊〉 that is the whole truth of the Gospel he affirms the Scriptures to be sufficient For writing to Macarius a Priest of Alexandria he tells him that the knowledge of true and divine religion and piety does not much need the ministery of man and that he might abundantly draw this forth from the divine books and letters for truly the holy and divinely-inspir'd Scriptures are sufficient for the preaching of the truth Coloniae ex officâ—â— Melcâ—â—â—â—â— Novefiani 1548. ad omnem instructionem veritatis so the Latine Translation for the whole instruction of truth or the instruction of all truth But because Macarius desir'd rather to hear others teach him this doctrine and true religion than himself to draw it from Scripture S. Athanasius tells him that there are many written monuments of the Holy Fathers and our masters which if men will diligently read over he shall learn the interpretation of Scriptures and obtain that notion of truth which he desires Which is perfectly the same advice which the Church of England commands her Sons that they shall teach nothing but what the Fathers and Doctors of the Church draw forth from Scriptures The same principal doctrine in the whole is taught frequently by S. Chrysostom Homil. 58. 〈◊〉 Johan who compares the Scriptures to a Door which is shut to hinder the hereticks from entring in and introduce us to God and to the knowledge of God This surely is sufficient if it does this it does all that we need and if it does not S. Chrysostom was greatly deceiv'd and so are we and so were all the Church of God in all the first ages But he is constant in the same affirmative Homil 9. in 2 Timoth. If there be need to learn or to be ignorant thence we shall learn it Idem in Psal. 95. versus finem if to confute or argue that which is false thence we shall draw it if to be corrected or chastis'd to exhortation if any thing be wanting for our comfort and that we ought to have it nevertheless from thence from the Scriptures we learn it That the man be perfect therefore without it he cannot be perfected In stead of me he saith thou hast the Scriptures if thou desirest to learn any thing hence thou mayest But if he writes these things to Timothy who was fill'd with the holy Spirit how much more must we think these things spoken to us To the same purpose he discourses largely in his eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews Homil. 9. in Coloss. in 2 Thess. 2. which is here too long to transcribe Let no man look for another master Homil. 49. in Matth. 23. oper imperfecti Thou hast the Oracles of God No man teaches thee like to them Because ever since heresie did infest those Churches there can be no proof of true Christianity nor any other refuge for Christians who would know the truth of faith but that of the Divine Scripture but now by no means is it known by them who would know which is the true Church of Christ but onely by the Scriptures De verbo Dei l. 4. c. 11. Sect. Sextò profert Bellarmine very learnedly sayes that these words were put into this book by the Arians but because he offers at no pretence of reason for any such interpolation and it being without cause to suspect it though the Author of it had been an Arian because the Arians were never noted to differ from the Church in the point of the Scriptures sufficiency I look upon this as a pitiful shift of a man that resolved to say any thing rather than confess his errour And at last he concludes with many words to the same purpose Our Lord therefore knowing what confusion of things would be in the
last days therefore commands that Christians who in Christianity would receive the firmness of true faith should fly to nothing but to the Scriptures otherwise if they regard other things they will be scandalized and perish not understanding which is the true Church and by this shall fall into the abomination of desolation which stands in the holy places of the Church Idem homil 41. in Matth. The summe is this deliver'd by the same Author Whatsoever is sought for unto salvation it is now fill'd full in the Scriptures Therefore there is in this feast nothing less then what is necessary to the salvation of mankind Sixtus Senensis though he greatly approves this book and brings arguments to prove it to be S. Chrysostom's and alleges from others that it hath been for many ages approv'd by the Commandement of the Church which among the Divine laws reads some of these Homilies as of S. Chrysostom and that it is cited in the ordinary and authentick glosses in the Catena's upon the Gospels in the decrees of the Popes and in the Theological sums of great Divine yet he would have it purg'd from these words here quoted as also from many others But when they cannot show by any probable argument that any hereticks have interpolated these words and that these are so agreeing to other words of S. Chrysostom spoken in his unquestion'd works he shews himself and his party greatly pinch'd and for no other reason rejects the words but because they make against him which is a plain self-conviction and self-condemnation Dissuasive in the Preface Theophilus Alexandrinus is already quoted in these words and they are indeed very severe It is the part of a Devilish spirit to think any thing divine without the authority of the holy Scriptures Here E. W. and A. L. say the Dissuasive left out some words of Theophilus It is true but so did a good friend of theirs before me for they are just so quoted by * Lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 11. Sect. Profert nonò Theophilum Bellarmine who in all reason would have put them in if they had made way for any answer to the other words The words are these as they lie intirely Truly I cannot know with what temerity Origen speaking so many things * In censuris super Matth. expositoribus and following his own errour not the authority of Scriptures does dare to publish such things which will be hurtful And a little after addes Sed ignorans quod demoniaci spiritus esset instinctus sophismata humanarum mentium sequi aliquid extra Scripturarum authoritatem putare Divinum Sophisms of his own mind and things that are not in Scriptures are explicative one of another and if he had not meant it meerly diabolical to induce any thing without the authority of Scripture he ought to have added the other part of the rule and have called it Devilish to adde any thing without Scripture or tradition which because he did not we suppose he had no cause to do and then whatsoever is not in Scripture Theophilus calls the sophism of humane minds He spake it indefinitely and universally Paschal 11. vide etiam Paschal 3. It is true it is instanc'd in a particular against Origen but upon that occasion he gives a general rule And therefore it is a weak subterfuge of Bellarmine to say that Theophilus onely speaks concerning certain Apocryphal books which some would esteem Divine but by the way I know not how well Bellarmine will agree with my adversaries for one or two of them say A. L. and E. W. page 4. Theophilus spake against Origen for broaching fopperies of his own and particularly that Christs flesh was consubstantial with the Godhead and if they say true then Bellarmine in his want invented an answer of his own without any ground of truth But all agree in this that these words were spoken in these cases onely Lib. 4. De verb. Dei cap. 11. and it is foolish says Bellarmine to wrest that which is spoken of one thing to another But I desire that it may be observ'd that to the testimony of Tertullian it is answered He speaks but of one particular To that of S. Basil it is answered He spake but against a few particular heresies And to one of the testimonies of S. Athanasius it is answered He spake but of one particular viz. the heresie of Samosatenus and to this of Theophilus Alexandrinus it is just so answered he spake likewise but of this particular viz. that against Origen and to that of S. Hierom * Cited in the next page in 23. Matth. he onely spake of a particular opinion pretended out of some apocryphal book and to another of S. Austin It is spoken but of a particular matter Lib. de bono vidâ—itatis c. 1. the case of widowhood But if Hermogenes and Origen and Samosatenus and the hereticks S. Basil speaks of and they in S. Hierom be all to be confuted by Scripture and by nothing else nay are therefore rejected because they are not in Scripture if all these Fathers confute all these heresies by a negative argument from Scripture then the rule which they establish must be more than particular It is fitted to all as well as to any for all particulars make a general This way they may answer 500 testimonies if 500 Authors should upon so many several occasions speak general words But in the world no answer could be weaker and no elusion more trifling and less plausible could have been invented However these and other concurrent testimonies will put this question beyond such captious answers S. Hierom was so severe in this Article that disputing what Zechary it was who was slain between the Porch and the Altar Whether it was the last but one of the small Prophets S. Hierom. in 23. Matth. Hoc quiae de Scripturis non habet authoritatem eâdem facilitate contemnitur quâ prâ—batur Et 〈◊〉 Epist. ad Titum Sine authoritate Scripturarum garrulitas non habet fidem nisi viderentur perver sam doctrinam etiam Diviâ—is testimoniis roborare Sic citantur verba apud Bellarm. qui sequutus Kemnitium in objectionibus responsiâ—nem de bene esse paravit Non curavit tamen nec metuit ne non recte cuarentur verba or the Father of the Baptist he would admit neither because it was not in the Scriptures in these words This because it hath not authority from Scripture is with the same easiness despis'd as it is approv'd And they that prattle without the authority of Scriptures have no faith or trust that is none would believe them unless they did seem to strengthen their perverse doctrine with Divine testimonies but most pertinent and material to the whole inquiry are these words In c. 1. Aggaei Sed alia quae absque authoritate testimoniis Scripturarum quasi traditione Apostolicâ sponte reperiunt atque contingunt
viduiâ—aâ— cap. 1. The Scripture is the consummation or utmost bounded rule of our doctrine that we may not dare to be wiser than we ought And that not only in the Question of widdow-hood but in all questions which belong unto life and manners of living as himself in the same place declares And it is not only for Laics and vulgar persons but for all men and not only for what is merely necessary 2. Tim. 3. but to make us wise to make us perfect Salmeron in hunâ— locum tom 15. p. 607. vide plura apud eandem p. 606. saith the Apostle And how can this man say that the Scriptures makes a man perfect in justice And he that is perfect in justice needs no more revelation which words are well enlarged by S. Cyril The Divine Scripture is sufficient to make them who are educated in it wise and most approv'd Cyril Alex. l. 7. contr Julian and having a most sufficient understanding And to this we need not any forraign teachers But lastly if in the plain words of Scripture be contained all that is simply necessary to all then it is clear by Bellarmine's confession that S. Austin affirm'd that the plain places of Scripture are sufficient to all Laics and all Ideots or private persons and then as it is very ill done to keep them from the knowledge and use of the Scriptures which contain all their duty both of faith and good life so it is very unnecessary to trouble them with any thing else there being in the world no such treasure and repository of faith and manners and that so plain that it was intended for all men and for all such men is sufficient S. August ser. 38. ad fratres in eremâ— Read the holy Scriptures wherein you shall find some things to be holden and some to be avoided This was spoken to the Monks and Brethren in the Desert and to them that were to be guides of others the pastors of the reasonable flock and in that whole Sermon he enumerates the admirable advantages fulness and perfection of the Holy Scriptures out of which themselves are to be taught and by the fulness of which they are to teach others in all things I shall not be troublesome by adding those many clear testimonies from other of the Fathers But I cannot omit that of Anastasius of Antioch It is manifest that these things are not to be inquir'd into Lib. 8. anagogicâ— contempt in Hexameron which the Scripture hath pass'd over in silence For the Holy Spirit hath dispensed and administred to us all things which conduce to our profit De vocaâ— gentium in 2. tem operum S. Ambros l. 2. c. 3. If the Scriptures be silent who will speak said S. Prosper what things we are ignorant of from them we learn said Theodoret a In 2. tâ—m 3. in illud ad docenduâ— and there is nothing which the Scriptures deny to dissolve said Theophylact b Ibidem And the former of these brings in the Christian saying to Eranistes c Dial. 1. Tell not me of your Logisms and Syllogisms I rely upon Scripture only But Rupertus Tuitiensis d Commenâ— in â—ib Regum lib. 3. c. 12. his words are a fit conclusion to this heap of testimonies Whatsoever is of the word of God whatsoever ought to be known and preach'd of the Incarnation of the true Divinity and humanity of the Son of God is so contain'd in the two Testaments that besides these there is nothing ought to be declar'd or believ'd The whole coelestial Oracle is comprehended in these which we ought so firmly to know that besides these it is not lawful to hear either Man or Angel And all these are nothing else but a full subscription to and an excellent commentary upon those words of S. Paul Let no man pretend to be wise above what is written By the concourse of these testimonies of so many Learned Orthodox and Ancient Fathers we are abundantly confirm'd in that rule and principle upon which the whole Protestant and Christian Religion is established From hence we learn all things and by these we prove all things and by these we confute Heresies and prove every Article of our Faith according to this we live and on these we ground our hope and whatsoever is not in these we reject from our Canon And indeed that the Canonical Scriptures should be our only and intire Rule we are sufficiently convinc'd by the title which the Catholick Church gives and always hath given to the holy Scriptures for it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rule of Christians for their whole Religion The word it self ends this Enquiry for it cannot be a Canon if any thing be put to it or taken from it said a lib. 1. contr Eunom S. Basil b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Chrysost. Hom. 12. In 3. Philip. Idem dixit Theophyl S. Chrysostome and c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Varinus Varinus I hope I have competently prov'd the tradition I undertook and by it that the holy Scriptures contain all things that are necessary to salvation The sum is this If tradition be not regardable then the Scriptures alone are but if it be regarded then here is a full Tradition That the Scriptures are a perfect rule for that the Scriptures are the word of God and contain in them all the word of God in which we are concern'd is deliver'd by a full consent of all these and many other Fathers and no one Father denies it which consent therefore is so great that if it may not prevail the topick of Tradition will be of no use at all to them who would fain adopt it into a part of the Canon But this I shall consider more particularly Onely one thing more I am to adde Concerning the interpretation and finding out the sense and meaning of the Scriptures For though the Scriptures be allowed to be a sufficient repository of all that is necessary to salvation yet we may mistake our way if we have not some infallible Judge of their sense To him therefore that shall ask How we shall interpret and understand the Scriptures I shall give that answer which I have learned from those Fathers whose testimony I have alleged to prove the fulness and sufficiency of Scripture For if they were never so full yet if it be fons signatus and the waters of salvation do not issue forth to refresh the souls of the weary full they may be in themselves but they are not sufficient for us nor for the work of God in the salvation of man But that it may appear that the Scriptures are indeed written by the hand of God and therefore no way deficient from the end of their design God hath made them plain and easie to all people that are willing and obedient So S. Cyril Lib. 9. contr Julian Nihil in Scripturis difficile est iis qui in illis
aside let us determine the things brought into question by the testimonies of the divinely inspired Scriptures And they did so And by relying on Scriptures onely we shall never be constrain'd to quit these glorious portions of Evangelical truth the Incarnation of the eternal Word and the Consubstantiality of the Father and the Son Whatsoever ought to be known of these mysteries is contain'd in both Testaments saith Rupertus Tuitiensis before quoted And if the holy Scriptures did not teach us in these mysteries we should find Tradition to be but a lame leg or rather a reed of Egypt Apud Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5. c. 27. For Artemon who was the first founder of that errour which afterwards belch'd into Arianism pretended a tradition from the Apostles that Christ was a meer man And that Tradition descended to the time of Pope Zepherinus Dial. contr Tryph. Jud. who first gave a stop to it and Justin Martyr says that divers among the Christians affirm'd Christ to be not God of God but man of man Vide etiam Theodor. l. 1. Eccles. hist. c. 8. And the Arians offer'd to be tried by Tradition and therefore pretended to it and therefore the Catholicks did not at least according to the new doctrine That if one pretends Tradition the other cannot But for all that trifle S. Athanasius did sometimes pretend to it though not always and this shews that there was no clear indubitate notorious universal Tradition in the Question and if there were not such an one as good none at all for it could not be such a foundation as was fit to build our faith upon especially in such mysterious articles But it is remarkable what Eusebius recites out of an old Author who wrote against the heresie of Artemon which afterwards Samosatenus renewed and Arius made publick with some alteration They all say says he that our Ancestors and the Apostles themselves Euseb. Eccles. hist. lib. 5 c. 27. Lat. 28. Gr. not onely to have receiv'd from our Lord those things which they now affirm but that they taught it to others and the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope Victor and was kept intire but was deprav'd by Pope Zepherin And truly that which was said by them might seem to have in it much of probability if the Divine Scriptures did not first of all contradict them and that there were writings of some Brethren elder than the times of Victor The Brethren whose writings he names are Justin Militiades Tatian Clemens Irenaeus and the Psalms and Hymns of divers made in honour of Christ. From all which it is evident that the Questions at Nice were not and could not be determin'd by tradition 2. That Tradition might be and was pretended on both sides 3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties with some probability it can effectually serve neither 4. That the Tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of had in it much probability when look'd upon in it's own series and proper state 5. That the Divine Scriptures were at that time the best firmament of the Church and defended her from that abuse which might have been impos'd upon her under the title of Tradition 6. That even when tradition was oppos'd to tradition and the right to the wrong yet it was not Oral or Verbal tradition according to the new mode but the writings of the Doctors that were before them But after all this I cannot but observe and deplore the sad consequents of the Roman Doctors pretention that This great mystery of Godliness God manifested in the Flesh relies wholly upon unwritten traditions For the Socinians knowing that tradition was on both sides claim'd in this Article please themselves in the Concession of their adversaries that this is not to be prov'd by Scripture So they alledge the testimony of Eccius and Cardinal Hosius one of the Legats presiding at Trent Doctrinam de Trino Vno Deo In locis Commun pag. 208. 209. esse dogma Traditionis ex Scripturâ nullâ ratione probari posse The same was affirm'd by Tanner and all that were on that side in the Conference at Ratisbon by Hieronymus à S. Hyaeintho and others Now they being secur'd by their very enemies that they need not fear Scriptures in this question and knowing of themselves that tradition cannot alone do it they are at peace and dwell in confidence in this their Capital Error and the false peace is owing to the Roman Doctors who in Italy help to make Atheists Confessionis Christianae ad rogum damnatae combustae Manium à R. D. Nicolao Cichovio lacessitorum sui vindices Impress A. D. 1652. and in Polonia Socinians and as a Consequent to all this I remember they scorn Cichovius who endeavoured to confute them by a hundred arguments from Scriptures since his own parties do too freely declare that not one of those hundred prove the Question 2. The next necessary Article pretended to stand upon Tradition is The baptizing Children Concerning which I consider either the matter of fact or matter of doctrine The matter of fact is indifferent if abstracted from the doctrine For at the first they did or they did not according as they pleased for there is no pretence of Tradition that the Church in all ages did baptize all the Infants of Christian Parents It is more certain that they did not do it always than that they did it in the first age S. Ambrose S. Hierom and S. Austin were born of Christian Parents and yet not baptiz'd untill the full age of a man and more But that the Apostles did baptize any Children is not at all reported by a primely credible Tradition or a famous report but that they did so is only conjectur'd at or if it be more yet that more whatsoever it be relies upon the testimony of Scripture as S. Paul's baptizing the housholds of Stephanas and the Jaylor But then if they did or if they did not yet without an appendant doctrine this passes on by the voluntary practise of the Church and might be or not be as they pleas'd as it was in the case of confirming them and communicating them at the same time they baptized them Concerning which because we live to have seen and read of several Customs of the Church in several ages it is also after the same manner in baptism if we consider it only in the matter of fact But then if we consider the doctrine appendant to it or the cause why it is pretended they were baptiz'd even that children should be brought to Christ should receive his blessing should be adopted into the Kingdom of God should be made members of the second Adam and be translated from the death introduc'd by the first to the life revealed by the second and that they may receive the Holy Spirit and a title to the promises Evangelical and be born again and admitted into a state of
Covenant in which they can receive the gift of eternal life which I take to be the proper reasons why the Church baptizes Infants all these are wholly deriv'd to us from Scripture-grounds But then as to that Reason upon which the Church of Rome baptizes Infants even because it is necessary and because without it children shall not see God it is certain there is no Universal or prime Tradition for that S. Austin was the hard Father of that doctrine And if we take the whole doctrine and practice together without distinction that it was the custom so to do in some Churches and at sometimes is without all question but that there is a tradition from the Apostles so to do relies but upon two witnesses Origen and S. Austin and the latter having receiv'd it from the former it relies wholly upon his single testimony which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition Apostolical * Secundum Ecelesiae observantiam a◠in Levit. c. 12. 13. Hom. 8. quem locum citat Perron haec autem verba non aiunt ab Apostolis hanc manasse observantiam Lib. de baptis cap. 18. He is the first that spoke it but Tertullian that was before him seems to speak against it which he would not have done if it had been a tradition Apostolical And that it was not so is but too certain if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives In S. August de civit Dei l. 1. c. 27. saying that anciently none were baptiz'd but persons of ripe age which words I suppose are to be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the most part But although the tradition be uncertain weak little and contingent yet the Church of God when ever she did it and she might do it at any time did do it upon Scripture-grounds And it was but weakly said by Cardinal Perron Replique à la response du Roy Jaques p. 701. that There is no place of Scripture by which we can evidently and necessarily convince the Anabaptists For 1. If that were true yet it is more certain that by Tradition they will never be perswaded not only because there is no sufficient and full tradition but because they reject the Topick 2. Although the Anabaptists endeavour to elude the arguments of Scripture yet it follows not that Scripture is not clear and certain in the Article for it is an easie thing to say something to every thing but if that be enough against the argument then no Heretick can be convinc'd by Scripture and there is in Scripure no pregnant testimony for any point of faith for in all questions all Hereticks prattle something And therefore it is not a wise procedure to say The adversaries do answer the testimonies of Scripture and by Scripture cannot be convinc'd and therefore chuse some other way of probation For when that is done will they be convinc'd and cannot the Cardinal satisfie himself by Scripture though the Heretick will not confess himself confuted The Papists say They answer the Protestants Arguments from Scripture but though they say so to eternal ages yet in the world nothing is plainer than that they only say so and that for all that confident and enforc'd saying the Scriptures are still apparently against them 3. If the Anabaptists speak probably and reasonably in their answers then it will rather follow that the point is not necessary than that it must be prov'd necessary by some other Topick 4. All people that believe Baptism of Infants necessary think that they sufficiently prove it from Scripture and Bellarmine though he also urges this point as an argument for Traditions yet upon wiser thoughts he proves it and not Unsuccessfully by three arguments from Scripture 3. Like to this is the pretence of the validity of the Baptism of Hereticks It is Cardinal Perron's own instance and the first of the four he alledges for the necessity of Tradition This he holds for a doctrine Orthodox and Apostolick and yet says he there is no word of it in Scripture Concerning this I think the issue will be short If there be nothing of it in Scripture it is certain there was no Apostolical tradition for it For S. Cyprian and all his Collegues were of an opinion contrary to that of the Roman Church in this Article Epist. ad Pompeium and when they oppos'd against S. Cyprian a Tradition he knew of no such thing and bad them prove their tradition from Scripture 2. S. Austin who was something warm in this point yet confesses the Apostles commanded nothing in it but then he does almost begus to believe it came from them Consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorum traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est si cut sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostolis benè praecepta traduntur quanquam scripta non reperiantur which in plain meaning is this We find a Custome in the Church and we know not whence it comes and it is so in this as in many other things and therefore let us think the best and believe it came by tradition from the Apostles But it seems himself was not sure that so little a foundation could carry so big a weight he therefore plainly hath recourse to Scripture in this Question Contra Donatist l. 4. c. 14. c. 17. 24. Whether is more pernitious not to be baptiz'd or to be re-baptiz'd is hard to judge nevertheless having recourse to the standard of our Lord where the monuments of this are not estimated by humane sense but by Divine authority I find concerning each of them the Sentence of our Lord to wit in the Scriptures But 3. The Question it self is not a thing necessary for S. Cyprian and the Bishops of Cappadocia and Galatia and almost two parts of the known world whose sentiment was differing from others yet liv'd and dyed in the Communion of those Churches who believ'd the contrary doctrin and so it might have been still if things were estimated but according to their intrinsick value Lib. 1. de Baptist cap. 18. And since as S. Austin says they might safely differ in judgment before the determination of this Question in a Council it follows evidently that there was no clear tradition against them or if there were that was not esteem'd a good Catholick or convincing argument For as it is not imaginable so great and wise a part of the Catholick Church should be ignorant of any famous Apostolical tradition especially when they were call'd upon to attend to it and were urg'd and press'd by it so it is also very certain there was none such in S. Cyprian's time because the sixth general Council approv'd of the Canon made in the Council of Carthage Can. 2. because in praedictorum praesulum locis solum secundùm traditam eis consuetudinem servatus est 4. It had been best if the Question had never been mov'd and
is the end of writing the Gospel as having life through Christ is the end of this belief Rom. 10 8. and all this is more fully explicated by S. Paul's Creed Mâ—tth 10. 32. This is the word of faith which we preach that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus Marc. 8. 38. and shalt believe in thine heart Luc. 9. 26. 12. 8. that God hath raised him from the Dead thou shalt be saved 2 Tim. 2. 12. This is the word of faith Apocal. 3. 5. which if we confess with our mouths and entertain and believe in our heart that is do live according to it we shall certainly be sav'd If we acknowledge Christ to be our Lord that is our Law-giver and our Saviour to rescue us from our sins and their just consequents we have all faith and nothing else can be the foundation but such Articles which are the confession of those two truths Christ Jesus our Lord Christ Jesus our Saviour that by Faith we be brought unto Obedience and Love by this love we be brought to Christ and by Christ unto God this is the whole complexion of the Christian faith the Oeconomy of our salvation There are many other doctrines of Christianity of admirable use and fitted to great purposes of knowledge and Government Rom. 10. 8. but the word of faith as S. Paul calls it that which the Apostles preach'd viz. to all and as of particular remark and universal efficacy and absolute sufficiency to salvation is that which is describ'd by himself in those few words now quoted Other foundation than this no man can lay that is Jesus Christ. Every thing else is but a superstructure and though it may if it be good be of advantage yet if it be amiss so the foundation be kept it will only be matter of loss and detriment but consistent with salvation And therefore S. Paul judged that he would know nothing but Jesus Christ and him crucified And this is the summe total of all This is the Gospel so S. Paul most fully I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached unto you which also ye have received and wherein ye stand by which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you unless ye have believed in vain And what is this Gospel this word preach'd and received that by which we stand and that by which we are sav'd It is nothing but this I deliver'd unto you first of all that which I receiv'd how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures This was the traditum the depositum this was the Evangelium Christ died he died for our sins and he rose again for us and this being the great Tradition by which they tried the Spirits yet was it laid up in Scriptures 1 Cor. 3. 11. That Christ died was according to the Scriptures that he rose again was according to the Scriptures and that S. Paul twice * 1 Cor. 15. 3. 4. 1 Cor. 2. 2. and that so immediately remarks this is not without mystery but it can imply to us nothing but this that our whole faith is laid up in the Scriptures and this faith is perfected as to the essentiality of it in the Death and Resurrection of Christ as being the whole Oeconomy of our pardon and Justification And it is yet further remarkable that when S. Paul as he often does renews and repeats this Christian Creed 1 Cor. 4. 6. he calls upon us Rom. 12. 3. not to be wise above what is written and to be wise unto sobriety Which he afterwards expounding says vers 5. He that prophesies let him do it according to the proportion of Faith that is if he will enlarge himself he may and prophesie greatly but still to keep himself to the analogy of Faith not to go beyond that not to be wiser than that measure of sobriety And if we observe the three Sermons of S. Peter the Sermon of S. Philip and S. Silas Acts 2. 24. 3. 12. the Sermons of S. Paul often preached in the Synagogues they were all but this that Jesus Christ is the Son of God that he is the Lord of all Acts 8. 12. 37 38. that he is the Christ of God that God anointed him Acts 9. 20. 17. 2. 16. 31. 1â— 2. 18. 2. 31. that he was crucified and raised again from the dead and that repentance and remission of sins was to be preach'd in his name But as the Spirit of God did purpose for ever with strictness to retain the simplicity of Faith so also he was pleas'd so far to descant upon the plain ground as to make the mystery of godliness to be clearly understood by all men And therefore that we might see it necessary to believe in Jesus it was necessary we should understand he was a person to be relied upon that he was infinitely credible powerful and wise just and holy and that we might perceive it necessary and profitable to obey him it was fit we understood Why that is What good would follow him that is obedient and what evil to the refractory This was all and this indeed was the necessary appendage of the simple and pure word of Faith and this the Apostles drew into a Symbol and particular minute of Articles Now although the first was sufficient yet they knowing it was fit we should understand this simplicity with the investiture of some circumstances and yet knowing that it was not fit the simplicity of Faith should be troubled with new matter were pleased to draw the whole into a Scheme sufficient and intelligible but nothing perplex'd nothing impertinent and this the Church hath call'd the Apostles Creed which contains all that which is necessary to be inquir'd after and believ'd by an Universal and prime necessity True it is other things may become necessary by accident and collateral obligations and if we come to know what God in the abundance of his wisdom and goodness hath spoken to mankind we are bound to believe it but the case is different Many things may be necessary to be believ'd that we may acknowledge God's veracity and so also many things are necessary to be done in obedience to the empire and dictates of the conscience which oftentimes hath authority when she hath no reason and is a peremptory Judge when she is no wise Counsellour But though these things are true yet nothing is a necessary Article of Faith but that which ministers necessarily to the great designs of the Gospel that is a life conformable to God a God-like life and an imitation of of the Holy Jesus To believe and to have faith in the Evangelical sense are things very different Every man is bound to have Faith in all the proper objects of it But only some men are
ambiguous or obscure in case any Brother be a Doctor endued with the grace of knowledge but be curious with your self and seek with your self but at length it is better for you to be ignorant lest you come to know what ye ought not for you already know what you ought Faith consists in the rule Lib. de veland To know nothing beyond this is to know all things Virg. c. 1. Regula quidem fidei una â—mnino est sola immobilis irreformabilis To the same purpose he affirms that this Rule is unalterable is immoveable and irreformable it is the Rule of faith and it is one unchangeably the same which when he had said he again recites the Apostles Creed Lib. de veland Virg. c. â— he calls it legem fidei this law of faith remaining in other things of discipline and conversation the grace of God may thrust us forward and they may be corrected and renewed But the faith cannot be alter'd there is neither more nor less in that And it is of great remark what account Tertullian gives of the state of all the Catholick Churches and particularly of the Church of Rome in his time That Church is in a happy state into which the Apostles with their bloud pour'd forth all their doctrine De praescript c. 36. let us see what she said what she taught what she published in conjunction with the African Churches she knows one God the creator of the World and Jesus Christ of the Virgin Mary the Son of God the Creator and the resurrection of the flesh she mingles the Law and the Prophets with the Evangelical and Apostolical writings and from thence she drinks that faith she sings with Water she cloaths with the holy Spirit she feeds with the Eucharist she exhorts to Martyrdom and against this Institution receives none This indeed was a happy state and if in this she would abide her happiness had been as unalterable as her faith But from this how much she hath degenerated will too much appear in the order of this discourse In the confession of this Creed the Church of God baptiz'd all her Catechumens to whom in the profession of that faith they consign'd all the promises of the Gospel S. Hilar. l. 10. de Trinit vers finem For the truth of God the faith of Jesus Christ the belief of a Christian is the purest simplest thing in the world In simplicitate fides est in fide justitia est in confessione pietas est Nec Deus nos ad beatam vitam per difficiles quaestiones vocat nec multiplici eloquentis facundiae genere sollicitat in absoluto nobis ac facili est aeternitas Jesum Christum credimus suscitatum à mortuis per Deum ipsum esse Dominum confitemur This is the Breviary of the Christian Creed and this is the way of salvation lib. de Synodis saith S. Hilary But speaking more explicitely to the Churches of France and Germany he calls them happy and glorious qui perfectam atque Apostolicam fidem conscientiâ professione Dei retinentes conscriptas fides hûc usque nescitis because they kept the Apostolical Belief for that is perfect Thus the Church remaining in the purity and innocent simplicity of the Faith there was no way of confuting Hereticks but by the words of Scripture or by appealing to the tradition of this Faith in the Apostolical form and there was no change made till the time of the Nicene Council but then it is said that the first simplicity began to fall away and some new thing to be introduc'd into the Christian Creed True it is that then Christianity was in one complexion with the Empire and the division of Hearts by a different Opinion was likely to have influence upon the publick peace if it were not compos'd by peaceable consent or prevailing authority and therefore the Fathers there assembled together with the Emperour's power did give such a period to their Question as they could but as yet it is not certain that they at their meeting recited any other Creed than the Apostolical for that they did not In Antidoto ad Nicolaum 5. Papam Laurentius Valla a Canon in the Lateran Church affirms that himself hath read in the ancient Books of Isidore who collected the Canons of the ancient Councils Certain it is the Fathers believ'd it to be no other than the Apostolical faith and the few words they added to the old form was nothing new but a few more explicate words of the same sense intended by the Apostles and their Successors as at that time the Church did remember by the successive preachings and written Records which they had and we have not but especially by Scripture But the change was so little or indeed so none as to the matter that they affirmed of it Epiphan in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This was the Creed deliver'd by the Holy Apostles and in the old Latin Missal published at Strasburgh An. Dom. 1557. after the recitation of the Nicene Creed as we usually call it it is added in the Rubrick Finito Symbolo Apostolorum dicat Sacerdos Dominus vobiscum So that it should seem the Nicene Fathers us'd no other Creed than what themselves thought to be the Apostolical And this is the more credible because we find that some other Copies of the Apostles Creed particularly that which was us'd in the Church of Aquileia hath divers words and amplifications of some one Article as to the Article of God the Father Almighty maker of Heaven and Earth is added invisible and impassible which though the words were set down there because of the Sabellian Heresie yet they said nothing new but what to every man of reason was included in the very nature of God and so was the addition of Nice concerning the Divinity of the Son of God included in the very natural Filiation expressed in the Apostles Creed and therefore this Nicene Creed was no more a new Creed than was that of Aquileia which although it was not in every word like the Roman Symbol yet it was no other than the Apostolical And the same is the case even of those Symbols where something was omitted that was sufficiently in the bowels of the other Articles Thus in some Creeds Christ's Death is omitted but his Crucifixion and Burial are set down The same variety also is observable in the Article of Christ's descent into Hell which as it is omitted in that form of the Apostolical Creed which I am now saying was us'd by the Nicene Fathers so was it omitted in the six several Recitations and Expositions of it made by Chrysologus and in the five Expositions made of it by S. Austin in his Book de Fide Symbolo and in his four Books de Symbolo ad Catechumenos and divers others So the Article of the Communion of Saints which is neither in the Nicene nor Constantinopolitan Creed nor
If the Catholicks sometimes say That the Scriptures depend upon the Church or a Council they do not understand it in respect of authority or in themselves but by explication and in relation to us * Bellarm. de Concil author lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Diximus Which is too crude an affirmative to be believ'd for besides that Pighius in his Epistle to Paul III. before his Books of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy affirms that the whole authority of the Scripture depends upon the Church and the Testimonies above cited doe in terms confute this saying of his the distinction it self helps not all for if the Scriptures have quoad nos no authority but what the Pope or the Church is pleas'd to give them then they have in themselves none at all For the Scriptures were written for our learning not to instruct the Angels but to conserve the truths of God for the use of the Church and they have no other use or design And if a man shall say the Scriptures have in themselves great authority he must mean that in themselves they are highly credible quoad nos that is that we are bound to believe them for their own truth and excellency And if a man shall say They have no authority quoad nos but what the Church gives them he says They are not credible in themselves and in se have no authority so that this distinction is a Metaphysical Nothing and is brought only to amuse men that have not leisure to consider And he that says one says the other or as bad under a thin and transparent cover The Church gives testimony external to the Scripture but the internal authority is inherent and derives only from God But let the witness of the Church be of as perfect force as can be desir'd I meddle not with it here but that which I charge on the Roman Doctors is that they give to their Church a power of introducing and imposing new Articles of Belief and pretending that they have power so to do and their definitions are of authority equal if not superiour to the Scriptures And this I have now prov'd by many testimonies to all which I add that of the Canon Law it self Dist. 19. Can. in Canonicis In which Gratian most falsly alledges pretended words of Saint Austin which Bellarmine * De Concil authorit lib. 2. cap. 12. Sect. Respondâ—o ad Graâ—ianum calls a being deceiv'd by a false Copy and among the Canonical Scriptures reckons the decretal Epistles of the Popes inter quas sanè illae sunt quas Apostolica Sedes habere ab eâ alii meruerunt accipere Epistolas Now who can tell of any Copy of S. Austin or heard of any in which these words were seen Certainly no man alive but if Gratian was deceiv'd the deceivers were among themselves and yet they lov'd the deception or else they might have expung'd those words when Gregory the 13th appointed a Committee of learned men to purge that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But it yet remains and if they do not pass for Saint Austin's words yet they are good Law at Rome 10â— Com. tit 1. de Ecclesiâ ejus authorit And Hereticks indeed talk otherwise said Eckius Objiciunt Haeretioi Major est authoritas Scripturae quam Ecclesiae but he hath confuted them with an excellent Argument The Church using bloud and strangled hath by authority chang'd a thing defin'd by the Scripture Behold says he the power of the Church over Scripture I love not to take in such polluted channels he that is pleased with it may find enough to entertain his wonder and his indignation if he please to read a fol. 126. 1. b. 104. b. 133. b. Capistrano b pag. 42. n. 15. p. 11. n. 18. 124. n. 9. Cupers c defens Trid. l. 1. l. 2. explic orthod l. 2. Andradius d pag. 3. l. 22. cap. 3. Sect. 3. Antonius e de fide justif 74. 6. hierarch Eccl. l. 1. c. 2. 3. 4. in praefatione ad Paulum terâ—ium Pighius f Contr. Luthâ— Concl. 56. Sylvester Prierias g dis contr Luther 8. de Eccl. Concl. 1. l. edit 1554. Johannes Maria Verratus h Encherid cap. 1. Coster i in 3. l. decâ—etal de convers conjug c. ex publico n. 16. Zabarel and k de verb. Dei l. 3. c. 10. Sect. Ad decimum quintum Bellarmine himself who yet with some more modesty of expression affirms the same thing in substance which according as it hath been is and is still likely to be made use of is enough to undo the Church The word of the Pope teaching out of his Chair is non omnino not altogether or not at all the word of man that is a word liable to error but in some sort the word of God c. Agreeable to which is that which the Lawyers say that the Canon Law is the Divine Law so said * Super. 2. decret de jurejur c. Nimis n. 1. Hostiensis I hope I shall not be esteemed to slander her when these writers think they so much honour the Church of Rome in these sayings In pursuance of this power and authority Pope Pius the 4th made a new Creed and putting his power into act did multiply new Articles one upon another And in the Council of Trent amongst many other new and fine Doctrines this was one That it is Heresie to say That Matrimonial Causes do not pertain to Ecclesiastical Judges and yet we in England owe this priviledge to the favour and bounty of the King and so did the Ancient Churches to the kindness and Religion of the Emperour and if it were so or not so it is but matter of Discipline and cannot by a simple denial of it become an Heresie So that what I have alledged is not the opinion of some private Doctors but the publick practise of the Roman Church Lib. Benedicti de Benedict Bon niae excusus A. D. 1600. Commissum ei Papae munus non modò articulos indeterminatos determinandi sed etiam fidei Symbolum condendi atque hoc ipsum Orthodoxos omnes omnium saeculorum agnovisse palam confessos esse it was said to Paulus Quintus in an address to him And how good a Catholick Baronius was in this particular An. Dom. 373. n. 22. we may guess by what himself says concerning the business of the Apollinarists in which the Pope did and undid Vt planè appareat says Baronius ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis Decreta sancire sancita mutare 2. That which I am next to represent is that the Church of Rome hath reason and necessity to pretend to this power of making new Articles for they having in the body of their Articles and in the publick Doctrines allowed by them and in the profession and practises of their Church so many new things
any thing so well as by writing what was to be kept inviolate especially in the propositions of Faith relying oftentimes upon a word and a phrase and a manner of expression which in the infinite variety of reporters might too easily suffer change Thus far we can safely argue concerning the error of the Church of Rome and to this not we but the Fathers add a severe Censure And when some of these censures were set down by way of caution and warning not of judgment and final sentence it seems a wonder to me how these Gentlemen of the Roman Communion Letter and Truth will out c. that wrote against the Book should recite all these terrible sayings out of the Fathers against their superaddition of Articles to the Faith contain'd in Scriptures and be so little concerned as to read them with a purpose only to find fault with the quotations and never be smitten with a terror of the judgment which the Fathers pronounce against them that do so Just as if a man being ready to perish in a storm should look up and down the ship to see if the little paintings were exact or as if a man in a terrible clap of thunder should consider whether he ever heard so unmusical a sound and never regard his own danger 2. The same is the case in their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worshipping of consecrated Bread in which if they be not deceiv'd all the reason and all the senses of all the men in the world are deceiv'd and if they be deceiv'd then it is certain they give Divine worship to what they naturally eat and drink and how great a provocation of God that is they cannot but know by the whole analogy of the Old and New Testament and even by natural reason it self and all the dictates of Religion which God hath written in our hearts On the other side if we consider that if the Divine worship they intend to Christ were pass'd immediately to him sitting in Heaven and not thorow that blessed thing upon the Altar but directly and primarily to him whose passion there is represented and the benefits of whose death are there offer'd and exhibited there could be no diminution of any right due to Christ. Nay to them who consider that in the first institution and tradition of it to the Apostles Christ's body was still whole and unkroken and separate from the Bread and could not then be transubstantiate and pass from it self into what it was not before and yet remain still it self what it was before and that neither Christ did command the Apostles to worship neither did they worship any thing but God the Father at that time it must needs seem to be a prodigious venture of their souls to change that action into a needless and ungrounded superstition especially since after Christ's ascension his body is not only in Heaven which must contain it until his coming to judgment but is so chang'd so immaterial or spiritual that it is not capable of being broken by hands or teeth In not adoring that which we see to be Bread we can be as safe as the Apostles were who that we find did not worship it but in giving Divine honours to it we can be no more safe in case their proposition be amiss than he that worships the Sun because he verily believes he is the God of Heaven A good meaning in this case will not justifie his action not only because he hath enough to instruct him better and to bring him to better understanding but especially because he may mean as well if he worships Christ in Heaven Ad sua templa oculis animo ad sua numina spectans yea and better when he does actually worship Christ at that time directing the worship to him in Heaven and would terminate his worship on the Host if he were sure it were Christ or were commanded so to do Add to this that to worship Christ is an affirmative praecept and so it be done in wisdom and holiness and love in all just ways of address to him in praying to him reciting his prayers giving him thanks trusting in him hoping in him and loving him with the best love of obedience not to bow the knee hîc nunc when we fear to displease him by so doing cannot be a sin because for that hîc nunc there is no commandement at all And after all if we will suppose that the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true yet because the Priest that consecrates may indeed secretly have receiv'd invalid Orders or have evil Intention or there may be some undiscernable nullity in the whole Oeconomy and ministration so that no man of the Roman Communion can say that by Divine faith he believes that this Host is at this time transubstantiated but onely hath conjectures and ordinary suppositions that it is so and that he does not certainly know the contrary He that certainly gives Divine Honour to that which is not certain to be the Body of Christ runs into a danger too great to promise to himself he shall be safe Some there are who go further yet and consider that the Church of Rome say onely that the bread is chang'd into the body of Christ but not into his soul for then the same bread would be at the same time both material and immaterial and that if it were that to give honours absolutely Divine to the humanity of Christ abstracted from consideration of his Divinity into which certainly the bread is not transubstantiated is too neer the doctrine of the Socinians who suppose the humanity to be absolutely Deified and Divine Honours to be due to Christ as a man whom God hath exalted above every name But if they say that they worship the body in concretion with the Divinity it is certain that may be done at all times by looking up to heaven in all our religious addresses And therefore that is the safe way and that 's the way of the Church of England The other way viz. of the Church of Rome at the best is full of dangers and qui amat periculum peribit in illo was the wise mans caution 3. The like to this is the Practice of the Church of Rome in worshipping Angels which as it is no where commanded in the New Testament so it is expressly forbidden by an Angel himself twice Revel 22. to S. John adding an unalterable reason for I am thy fellow-servant worship God or as some Ancient Copies read it worship Jesus meaning that although in the Old Testament the Patriarchs and Prophets did bow before the Angels that appear'd to them as God's Embassadors and in the Person of God and to which they were greatly inclined because their law was given by Angels yet when God had exalted the Son of Man to be the Lord of Men and Angels we are all fellow-servants and they are not to receive religious worship as before nor we to pay it them And by
doctrine of the necessity of Confession to a Priest is a new doctrine even in the Church of Rome and was not esteemed any part of the Catholick Religion before the Council of Trent For first the Gloss de poenit dist 5. c. in poenitentiâ inquiring where or when Oral Confession was institued says Some say it was instituted in Paradise others say it was instituted when Joshuah called upon Achan to confess his sin others say it was instituted in the new Testament by S. James It is better said that it was instituted by a certain universal tradition of the Church and the tradition of the Church is obligatory as a praecept Therefore confession of deadly sins is necessary with us viz. Latins but not with the Greeks because no such tradition hath come to them This is the full state of this affair in the age when Semeca who was the Glossator liv'd and it is briefly this 1. There was no resolution or agreement whence it came 2. The Glossator's opinion was it came from the Universal tradition of the Church 3. It was but a kind of Universal tradition not absolute clear and certain 4. It was only a tradition in the Latin Church 5. The Greeks had no such tradition 6. The Greeks were not oblig'd to it it was not necessary to them Concerning the Greek Church I shall afterwards consider it in a more opportune place here only I consider it as it was in the Latin Church and of this I suppose there needs no better Record than the Canon Law it self and the authentick Glosses upon it which Glosses although they be not Law but as far as they please yet they are perfect testimony as to matter of fact and what the opinions of the Doctors were at that time And therefore to the former I add this that in cap. Convertimini Gratian hath these words Vnde datur intelligi quod etiam ore tacente veniam consequi possumus Without confession of the mouth we may obtain pardon of our sins and this point he pursues in all that long Chapter and in the chapter Resuscitatus out of S. Austin's doctrine and in the Chapter Qui natus out of the doctrine of S. John's Epistle the conclusion of which Chapter is Cum ergo ante Confessionem ut probatum est sumus resuscitati per gratiam filii lucis facti evidentissimè apparet quod solâ cordis contritione sine Confessione oris peccatum remittitur and in the Chapter Omnis qui non diligit he expressly concludes out of S. John's words Non ergo in confessione peccatum remittitur quod jam remissum esse probatur fit itaque confessio ad ostensionem poenitentiae non ad impetrationem veniâ— And at the end of this Chapter according to his custom in such disputable things when he says Alii è contrario testantur others witness to the contrary that without confession Oral and works of satisfaction no man is cleansed from his sin the Gloss upon the place says thus Ab hoc loco usque ad Sed his authoritatibus pro aliâ parte allegat quod scil adulto peccatum non dimittitur sine oris Confessione quod tamen falsum est Only he says that Confession doth cleanse and Satisfaction doth cleanse so that though by contrition of the heart the sin is pardon'd yet these still cleanse more and more as a man is more innovated or amended But these authorities brought in viz. that sin is not pardon'd without confession if they be diligently expounded prove but little But Frier Maurique who by Pius Quintus made and publish'd a censure upon the Glosses appointed these words quod tamen falsum est to be left out but the Roman Correctors under Greg. 13th let them alone but put in the Margent a mark of contradiction upon it saying Imò verissimum est But that was new doctrine and although Semeca the Author of the Gloss affirm'd it expressly to be false yet Gratian himself was more reserv'd but yet not of the new opinion but left the matter indifferent for after he had alledged Scripture and authorities of Fathers on one side and authority of Fathers on the other De poeâ—it â— â— cap. Quamvis plentitudo he concludes Quibus authoritatibus vel quibuslibet rationum firmamentis utraque sententia Satisfactionis Confessionis innitatur in medium breviter exposuimus Cui autem harum potius adhaerendum sit lectoris judicio reservatur Vtraque enim fautores habet sapientes religiosos viros Now how well this agrees with the determination of the Council of Trent Lib. de 5. decret de poeniâ— rem in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus every man by comparing can easily judge only it is certain this doctrine cannot pretend to be deriv'd by tradition from the Apostles Of the same opinion was the Abbot of Panormo saying That opinion viz. of the Gloss does much please me because there is no manifest authority that does intimate that either God or Christ instituted Confession to be made to a Priest But it were endless to name the Sentences of the Canonists in this question once for all the testimony of Maldonat may secure us Disp. de Sacr. tom 2. de Confess Orig. c. 2. Juris Pontificii periti secuti suum primum interpretem omnes dicunt Confessionem tantum esse introductam jure Ecclesiastico But to clear the whole Question I shall first prove that the necessity of confessing our sins to a Priest is not found in Scripture but very much to disprove it 2. That there is no reason enforcing this necessity but very much against it 3. That there is no Ecclesiastical Tradition of any such necessity but apparently the contrary and the consequent of these things will be that the Church of Rome hath introduced a new doctrine false and burdensome dangerous and superstitious 1. If we consider how this Article is managed in Scripture we shall find that our Blessed Saviour said nothing at all concerning it the Council of Trent indeed makes their new doctrine to relie upon the words of Christ recited by S. John John 20. 21. Whose sins â—e remit they are remitted c. But see with what success for besides that all the Canonists allow not that Confession was instituted by Christ Aquinas Scotus Gabriel Clavasinus the Author of the Summa Angelica Hugo de S. Victore Bonaventure Alensis Tho. Waldensis Ferus Cajetan Erasmus B. Rhenanus and Jansenius though differing much in the particulars of this question yet all consent that precisely from the words of Christ no necessity of Confession to a Priest can be concluded 2. Amongst those of the Roman Church who did endeavour to found the necessity of Confession upon those words None do agree about the way of drawing their argument In lib. 4. sent dist 17. as may be seen in Scotus Aureolus Johannes Maior Thomas de Argentina Richardus Durandus Almain Dominicus à Soto Alphonsus Ã
decreed as the other For if we admit the acts of the Council that of giving aid to the Holy Land was decreed in the 69. Canon Ad liberandum terram sanctam de manibus impiorum Extrav de Judaeis Saracenis Cum sit alias 71. So that this answer is not true But the truth is neither the one nor the other was decreed in that Council For that I may inform this Gentleman in a thing which possibly he never heard of this Council of Lateran was never published nor any acts of it till Cochlaeus published them A. D. 1538. For three years before this John Martin published the Councils and then there was no such thing as the acts of the Lateran Council to be found But you will say how came Cochlaeus by them Vide praefat Later Concil secundum p. Crab. To this the answer is easie There were read in the Council sixty Chapters which to some did seem easie to others burdensome but these were never approved but the Council ended in scorn and mockery and nothing was concluded neither of faith nor manners nor war nor aid for the Holy Land but only the Pope got mony of the Prelates to give them leave to depart But afterwards Pope Gregory IX put these Chapters or some of them into the Decretals but doth not intitle any of these to the Council of Lateran but only to Pope Innocent in the Council which Cardinal Perron ignorantly or wilfully mistaking affirms the contrary But so it is that Platina affirms of the Pope plurima decreta retulit improbavit Joachimi libellum damnavit errores Almerici The Pope recited 60. heads of decrees in the Council but no man says the Council decreed those heads Now these heads Cochlaeus says he found in an old book in Germany And it is no ways probable that if the Council had decred those heads that Gregory IX who published his Uncles decretal Epistles which make up so great a part of the Canon Law should omit to publish the decrees of this Council or that there should be no acts of this great Council in the Vatican and that there should be no publication of them till about 300. years after the Council and that out of a blind corner and an old unknown Manuscript But the book shews its original it was taken from the Decretals for it contains just so many heads viz. LXXII and is not any thing of the Council in which only were recited L. X. heads and they have the same beginnings and endings and the same notes and observations in the middle of the Chapters which shews plainly they were a meer force of the Decretals The consequent of all which is plainly this that there was no decree made in the Council but every thing was left unfinished and the Council was affrighted by the warlike preparations of them of Genoa and Pisa and all retir'd Concerning which affair the Reader that desires it may receive further satisfaction if he read the Antiquitates Britannicae in the life of Stephen Langton out of the lesser History of Matthew Paris Vide Matth. Paris ad A. D. 1215. Naâ—cteri generat 41. ad eundem annum Et Sabellicum Eâ—â—ead 9. lib. 6. Godfridum Monachum ad A. D. 1215. as also Sabellicus and Godfride the Monk But since it is become a question what was or was not determin'd in this Lateran Council I am content to tell them that the same authority whether of Pope or Council which made Transubstantiation an article of faith made Rebellion and Treason to be a duty of Subjects for in the same collection of Canons they are both decreed and warranted under the same signature the one being the first Canon and the other the third The use I shall make of all is this Scotus was observed above to say that in Scripture there is nothing so express as to compel us to believe Transubstantiation meaning that without the decree and authority of the Church the Scripture was of it self insufficient And some others as Salmeron notes Tract 16. tom 9. p. 110. affirm that Scripture and Reason are both insufficient to convince a heretic in this article this is to be prov'd ex Conciliorum definitione Patrum traditione c. by the definition of Councils and tradition of the Fathers for it were easie to answer the places of Scripture which are cited and the reasons Now then since Scripture alone is not thought sufficient nor reasons alone if the definitions of Councils also shall fail them they will be strangely to seek for their new article Now for this their only Castle of defence is the Lateran Council Indeed Bellarmine produces the Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second in which Berengarius was forc'd to recant his error about the Sacrament but he recanted it into a worse error and such which the Church of Rome disavows at this day And therefore ought not to pretend it as a patron of that doctrine which she approves not And for the little Council under Greg. 7. it is just so a general Council as the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church or a particular is an Universal But suppose it so for this once yet this Council medled not with the modus viz. Transubstantiation or the ceasing of its being bread but of the Real Presence of Christ under the Elements which is no part of our question Berengarius denied it but we do not when it is rightly understood Pope Nicholaus himself did not understand the new article for it was not fitted for publication until the time of the Lateran Council how nothing of this was in that Council determin'd I have already made appear and therefore as Scotus said the Scripture alone could not evict this article so he also said in his argument made for the Doctors that held the first opinion mentioned before out of Innocentius Nec invenitur ubi Ecclesia istam veritatem determinet solenniter Neither is it found where the Church hath solemnly determin'd it And for his own particular though he was carried into captivity by the symbol of Pope Innocent 3. for which by that time was pretended the Lateran Council Lib. 3. de Euchar c. 23. Sect. Vnum tamen yet he himself said that before that Council it was no article of faith and for this thing Bellarmine reproves him and imputes ignorance to him saying that it was because he had not read the Roman Council under Greg. 7. Scotus negat doctrinam de conversione transubst esse antiquam Henriquez lib. 8. c. 23. in Marg. ad liter h. nor the consent of the Fathers And to this purpose I quoted Henriquez saying that Scotus saith the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not ancient the Author of the Letter denies that he saith any such thing of Scotus But I desire him to look once more and my Margent will better direct him What the opinion of Durandus was in this Question if
many ways it is a figure So that the whole force of E. W s. answer is this that if that which is like be the same then it is possible that a thing may be a sign of it's self and a man may be his own picture and that which is invisible may be a sign to give notice to come see a thing that is visible I have now expedited this topic of Authority in in this Question amongst the many reasons I urged against Transubstantiation E. W. p. 42. which I suppose to be unanswerable and if I could have answered them my self I would not have produc'd them these Gentlemen my adversaries are pleas'd to take notice but of one But by that it may be seen how they could have answered all the rest if they had pleased The argument is this every consecrated wafer saith the Church of Rome is Christs body and yet this wafer is not that wafer therefore either this or that is not Christs body or else Christ hath two natural bodies for there are two Wafers To this is answered the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies to Christ no more than head and feet infer two souls in a man or conclude there are two Gods one in heaven and the other in earth because heaven and earth are more distinct than two wafers To which I reply that the soul of man is in the head and feet as in two parts of the body which is one and whole and so is but in one place and consequently is but one soul. But if the feet were parted from the body by other bodies intermedial then indeed if there were but one soul in feet and head the Gentleman had spoken to the purpose But here these wafers are two intire wafers separate the one from the other bodies intermedial put between and that which is here is not there and yet of each of them it is affirm'd that it is Christs body that is of two wafers and of two thousand wafers it is at the same time affirm'd of every one that it is Christs body Now if these wafers are substantially not the same not one but many and yet every one of these many is substantially and properly Christs body then these bodies are many for they are many of whom it is said every one distinctly and separately and in its self is Christs body 2. For his comparing the presence of Christ in the wafer with the presence of God in heaven it is spoken without common wit or sense for does any man say that God is in two places and yet be the same-one God Can God be in two places that cannot be in one Can he be determin'd and number'd by places that fills all places by his presence or is Christs body in the Sacrament as God is in the world that is repletive filling all things alike spaces void and spaces full and there where there is no place where the measures are neither time nor place but only the power and will of God This answer besides that it is weak and dangerous is also to no purpose unless the Church of Rome will pass over to the Lutherans and maintain the Ubiquity of Christs body In Ps. 33. Yea but S. Austin says of Christ Ferebatur in manibus suis c. he bore himself in his own hands and what then Then though every wafer be Christs body yet the multiplication of wafers does not multiply bodies for then there would be two bodies of Christ when he carried his own body in his hands To this I answer that concerning S. Austins minde we are already satisfied but that which he says here is true as he spake and intended it for by his own rule the similitudes and figures of things are oftentimes called by the name of those things whereof they are similitudes Christ bore his own body in his own hands when he bore the Sacrament of his body for of that also it is true that it is truly his body in a Sacramental spiritual and real manner that is to all intents and purposes of the holy spirit of God According to the words of S. Austin cited by P. Lombard Lib. 3. de Trin. c. 4. in fine P. Lombard dist 11. lib. 4. ad finem lit C. We call that the body of Christ which being taken from the fruits of the Earth and consecrated by mystic prayer we receive in memory of the Lords Passion which when by the hands of men it is brought on to that visible shape it is not sanctified to become so worthy a Sacrament but by the spirit of God working invisibly If this be good Catholic doctrine and if this confession of this article be right the Church of England is right but then when the Church of Rome will not let us alone in this truth and modesty of confession but impose what is unknown in Antiquity and Scripture and against common sense and the reason of all the world Christs real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament against the doctrine of Transubstantiation printed at London by R. Royston she must needs be greatly in the wrong But as to this question I was here only to justifie the Dissuasive I suppose these Gentlemen may be fully satisfied in the whole inquiry if they please to read a book I have written on this subject intirely of which hitherto they are pleas'd to take no great notice SECTION IV. Of the half Communion WHen the French Embassador in the Council of Trent A. D. 1561. made instance for restitution of the Chalice to the Laity among other oppositions the Cardinal S. Angelo answered that he would never give a cup full of such deadly poison to the people of France instead of a medicine and that it was better to let them die than to cure them with such remedies The Embassador being greatly offended replied that it was not fit to give the name of poyson to the bloud of Christ and to call the holy Apostles poysoners and the Fathers of the Primitive Church and of that which followed for many hundred years who with much spiritual profit have ministred the cup of that bloud to all the people this was a great and a public yet but a single person that gave so great offence One of the greatest scandals that ever were given to Christendom was given by the Council of Constance Sess. 13. which having acknowledged that Christ administred this venerable Sacrament under both kinds of bread and wine and that in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was receiv'd of the faithful under both kinds yet the Council not only condemns them as heretics and to be punished accordingly who say it is unlawful to observe the custome and law of giving it in one kinde only but under pain of excommunication forbids all Priests to communicate the people under both kinds This last thing is so shameful and so impious that A. L. directly denies that there is any such thing which if it
rescinded abrogated by contrary laws and desuetude by change of times and changes of opinion And in all that great body of laws registred in the decretum and the Decretals Clementins and Extravagants there is no signe or distinctive cognisance of one from another and yet some of them are regarded and very many are not When Pope Stephen decreed that those who were converted from heresie should not be re-baptiz'd Euseb. lib. 7. hist. 4. c. 3 4. lib. de unico baptis c. 14. and to that purpose wrote against S. Cyprian in the Question and declar'd it to be unlawful and threatned excommunication to them that did it as S. Austin tells S. Cyprian regarded it not but he and a Council of fourscore Bishops decreed it ought to be done and did so to their dying day Bellarmine admits all this to be true but says that Pope Stephen did not declare this tanquam de fide but that after this definition it was free to every one to think as they list nay Bellar. lib. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 7. Sect. Et per hoc that though it was plain that S. Cyprian refus'd to obey the Pope's sentence yet non est omninò certum that he did sin mortally By all this he hath made it apparent that it cannot easily be known when a Pope does define a thing to be de fide or when it is a sin to disobey him or when it is necessary he should be obeyed Now then since in the Canon law there are so very many decrees and yet no mark of difference of right or wrong necessary or not necessary how shall we be able to know certainly in what state or condition the soul of every of the Pope's subjects is especially since without any cognisance or certain mark all the world are commanded under pain of damnation to obey the Pope In the Extravagant de Majoritate Obedientiâ are these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus absolutè necessarium ad salutem omni humanae creaturae subesse Romano Pontifici Now when can it be thought that a Pope defines any article in Cathedra if these words Dicimus definimus pronunciamus necessarium ad salutem be not sufficient to declare his intention Now if this be true that the Pope said this he said true or false If false how sad is the condition of the Romanists who are affrighted with the terrible threatnings of damnation for nothing And if it be true what became of the souls of S. Cyprian and the African Bishops Epist. S. Cyprian ad Pompeium who did not submit to the Bishop of Rome but call'd him proud ignorant and of a dark and wicked mind Seriò praecepit said Bellarmine he seriously commanded it but did not determine it as necessary and how in a Question of faith and so great Concern this distinction can be of any avail can never be known and can never be prov'd since they declare the Pope sufficiently to be of that faith against S. Cyprian and the Africans and that in pursuance of this his faith he proceeded so far and so violently But now the matter is grown infinitely worse For 1. the Popes of Rome have made innumerable decrees in the Decretum In l. Benè à Zenoâ—e c. de quadrien praescript Decretals Bulls Taxes Constitutions Clementines and Extravagants 2. They as Albericus de Rosate a Great Canonist affirms sometimes exalt their constitutions and sometimes abase them according to the times And yet 3. All of them are verified and impos'd under the same Sanction by the Council of Trent Sess. 25. c. 20. all I say which were ever made in favour of Ecclesiastical Persons and the Liberties of the Church which are indeed the greater part of all after Gratians decree witness the Decretals of Gregory the 9 th Boniface the 8 th the Collectio diversarum Constitutionum literarum Romanorum Pontificum and the Decretal Epistles of the Roman Bishops in three Volumes besides the Ecloga Bullarum motuum propriorum All this is not onely an intolerable burden to the Christian Churches but a snare to consciences and no man can tell by all this that is before him whether he deserve love or hatred whether he be in the state of mortal sin of damnation or salvation But this is no new thing More than this was decreed in the Ancient Canon law it self Decret dist 19. c. Sic omnes C. Eniâ—vero Sic omnes Sanctiones Apostolicae sedis accipiendae sunt tanquam ipsius Divinâ voce Petri firmatae And again Ab omnibus quicquid statuit quicquid ordinat perpetuò quidem infragibiliter observandum est All men must at all times with all submission observe all things whatsoever are decreed or ordain'd by the Roman Church Nay licèt vix ferendum although what that holy See imposes be as yet scarce tolerable yet let us bear it and with holy devotion suffer it says the Canon Ibid. In memoriam And that all this might indeed be an intolerable yoke the Canon Nulli fas est addes the Pope's curse and final threatnings Sit ergo ruinae suae dolore prostratus quisquis Apostolicis voluerit contraire decretis and every one that obeys not the Apostolical decrees is majoris excommunicationis dejectione abjiciendus The Canon is directed particularly against the Clergy And the gloss upon this Canon affirms that he who denies the Pope's power of making Canons viz. to oblige the Church is a heretick Now considering that the decree of Gratian is Concordantia discordantiarum a heap or bundle of Contrary opinions doctrines and rules and they agree no otherwise then a Hyaena and a Dog catch'd in the same snare or put into a bag and that the Decretals and Extravagants are in very great parts of them nothing but boxes of tyranny and errour usurpation and superstition onely that upon those boxes they write Ecclesia Catholica and that all these are commanded to be believ'd and observ'd respectively and all gainsayers to be cursed and excommunicated and that the twentieth part of them is not known to the Christian world and some are rejected and some never accepted and some slighted into desuetude and some thrown off as being a load too heavie and yet that there is no rule to discern these things it must follow that matters of faith determin'd and recorded in the Canon law and the laws of manners there established and the matter of salvation and damnation consequent to the observation or not observation of them must needs be infinitely uncertain and no man can from their grounds know what shall become of him There are so very many points of faith in the Church of Rome and so many Decrees of Councils which when they please make an Article of faith and so many are presumptuously by private Doctors affirm'd to be de fide which are not that considering that the common people are not taught to rely upon the plain
which at least seem contrary to Scripture or are not at all in Scripture and such for which it is impossible to shew any Apostolical or Primitive tradition do easily and openly betray their own weakness and necessity in this affair My first Instance is of their known Arts of abusing the people by pretended Apparitions and false Miracles for the establishing of strange Opinions Non obscurum est quot opiniones invectae sunt in orbem per homines ad suum quaestum callidos confictorum miraculorum praesidio said Erasmus These Doctrines must needs be things that come over the Walls and in at the Windows they come not the right way For besides that In 1 Cor. 2. as S. Chrysostome says It was at first profitable Tom. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that miracles should be done and now it is profitable that they be not done for then our Faith was finished by Miracles but now by the Divine Scriptures Miracles are like watering of plants to be done when they are newly set and before they have taken root Hence the Apostle saith Tongues are for a sign to them that believe not and not for them that believe So S. Gregory a Homil. 29. in Evangel Our Ancestors followed after signs by which it came to pass that they should not be necessary to their posterity And b S. Aug. de verâ relig c. 25. he that yet looks for Miracles that he may believe is himself a Miracle Nay to pretend Miracles now adays is the worst sign in the world And here S. Austin in great zeal gives warning of such things as these c Id de civit Dei l. 22. c. 8. Let not a man say This is true because Donatus Pontius or another hath done wonderful things or because men praying at the memories of Martyrs are heard or because such or such things there happen or because that Brother of ours or that Sister of ours waking saw such a Vision or sleeping dreamt such a Dream let those fictions of lying men or wonders of deceitful spirits be remov'd For either those things which are spoken are not true or if any miracles of Hereticks be done we ought to take heed the more Because when our Lord said Some deceivers should arise which should do signs and deceive if it were possible the very Elect he August tract 13. in Evang commending this saying vehemently added Behold I have told you of it before This same is also taught by the Author of the imperfect work on S. Matthew Johan Homil. 49. imputed to Saint Chrysostom who calls the power of working Miracles after the first vocation of the Gospel seductionis adjutoria the helps of seduction as at first they were us'd by Christ and Christ's servants as instruments of vocation and affirms These helps of deceit were to be deliver'd to the Devil It was the same in the Gospel as it was in the Law of Moses after God had by signs and wonders in the hand of Moses fix'd and establish'd his Law which only was to be their Rule and Caution was given Deuter. 1. 13. that against that Rule no man should be believ'd though he wrought miracles Quest. in Deuter. Upon which words Theodoret says We are instructed that we must not mind signs when he that works them teaches any thing contrary to piety And therefore these things can be to no purpose unless it be to deceive except this only that where miracles are pretended there is a warning also given that there is danger of deception and there is the Seat of Anti-christ who is foretold should come in all signs lying wonders Hic 11. 1â— vide Stellam ibid. Generatio nequam signum quaerit said Christ. But it is remarkable by the Doctrines for which in the Church of Rome Miracles are pretended that they are a Cover fitted for their Dish new miracles to destroy the old truths and to introduce new opinions For to prove any Article of our Creed or the necessity of a Divine Commandment or the Divinity of the Eternal Son of God there is now no need of miracles and for this way of proving these and such Articles as these they trouble not themselves but for Transubstantiation Adoration of the consecrated Bread and Wine for Purgatory Invocation and worship of Saints of their Reliques of the Cross Monastical Vows Fraternities of Friars and Monks the Pope's Supremacy and double Monarchy in the Church of Rome they never give over to make and boast Prodigious Miracles But with what success we may learn from some of the more sober and wise amongst them In Sacramento apparet Caro In quartam sent qu. 53. interdum humanâ procuratione interdum operatione diabolica said Alexander of Ales this indeed was an old trick and S. Irenaeus reports Iren l. 1. c. 9. that it was done by Marcus that great Haersiarch that by this prayer he caus'd the Eucharistical Wine to appear as if it were turned into Bloud In Canon Missae lect 49. and Biel affirms that Miracles are done to men who run to Images sometimes by operation of Devils to deceive those inordinate worshippers God permitting it and their infidelity exacting it And when in the Question of the immaculate Conception there are miracles produc'd on both sides as the learned Bishop of the Canaries tells us it must needs be Melchior canâ—s loâ— Com. mun l. 11. c. 6. that on one side the Devil was the Architect if not on both And such stories are so frequently related by the Romish Legends by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome by Beda by Vincentius Belvacensis Antoninus by the Speculum Exemplorum and are accounted Religious stories and are so publickly preach'd and told by the Friars in their Sermons and so believ'd by the people and the Common sort of Roman Catholicks and indifferently amongst many of the better sort that their minds are greatly possess'd with such a superstitious credulity and are fed with such hypochondriacal and fond opinions that it is observable how they by those usages are become fond News-mongers and reporters of every ridiculous story Hi piè nonnihil admentientes supponunt reliquias fabricant miracula confinguntque quae Exempla vocant vel plausibiles vel terribiles fabulas De vanit Scier cap. 97. So Cornelius Agrippa complains of the Writers of such ridiculous stories in that Church that as one of their own Writers said they equal if not exceed Amadis and Clarianus Who please to see more of this may be satisfied with reading Canus in the Chapter above quoted or if he please he may observe it in Bellarmine himself who out of those very legends and stories which are disallowed by Canus and out of divers others as Garetius Tilmanus Bredenbachius Thomas of Walden and I know not who besides recount seven miracles to prove the proper natural presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament amongst which it is not the least