authority of his Chair to avenge himself of him and might be certain that what he should have done by his sacerdotal power would be acceptable to all his Collegues In which words he plainly asserts the authority of inflicting an Ecclesiastical Censure even upon a Deacon to be wholly in the Bishops power by virtue of his Office And it is indeed no mean authority which is committed by the Institution of our Lord to the Officers of the Christian Church who are appointed to be as Shepherds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to feed and to rule his flock Joh. 21.16 Act. 20.28 1 Pet. 5.2 25. Indeed they of the Congregational way do assert some special authority to the Pastors and Teachers of their Congregations and to them they particularly reserve the administration of the Sacraments They declare (ſ) Of Instit of Churches n. 16. that where there are no teaching Officers none may administer the Seals nor can the Church authorize any so to do But then they also place the power of making these Officers and committing authority to them in the people and attribute very little to the power of Ordination Indeed concerning a Pastor Teacher or Elder they tell us that (t) Ibid. n. 11. it is appointed by Christ but no such appointment can be produced he be chosen by the common suffrage of the Church it self and solemnly set apart by fasting and prayer with imposition of hands of the Eldership of that Church if there be any before constituted therein But if there be no Eldership in that Congregation as there can be none in the first erecting any particular Congregational Church and in the after appointing a Pastor it must be at least of those who are in inferiour Office (u) Answ to Qu. 13. they think it neither lawful nor convenient to call in the assistance of the Ministers of other Churches by way of authority when the Church is to ordain Officers But this Position proceeds upon their dividing notion in not owning the true Unity of the Catholick visible Church and thereupon they assert that as to (x) Answ of Eld in New Engl. to 9. Posit Pos the 8. acts of authority and power in dispensing Gods Ordinance a Minister cannot so perform any Ministerial act to any other Church but his own But how little they esteem that irregular way of imposing hands which themselves speak of as Christs Institution may appear from their declaring that a Pastor Teacher or Elder chosen by the Church (y) Inst of Ch. n. 12. though not set apart by imposition of hands are rightly constituted Ministers of Jesus Christ To the like purpose the Elders of New England speak who also give power (z) Answ to Qu. 21. to those who are no Officers of the Church to ordain Officers and also judge that a Minister Ordained in one Church if he afterwards becomes a Minister in another Church must receive a new Ordination But surely those who let loose their fancies at such a strange rate used no great consideration of what they wrote 26. And it greatly concerns the people since they undertake to act in the name of Christ in dispensing any part of the power of the Keys as in inflicting Spiritual censures and to exercise his authority in constituting Officers in his Church by giving Office-power to them that they be well assured that they have sufficient authority from him to warrant their proceedings especially since such things as these are represented in the Holy Scripture and have been ever esteemed in the Ancient Church as well as the Modern to be peculiar acts of the Ministerial power in the Chief Officers of the Church And they whom they call Pastors or Teachers but have no better authority than this to warrant them to be so had also need to beware how they undertake to dispense the Christian Mysteries as Officers appointed in Christs name For if they to whom God hath given no such Commission presume to set apart Officers in his name and to impart to them his authority this is like the act of Micah in consecrating Priests Judg. 17.5 12. or like Jeroboams Sacrilegious intrusion in making those to be Priests who were not so according to the rules of Gods appointment 1 Kings 12.31 chap. 13.33 which thing with its concomitants was so highly offensive to God that the very next words tell us vers 34. this thing became a sin unto the house of Jeroboam even to cut it off and to destroy it from off the face of the earth Nor can it be thought a lesser affront to the Majesty of God to set up chief Officers in his name without his Commission than it would be against the Majesty of a King to erect Judicatures in his Kingdom or to confer the great Offices of the Realm and places of eminent Dignity and Trust without any Authority from him or from his Laws 27. And to exercise any proper Ministerial power in the name of God or Christ without sufficient authority is no small offence The severe punishment of Saul's Sacrificing by the loss of his Kingdom 1 Sam. 13.13 14. and of Vzziah's offering Incense by his being smitten with Leprosie which rendered him uncapable not only of Governing the Kingdom but of having society with the Congregation of the Lord 2 Chron. 26 19 21. testifie how much God was provoked thereby The dreadful Judgment upon Corah and his Company for offering Incense and pleading the right of all the Congregation of Israel against Moses and Aaron as if they had taken too much upon them was very remarkable And much more is it sinful and dangerous to intrench upon the Office of the Gospel Ministry because the Institution of Christ the authority conveyed by him and the grace conferred from him are things more high and sacred than what was delivered by Moses 28. But the making and Ordaining Ministers in the Church was both in the Scripture and in all succession of antiquity performed by those who had the chief authority of Office in or over the Christian Church as particularly by Christ himself his Apostles and the succeeding Bishops Christ himself sent his Apostles as his Father sent him and he not his other Disciples gave them their Commission S. Paul and Barnabas where they came ordained Elders in every Church Act. 14.23 and so must Titus do in every City of Crete Tit. 1.5 And when S. Paul sent his directions to Timothy concerning the due qualifications of those who were to be Bishops and Deacons in the Church 1 Tim. 3. and wrote this for this end that Timothy might know how he ought to behave himself in the house of God v. 14 15. this plainly shews that he had the main care of appointing and admitting Officers in the Church of Ephesus 29. In the Ecclesiastical History of the next ages there is nothing more plain than that the Bishops of the Christian Church who as (a) de Praescrip c. 32. Tertullian (b)
difficult all Protestants do prepossess themselves with such truths as they have learned by plain Scriptures or other certain evidence and therefore know no difficult Text can be so interpreted as to contradict any such truth Here the vulgar Christians do suppose many times that to be the true sense of such places which they have received from those they judge able and faithful but such a sense of such Scripture they do not own as a necessary Point of Faith but admit it as most probable untill themselves be able fully to search and then if they discern this a true exposition they will receive it upon their own knowledge but if they find it a mistake they will lay down that former apprehension and will entirely be guided by what they see is the true sense of Scripture And persons of great abilities to make the best search into the sense of more difficult Texts do not prepossess themselves with any particular sense of such Scripture but are every where entirely guided by that which appears the best evidence to recommend any sense as knowing that it is not our interest or benefit that this or that opinion or interpretation should be true in things doubtful but our great concernment is to own that which is and God hath declared to be the Truth § 6. He enquires how we can demonstrate concerning any place of Scripture that it is not altered and that not is not inserted or left out I answer this as to any matters of Faith is discovered sufficiently by what we shewed to prove the Scriptures preserved entire in the foregoing Discourse Yea the common principles of Reason and Conscience in man will evidence to him in many necessary truths that if not was left out or put in they could never have been from God That God is Eternal Powerful Good and to be worshipped of his creatures that he treats man with great mercy that men must be holy and righteous that God will judge the World such things as these appear so evident that man where-ever he hears them cannot but acknowledge them to be true and from God and that the contrary cannot be so But further the consent of all Copies in several Countreys is in this case an abundant rational evidence especially considering that these Writings were dispersed into all Countreys presently after they were first written and so no miscarriage in the Faith could be in those first Copies taken from the Original of what this Author moves his doubts which would not have been easily discovered and reformed either by the surviving Apostles or by the Original Writing or Autographa of the Apostles and Evangelists which doubtless being of such high esteem in the Church were some time preserved Now since at the first dispersing of these Copies they did contain the Apostles Doctrine entire the constant agreement of all Copies sufficiently prove the same continued still especially considering that the Copies which all appear to have this agreement were written in several Ages long since past and in several Countreys And that to imagine not left out or foisted in in the matters of Faith in all Books generally and publikly and daily read by Christians must suppose 1. That they all every where in so many Countreys should conspire to falsifie the Faith of Jesus which they appeared to value above their lives and by this Tradition would be corrupted but yet Scripture in all these Books could not unless 2. They should falsifie all the ancient Copies which yet by the very writing appear to have nothing rased out or foisted in And this is a much higher certainty than Josiah could have of his own Copy yea than can be had of any passage in any Historian ancient Law or Record and if this we have said did not generally satisfie the Cavils propounded all History old Laws and Records must be rejected because there can be no such appearance of so great evidence that in any sentence not was not left out or foisted in And so all matters of Fame or Tradition must be disbelieved till he can demonstrate that they had not their original from the reading some Writings which have the same liableness to mistake with other Writings and that not hath not been put in or left out in the Oral delivery And how much his Reader will be beholden to him for such conceits as these we may gather from his own words Disc 9. § 4. where speaking of humane testimonies he tells us amongst the most extravagant Opinionasters none was ever found so frantick as to doubt them and should any do so all sober mankind would esteem them stark mad But as hath been proved this Author would here lead his Reader such a way as himself saith all sober mankind will esteem him mad if he follow him If this be not enough I shall add that the Primitive Christians owned such a tryal of Scriptures incorruptness as fully sufficient for them to rely on and to confound all who opposed it And even this Argument of this Author though urged with greater confidence was that with which several of the Hereticks from the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian to S. Austin opposed the Christians amongst which I shall now only mention the Manichees out of S. Austin who declares that whilst he was a Manichee Confess l. 5. c. 2. he was somewhat shaken by hearing a dispute between Helpidins and the Manichees but the Manichees afterwad privately told him The N. Testament was corrupted and there was no uncorrupt exemplar produced but this did as little satisfie him And after he became an opposer of the Manichees Contra Faustum lib. 11. c. 1. he urgeth against them Scripture testimony to which Faustus answers That this Scripture testimony was not right To which Saint Austin replies If this answer be esteemed of any weight what written Authority can ever be opened what holy Book can ever be searched cap. 2. he demands proof of Faustus what Books ever read otherwise and c. 3. urges All Books new and old have this testimony all Churches read it all tongues consent in it therefore put off the cloak of deceitfulness And in Epist 19. he saith he read the Scripture which is placed in the most sublime and celestial height of Authority being certain and secure of its truth but saith he the Manichees contend that many things in the Scripture are false yet so that they do not ascribe falshood to the Apostles who wrote them but to some which have corrupted the Books but because they cannot prove this by any ancient Copies he saith they are overcome and confounded by the most manifest truth But our Discourser saith It is certain there are many various readings yea so many in the New Testament alone observed by my Lord Usher that he durst not print them for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt We acknowledge there are several various readings but this speaks the greater security of this Rule because though all these
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
to be called so by their opposers would prove them Hereticks then when ever the truth hath any foul mouthed Adversary who would nick-name its Professors the truth it self must be owned for an Heresie but must the true holders of Christianity be called Hereticks because the Jews called them Nazarens Edomites Epicureans and the like The Montanists as we may learn from Tertullian called the true Christians Psychicos or carnal ones the Arians called them who held the Faith of Nice Homoousiasts Athanas Dial. de Trin. and Julian by a Law commanded Christians to be called Galilaeans Naz. Orat. 3. cont Julian But if he mean that they who call themselves by other names are Hereticks this is as vain a way of Trial as the former for though he intends it against Protestants who own that name of Catholick and account themselves such it will conclude for Hereticks all who own themselves Papists Jesuits Romanists Dominicans Jansenists Molinists and such like as much as Protestants § 3. He saith After a while the pretended Rule of Scriptures Letters self-sufficiency is thrown by as useless Children are taught that they are to believe their Pastors and Fathers and to guide themselves by their sense in reading Scripture which is the very way Catholicks ever took If any follow their own judgement and differ from the Reformers these if they have power will oblige them to act which if conscientiously is to hold as they do else they will punish and persecute them which shews that it is not the letter of Gods word but these mens interpretations which is thought fit to guide to Faith whence he saith follow self-contradictions But is this the farther description of an Heretick to reject the pretended Rule of Scripture when most Hereticks never pretended it to be a Rule some went in this Discoursers way of Tradition as was shewed Disc 4. n. 15 and shall be further shewed in answer to his Authorities Almost all if not all Hereticks in the first Ages of the Church rejected Scripture Eusebius Hist Eccl. lib. 3. c. 28. notes that Cerinthus a notorius Heretick was an enemy to the Scriptures of God Origen in the end of lib. 5. contra Cels observes that the Ebionites of both sorts rejected the Epistles of S. Paul and Euseb Hist Eccl. 3. c. 27. saith they esteemed none of the Gospels but that which was called the Gospel according to the Hebrews they received Yea it was the Charge which the Catholick Christians laid against the Hereticks condemned by the four first General Councils that they would not hearken to the Scriptures nor reverence them as shall in due place appear This S. Austin oft condemns in the Manichees and chargeth some Donatists coâ—â—r Fulgentium Donatist with burning the Gospels as things to be rased out and Athanasius Epist ad Orthodox testifies that the Arians did burn the Books of the holy Scripture which they found in the Church But however he hath a design in this 3. § to shew that the followers of Hereticks under which name he chiefly intends Protestants do in practice disown the Scripture rule as insufficient and close with and build upon the way of Tradition whence he would make evident that by the common acknowledgement of all men no other way of receiving the Doctrine of Faith can be owned but this only I shall here shew in what he criminates Protestants to be false but before I come to answer on the behalf of Protestants to the things here charged on them and the self-contradictions pretended for though he talks of Heresie in this Discourse it is easie to observe his only aim is not at Hereticks but at Protestants that is at truly Catholick Christians I shall observe that what he hath declared in this Paragraph is a very effectual way to shew Oral Tradition no Rule of Faith nor so much as a probable way to discern truth for if they who desert Tradition or Doctrines delivered by it may require their Children to guide themselves by their sense if this be possible as indeed it is and this Discourser here asserts as much it can never be demonstrated that this hath not been the practice of the present Romish Church and that many things now delivered as truths in their way of Tradition were not Heresies or errors broached by some mens fancies in a former Generation who required their Children to follow their sense Yea besides this if it be the general way of Heresie as this Authour here asserts to promote their Heretical tenets in the way of Oral Tradition it will be beyond the skill of this Authour unless he shall retract this description of Heresie to give the least assurance to any reasonable men that the Roman Church which goes on in the way of Oral Tradition is not upon this account of Tradition to be much suspected of holding Heresies Yea it will hence also the more effectually follow that it is impossible that Hereticks should be discerned from the holders of the true Faith if there were no other Rule to discover this but Oral Tradition since this Discourser asserts that this very Rule Hereticks generally close with in the propagation of Heresie at a distance from its first original Yea and it will tend much to the justifying of the followers of Protestants if it shall appear that they go not in the way of Tradition which this Authour hath assured us is the constant way the followers of all Hereticks run into See both his § 3. and § 5. I answer now to this 3. § that Protestants do not at all throw aside the Scripture Letters Self-sufficiency as a Rule I suppose this Discourser cannot be ignorant that while we own Scripture a Rule of Faith we acknowledge the necessary and principal Doctrines thereof to be so clear and intelligible in Scripture that they may without actual error be comprized in some form of sound words such as are Creeds Confessions of Faith Articles Catechisms or the like and we do acknowledge and assert these truths even so many as are necessary to the Salvation of all the adult in the Church to be infallibly evident to the judgements and understandings of men from the fulness and plainness of their proposal in Scripture Protestants will require Children to receive such things as these as certain truths from the Pastors or Parents not because they are from their Fathers or Teachers but because they are things certainly by them discerned to be in Scripture and till these Children are able to search and discern the same themselves their Parents or Teachers knowledge is a very considerable Motive to them to own such truths as clear in Scripture And this is a knowledge as certain as they are capable of until they come themselves to peruse and understand the Scripture yea it is certain enough to them to command their assent as certain as other things are which credible persons attest upon their eye-sight For in what I plainly discern I as surely know that I
do we disallow to others the grounds our selves proceed upon for we allow to all and commend in all their practice upon clear and well grounded Scripture-evidence but we neither allow our selves nor others to practise upon ungrounded pretences of Scripture being on our side The Third pretended contradiction is To pretend first the Scriptures Letter clear of it self without needing the Church to interpret it and afterwards to judge the followers of it to their best power to go wrong that is to confess it obscure and to need their new Church's interpretation But Protestants do assert that in all necessary Doctrines the evidence of Scripture is so clear that it needs no interpretation nor can they be denied but by preferring interest passion or some other sond conceptions above evidence and this is to forsake Scripture but in many other things they who do not discern the evidence of Scripture may err though they follow it to their best power but notwithstanding this Scripture is sufficiently clear in the evidence it gives of all Divine revealed truth to them who do discern its evidence though men be confessed to be men and many of them not capable of full understanding many truths His Fourth contradiction charged on Hereticks but designed for Protestants is that they persecute others for taking that way which they held at least pretended meritorious in themselves in which charge as the thing intended is palpably false concerning Protestants so the language he useth agreeth not to them The Fifth pretended contradiction is to oblige others to relinquish the sole guidance of Scriptures Letter and to rule themselves by their Tradition and at the same time against Catholicks to impugn Tradition as unfit to sense it and abet only the self-sufficiency of Scriptures Letter The former clause here charged on Protestants is no way their practice for though in matters prudential they require inferiours to be ruled by the commands of their Superiours which both Scripture and the Government of all Societies in the World require yet in matters of Faith they require that men receive them only from Scripture as the Rule of Faith or the main ground of belief Nor are any Protestants in any case commanded to relinquish Scripture as a Rule of Faith and to rule themselves by Tradition more than if in a Corporation a member who cannot read hath his duty read to him by another out of the Charter or told him in words with great care collected out of the Charter to express its sense this should be called a commanding this man as a member of this Society to relinquish the sole guidance of the Charter as his Rule and to be ruled by others Tradition when he follows the Charter by the best evidence he hath concerning it and relies not on a delivery of continued hearsaies report and fame which is a way suitable to the Romish Oral Tradition As to the latter part of this pretended Contradiction which concerns the impugning Tradition as unfit to sense Scripture if this be understood of the present way of Romish Oral Tradition this indeed we do so impugn But if this be understood of the Ancient and Primitive Tradition Protestants do acknowledge this so far as it can be manifested to be general to be very fit to sense such Scriptures as are otherwise difficult and obscure and so far as we have any intimations of such Traditions by the Ancient Fathers we own them useful The last pretended contradiction is To impute that carriage as a fault to our Romish Church which themselves practice and which is most material our Church punishes none but those who desert our Rule but they punish for too close following their Rule All the clauses of this charge are guilty of deserting the Rule of Truth For Protestants who fault this Traditionary way do not practise this Tradition as hath been above shewed nor do Protestants punish any for following Scripture too close as hath been evidenced The middle clause is likewise untrue for if he mean that the Romish Church never punisheth any who pretend to hold to the Tradition they received according to the best of their knowledge how came it to pass that Victor excommunicated all the Asian Churches for not keeping Easter the same day with the Roman Church though these Asian Churches pleaded a certain Tradition not only from their famous Bishops but from Philip the Deacon and his Daughters which were Prophetesses and from S. John the Apostle and Evangelist Eus Hist Eccl. 5. c. 24. Yea how came Mr. White to be censured at Rome who thought he defended the Rule of Tradition yea how came Monsieur Arnold to be so troubled by the Jesuits in France even for the using those words which he received from S. Austin a famous and approved Father But if he only mean that the Church of Rome punisheth none but such as swerve some way from the Traditions she delivers this if true in it self is nothing that can truly be called most material it being neither pertinent to his charge against Protestants nor considerable in it self since it only speaks the Church of Rome commendable in not punishing those who believe every thing it saies and practise every thing it commands and was there ever any Society in the World that in this thing was not as commendable as the Church of Rome But when he here tells us their Church punisheth none but those who desert the Rule she recommends surely he much forgat himself § 5. where speaking of Hereticks he saith that the deserters of the natural way of Tradition have been but few and the Descendents of these Revolters followed Tradition for either he must say that their Church punisheth no Descendents of Revolters as he calls them that is allows all Heresies in any but the first Authours of them or else must acknowledge that it punisheth them whom himself accounts and there as he thinks proves that they are not deserters of Tradition § 4. He asks What can follow hence but that Subjects whom common sense cannot but make exceeding sensible of such unreasonable carriage in persecuting them purely for following Gods word which themselves had taught them they ought in conscience to follow should strive to wreak their malice against their Persecutors and to involve whole Nations in War and Blood but he after adds he intends not a justification of those revolting Sects But it cannot be that common sense nor any rational evidence should teach Subjects under Protestant Princes that they are persecuted purely for following Gods Word since there is no such thing in truth they can no otherwise think it is so but by evident mistakes or by such deluding perswasions as this Authour would deceive them with And indeed such pernicious incentives as these of this Discourser may possibly if they meet with fiery and malicious spirits inflame them into a Rebellion and withal shew what Principles may be instilled by pretenders to Tradition But such is the peaceableness
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times
exceeding fully declared his opinion for the Scripture being the Rule of Faith 1. He cites S. Austin contra Epist Manich. quam vocant Fundamenti in which he brings in the Manichee c. 14. saying That he doth not promise any perfect Science but such things are shewed to him and that they to whom they are told ought to believe him in those things which they know not To which he answers If I must believe things unknown then follow the words this Authour refers to Why should I not rather believe those things that are now celebrated by the consent of learned and unlearned and are confirmed amongst all people by most grave Authority Here he prefers the consent and fame of the Church before that of the Manichee but this is far from making it a Rule of Faith but only maketh it the more considerable motive and yet in those things wherein learned and unlearned consent Scripture may be their Rule to believe them And S. Austin declares Ep. 3. that there are obvious things in Scripture which it speaks to the heart both of the learned and unlearned What he next adds as spoken in the same Book by S Austin The Authority of the Catholick Church is of force to cause Faith and assurance which Authority from the best established seats of the Apostles even to this very day is strengthned by the series of Bishops succeeding them and by the assertion of so many Nations These words I find not in that Treatise He indeed there saith c. 5. That he had not believed the Gospel if the Authority of the Catholick Church had not moved him whence it may be inferred that he makes the Authority of the Catholick Church sufficient to cause Faith as a Motive to it and indeed this is all can be inferred from these words here cited And yet it is observable that the Authority of the Catholick Church which was so great a Motive to S. Austin did not confine it self to the present Church but included the Primitive Church whence c. 3. he calls it an Authority begun by Miracles nourished by hope increased by Charity and confirmed by Antiquity His last testimony from S. Austin is I think mis-cited as to the place but the words are but not in Ep. 58. which is not S. Austins The faithful do possess perseveringly a Rule of Faith common to little and great in the Church But why may not this be the Scripture can it not be common to little and great according to S. Austin's language Who tells us Ep. 3. By the Scriptures bad understandings are corrected little ones are nourished and great ones are delighted That S. Austin makes the Scripture a Rule of Faith I might very largely shew though I suppose a few expressions may suffice Ep. 157. Where the thing by nature obscure is above our capacity and the Divine Scriptures doth not plainly afford its assistance here humane conjecture rashly presumes to determine any thing And if we would have the word Rule he saith De bono Viduitatis Wherefore should I teach thee any thing more than what we read in the Apostle for the holy Scripture fixeth the Rule of our Doctrine lest we should attempt to know more than we ought to know De Civ Dei lib. 13. c. 18. The City of God believeth the holy Scriptures both Old and New which we call Canonical from thence Faith it self is conceived out of which the just man liveth I will yet add only one testimony more De literis Petiliani Lib. 3. c. 6. If any one I will not say if we no way to be compared to him who said Though we but as in the following words he added If an Angel from Heaven should preach unto you either concerning Christ or his Church or any other thing which belongs to our Faith or Life besides what you have received in the Legal and Evangelical Scriptures let him be accursed But enough now of this famous Father SECT XVII What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith THe last Father referred to by our Discourser is Petrus Chrysologus from whom he only cites one testimony Serm. 85. where speaking of Festivals from those words in S. John 7. At the midst of the Feast Jesus went up into the Temple he saith A Christian mind knows not how in desperationem deducere a harsh phrase which this Discourser seems to read disputationem and so translates to bring into dispute but I rather think it should be despicationem to bring into contempt those things which are strengthned by the Tradition of the Fathers and by time it self But however we read it this being spoken of Festivals speaks nothing concerning the delivery of Doctrines But I will see if I can meet with something that will speak his mind as to the Rule of Faith In his 99. Serm. of the Parable of the Leaven The Woman who took the Leaven is the Church the Leaven is the Mystery of Heavenly Doctrine the three measures in which it s said she hid the Leaven are the Law the Prophets and the Gospels where the Divine sense is hid and covered by the mystical word that it is not hid from the Believer but is hid from the unbeliever Serm. 112. upon Rom. 5. Concerning Original sin he saith This day the Apostles speech did fully give in it self with apparent light to the sense of them who heard it nor did it leave any thing doubtful to Catholick minds Serm. 18. upon 1 Cor. 15. He saith Lest any one should dare to doubt of the Resurrection of the Dead we have caused this day to be read to you the large Lesson of blessed Paul asserting it by his authority and by examples to which our Sermon can find nothing that it can add Now that where all matters of Divine Faith are contained and which gives clear light concerning matters of Faith yea so fully that nothing can be added and removes all doubts concerning matters of Faith all which he asserts concerning Scriptures must needs be a Rule of Faith I have now done with the Fathers and discovered that all those he chose to be of his side have disowned his opinion and fixed upon that Scriptural Rule of Faith which Protestants own SECT XVIII Answering the remainder of his Discourse BUT because § 15. he supposeth he hath there given a few notes which will make all testimonies of Fathers for Scripture against Tradition lose their edge I will examine them His first Note is That in almost all his citations of Councils and Fathers they speak directly against Hereticks which puts them to declare what fixed them Catholicks Now from this first Note since I have shewed that in all such places they own Scripture for the Rule of Faith the citations to that purpose are the more firm for Scripture His second Note is to consider Whether when Fathers speak highly of Scripture as that it contains all Faith c. whether they speak of Scripture sensed or as yet to
be sensed Truly if he be a man of reason he will easily see that when the Fathers urge Scriptures as manifestly declaring the truth against their opposers who as yet disown the sense or to Doubters who do not yet own it fully they must needs mean the Scriptures without any sense imposed upon them otherwise than as the words will of themselves discover the sense of him who wrote them For this would be a weak way to dispute from Scriptures as the Fathers generally did with them who owned them if they should say we will evidence it from Scriptures but you must then first suppose them to mean as we mean By this means the Scripture can give no evidence or light to any truth in question which is contrary to the whole current of our citations from the Fathers The third Note is That it is frequent with the Fathers to force Hereticks to accept the sense of Scripture from those who gave them the Letter of Scripture and frequent to sense the Letter even when dark by Tradition but never to bend Tradition to the outward shew of the Letter As to the first clause of urging upon Hereticks the sense which they own from whom they received the Letter The Fathers never urged this but in some special case when Hereticks such as Valentinian and some others who could scarce be called receivers of the Scripture-Letter disowned the known and common significations of words in Scriptures and introduced wonderful strange ones Here to preserve the Faithful confirm the Doubtful and reduce the wandring they urged the Churches Authority or Ecclesiastical Tradition of Doctrines and common delivery of significations of words as more considerable than such sensibly monstrous innovations yet this was in things where to men unprejudiced and willing to receive truth they would appear plainly from the very words of Scripture And this is consistent if there were the like cause with the Principles of Protestants as with any others In other cases the Fathers urged against the Hereticks evident arguments from the light of Scripture-Letter Nor did they sense Scripture by Tradition in hard Texts of Scripture otherwise than Protestants will do that is where any assertion is known to be a point of Faith and surely grounded upon Scripture neither they nor we will so interpret any dark Scripture as to oppose such a point of Faith and in many other things will allow Tradition its degree of authority But that they never bent Tradition to Scriptures Letter is very untrue When any truly Catholick Doctrine held by the Church was questioned or impugned was not Tradition bent to Scriptures Letter when they applyed themselves to it to declare and manifest such Doctrine Which was the general practice of the Ancients as hath been shewed But would they ever so bend Tradition to Scripture as to close with Scripture in rejecting Tradition If that which is delivered by Catholick Bishops be a Tradition S. Austin de Vnitate Eccles c. 10. sayes We must not consent with Catholick Bishops if they think any thing against the Scriptures of God But did ever any of the Ancient Fathers say that we must not agree with Scripture if it speaks against what the Bishops who are called Catholick do deliver His last Note is a very vain and empty one That they cannot hold Scripture thus interpretable the Rule of Faith because most Hereticks against whom they wrote held it theirs and therefore could not be Hereticks since they held the Rule But first those Hereticks who pretended to own Scripture who were not the most did not perfectly hold the same Rule with Catholicks who held to Scripture as their Rule The Catholicks Rule is Scripture as the words will naturally hold forth the true and genuine sense but the Rule of Hereticks who pretended to Scripture is Scripture as the words are wilfully perverted contrary to their natural and plain sense and meaning But again why may not they be Hereticks who profess to hold the Rule of Faith if they take no heed to be guided by that Rule and reject Doctrines declared by it cannot reason be a Rule in Philosophy because two parties both pretend to reason I have now dismissed his testimonies In the last place he undertakes to shew That the Council of Trent and the present Church of Rome own this way of Oral and Practical Tradition Now though I could shew that in the present Church of Rome where this Author pretends so great a clearness of Tradition they are not yet agreed upon the first principle of Traditionary Doctrine Yet since I have enough shewed the dissent of this his opinion from the truth and the Ancient Church and therefore if they all were of this Authors opinion it will neither make any thing for their own Doctrine nor against the Protestants I will for my part let him injoy the fruit of his labours in this particular fearing most that Papists will indeavour in this point to deal with Protestants as we above observed that the Arians did with the ancient Catholicks that is like Chamaelions change their shape and when they were confuted in one way they opposed the truth in another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 SERMONS PREACHED UPON Several Occasions BY WILLIAM FALKNER D.D. A SERMON Preached at Lyn-St Margaret's at the Bishop's VISITATION Octob. 15. 1677. 2 COR. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation THAT the Christian Religion is of mighty Efficacy for the reforming the World is not only evinced from the Nature of the Doctrine it self but from that visible Difference which appeared between the Lives of the true Primitive Christians and other Men insomuch that Eusebius tells us Hist Eccles l. 2. c. 13. gr that Christianity became greatly fam'd every where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Purity of Life in them who embraced it But as no sick Man can rationally expect any Relief against his Distemper by the Directions of the best Physicians unless he will observe them So it is not to be wondred if many who own the Name of Christianity without sincere submission thereto have Lives unsuitable to this Profession Hence some of them practise open Viciousness Looseness and Debauchery and others embrace Pride Uncharitableness and Disobedience all which are diametrically opposite to the Spirit of Christ Hence also many who pretend an high respect to the Holy Jesus do slight his peculiar Institution◠undervaluing the Use even of that Prayer which our Lord composed and enjoined the Communion of that Catholick Church which he founded and built upon a Rock the Attendance upon that Holy Sacrament which he appointed the Night he was betrayed and the Reverence for that Ministry which he hath established in his Church and the Benefit of which these Words in part declare in that God hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation In which Words I shall consider I. The Nature and Excellency of this Ministry in general without respect to the distinction of its
in the Church of Rome are such as deserve severe Censure and a note of infamy Sect. 1. The Romish Church and its Doctrines and the putting them in practice is chargeable with great disturbances mischievous to the peace and order of the World p. 141 Sect. 2. The Doctrines maintained in the Church of Rome and the Constitutions therein established are great hindrances to holiness of life and true devotion in Religion and comply very far with Wickedness and Debauchery p. 159 Sect. 3. Those Doctrines and Practices are publickly declared and asserted in the Church of Rome and are by the Authority thereof established which are highly derogatory to the just honour and dignity of our Saviour p. 186 Sect. 4. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God p. 214 Sect. 5. Integrity too much neglected and Religion so ordered and modelled by many Doctrines and Practices in the Church of Rome as to represent a contrivance of deceit Interest and Policy p. 241 CHAP. III. Of our Dissenters where some of the different sorts of them are first particularly considered and then follows a more general consideration of them jointly Sect. 1. Of Quakers p. 262 Sect. 2. Of the Fifth Monarchy men and the Millenary Opinion p. 275 Sect. 3. Of Anabaptists p. 279 Sect. 4. Of Independents p. 292 An Answer to Mr. Serjeant's Discourse Intituled Sure-Footing in Christianity THE first Discourse examined shewing what properties belong to the Rule of Faith p. 321 Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 330 An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture p. 349 An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture p. 367 An Answer to the fifth Discourse inquiring into Tradition and shewing that none of the Properties of the Rule of Faith agree to it p. 383 An Answer to his sixth Discourse shewing that he hath given neither Demonstration nor probable Reason to manifest Tradition indefectible à priori p. 404 An Answer to his seventh Discourse concerning Heresie p. 416 An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori p. 433 An Answer to his ninth Discourse shewing that the way of Oral Tradition in the Church hath not so much strength as other matters of Humane Authority p. 451 Answer to his Corollaries p. 460 An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse p. 468 Sect. 1. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures p. 469 Sect. 2. What the Synod of Lateran owned for the Rule of Faith p. 473 Sect. 3. Of the Council of Sardica and what it owned as the Rule of Faith p. 476 Sect. 4. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by the second Council of Nice p. 478 Sect. 5. What were the grounds of the Catholick Faith asserted against Arianism in and at the time of the first Nicene Council p. 484 Sect. 6. What was received as the Rule of Faith at the time of the second General Council at Constantinople p. 486 Sect. 7. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the third General Council at Ephesus p. 487 Sect. 8. What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon p. 489 Sect. 9. Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine p. 491 Sect. 10. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus p. 492 Sect. 11. What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith p. 497 Sect. 12. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian p. 501 Sect. 13. What Clemens Alexandrinus held as the Rule of Faith p. 506 Sect. 14. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by Athanasius p. 507 Sect. 15. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil p. 510 Sect. 16. What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith p. 512 Sect. 17. What Petrus Chrysologus owned as the Rule of Faith p. 515 Sect. 18. Answering the remainder of his Discourse p. 516 Sermons Preached upon several Occasions A Sermon Preached at Lyn S. Margaret 's at the Bishop's Visitation Octob. 15. 1677. on 2 Cor. 5.18 And hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation p. 523 A Sermon Preached at Norwich March 2. 1678. on Joel 2.12 Therefore also now saith the Lord Turn ye even to me with all your heart p. 555 A Sermon Preached on S. Matth. 5.20 For I say unto you That except your Righteousness shall exceed the Righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven p. 577 OF REPROACHING AND CENSURE The First Part Concerning the irregular Excesses and great Sinfulness of uncharitable evil-speaking especially of Superiours CHAP. I. Some preparatory considerations concerning the evil of Reproaching 1. REligion hath that general influence upon the life of the pious man that it commands and governs his thoughts and affections his words and actions But where the true rules of piety are neglected very many indulge themselves in great disorder and miscarriages in every one of these particulars Among other things a strange licentious liberty is taken by no small number of men in speaking injuriously and casting reproaches and unreasonable censures upon others contrary to the rules of our Christian profession yea even upon men of the best principles and the best lives and not sparing our Rulers and Governours in Church and State 2. And this evil temper hath so far insinuated it self Evil speaking a vice dangerously prevailing at this time and is become so spreading and so open and manifest that I account it one of the prevailing vices of our dayes And when men are ashamed to own many other sinful practices or to shew any approbation of them as of drunkenness swearing uncleanness oppression and such like uncharitable speeches of others are entertained with a secret delight and pleasure and oft with open expressions of satisfaction And this shews the great defilement of this sin which not only prevails on the passions and affections by corrupting and disordering them but it also debaucheth and perverteth the very inward principles of Conscience it self I wish that with respect to very many persons we had not now just cause to take up the complaint of (a) Naz. Or. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it ought to be reproved and checked Gr. Nazianzen concerning the time he lived in That that man was best esteemed of not he who being governed by the fear of God durst not speak an idle word but he who speaketh the most contumeliously against others either openly or by sly intimations 3. And therefore I shall now design to speak
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
common understanding would easily discern 26. Yet where there is only a bare pretence and noise about the common good without the reall thing this is oft a popular artifice to raise a clamour and odium against such persons towards whom the contrivers of this pretence have disrespect but an outward pretence of common good will sute ill designs And thus it hath happened in very many cases This was the method and artifice that Corah made use of against Moses who charged him with having already done much hurt and mischief to Israel and being far from doing them that good he pretended and that he intended to tyrannize and lord it over them thereby to exalt himself and that this was so evident a thing their eyes must be put out if they did not see it Numb 16.13 14. Now nothing could be more unreasonable than to imagine such things as these to be true concerning Moses who had brought them out of bondage under whose conduct they had passed through the red Sea had received the law spoken by a voice from Heaven on Mount Sinai and written by God himself on the two tables of Stone and were constantly fed with Manna from Heaven in the Wilderness And yet this strange accusation being a popular thing and seeming to espouse the interest of the whole Congregation greatly prevailed amongst them against Moses 27. The like calumny was in the first ages of Christianity The primitive Christians were accounted publick enemies charged upon all Christians in general that they were the cause of all the publick troubles that befel the World And though this was so exceeding manifestly contrary to their Religion yet because this charge was apt to provoke the rage of the people against them it was oft insisted upon and much urged by the enemies of Christianity for many Ages When the Goths under Alaricus had sacked and wasted Rome the Pagans charged the Christian Religion to be the occasion of that calamity whereupon S. Austin being inflamed with a zeal for God wrote his Books de Civitate Dei as a defence and vindication of Christianity from that calumny as (f) Aug. Retrac l. 2. de Civ Dei l. 1. c. 1. himself testifieth And to confute the like general slander upon all occasions prevailing among the Gentiles Orosius wrote his Books of History by the perswasion of S. Austin designing therein especially (g) Oros Histor Praef. ad Aug. to give an account of the various calamities which had befallen the World in those ages and parts thereof where Christianity had not prevailed and been received And Tertullian acquaints us that in his time if any thing whatsoever happened in the World contrary to its general welfare flourishing and prosperity the general cry among the Pagans presently was (h) Tert. Apol. c. 4. Christianos ad leonem that the Christians should be devoured by being exposed to the Lion that thereby the cause of common miseries might be removed by their destruction And (i) Cont. Cels l. 3. p. 120. Origen speaks much to the same purpose 28. And such have frequently been the unaccountable censures and outcries against the most excellent and deserving persons as if they were the enemies to the general welfare of the people among whom they lived But nothing could be more unjust and unreasonable than to imagine any such thing as this in the case of our blessed Saviour If instructing men in the truth and the right ways of Religion and the will of God if promoting well-doing and the practice of piety if the taking care of the things that please God and make him their friend and if the exercises of humility meekness peace and love be the way to ruin and destroy a Nation then might our Saviour and his Religion be the occasion of the ruin of Kingdoms and so may also his Ministers and the Clergy that follow his steps But in truth it was the Jews opposing him and his Doctrine which was the cause of their ruine Our Lord with tears and compassion foretold their misery because they knew not the time of their visitation Luk. 19.43 44. And after they had rejected the counsel of God and bid defiance to his Anointed and gratified their malice in Crucifying the Lord of life that God who according to his especial promise had whilst they served him kept their enemies from desiring their land at the time when all their Males went up to serve him Exod. 34.24 which might seem to leave all the other parts of Judea destitute of any defence he now suffered the Romans to invade them and shut them up (*) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 5. at the time of the Pass-over at which time they Crucified our Lord and to destroy them But had they hearkened to our Saviour they had thereby every way taken care of their common good he would not only have saved their souls from destruction but also have preserved their City and would have gathered Jerusalem as an hen gathereth her chickens under her wings but they would not and therefore their house was left desolate Mat. 23.37 38. And in other cases it is easie to apprehend how much they act against the true publick interest The promoters of this censure are really enemies to the common good who are the fomenters of such reproaches against them who are faithful in the land as if they were the chief opposers of its good It is obvious to every eye that if an enemy can prevail so far by his subtilty as to persuade a people that those men who truly are the best and wisest Commanders are persons who resolve to destroy their Army and comply with their enemies and hereupon they are laid aside upon presumption that it is not safe to trust them he hath done much of his work and gone a great way towards the obtaining a conquest over them by first prevailing upon their indiscretion and unjust jealousie and suspicion 29. Fourthly 4. The best men are also accused of ill designs against Governours They accused our Saviour that he was no friend to Caesar but one who stood up against him And therefore they told Pilate Joh. 19.12 If thou let this man go thou art not Caesars friend whosoever maketh himself a King speaketh against Caesar Now to oppose Government is a great Crime and the nature of the Rulers authority and the commands of God require honour reverence and obedience to be yielded thereto Princes and Magistrates are sometimes in Scripture called Gods and that precept of the Law Exod 22.28 Thou shalt not revile the Gods is in the Margent of our Translation referred to rulers and Judges and so it is expressed in (k) Vers Syr. Arab. Pers ch paraphr Nothing is more unreasonable than this charge was against our Saviour many other Translations nor can it well be understood as some would have it of the Gentile Deities which ought to be detested 30. But though this charge was openly pleaded
an act of detestation of sin in which he hath no thought of his future course of life But this notion of Contrition I shall not pursue nor yet those others in their Casuistical Writers whereby they very rarely allow such affirmative precepts as that great one of loving God to oblige us to exercise any act of love to him which is much consequent upon their usual assertions concerning Attrition For my intention is to wave many things declared by considerable Doctors and mainly to insist on those which have the publick allowance and establishment of the Church 10. Secondly Another obstacle to a pious life 2. Of their prohibiting the common use of the Scriptures which I shall consider is the debarring the people of the best guide and help to piety which is the use of the Holy Scriptures The Divine Scriptures are by the Fathers oft called the Letters and Messages which God sends to men to invite them to him and guide them in their way and then surely they to whom and for whom they are sent ought to know and read them both out of Reverence to God and out of respect to themselves (n) de Tempore Serm. 112. S. Austin observes this double benefit in reading the holy Scriptures that they teach us knowledge and right understanding and that they carry men off from the vanities of the world unto the love of God and observes how greatly efficacious they are to the promoting piety in very great numbers and that they were designed for our Salvation 11. The Scriptures greatly promote piety These Scriptures were written by the inspiration of God and contain the sure rule for Faith and Life and were so accounted of in the ancient Church Herein is comprized the Will and Counsel of God declared by the Holy Ghost himself And the precepts and holy rules there proposed the promises declared the threatnings denounced the judgements executed on the disobedient and the blessings bestowed on the obedient are great incitements to piety and are of the greater force and weight as they are contained in the Scriptures because the Divine Authority goes along with every one of them And the end for which they were written is for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope Rom. 15.4 And the punishments there recorded which were inflicted on evil doers were for ensamples and written for our admonition 1 Cor. 10.11 These holy Books the Primitive Christians were not denied the use of and they so highly esteemed this priviledge that rather than they would deliver up these Books to their persecutors the best Christians chose to undergo the utmost torments and sufferings and of such (o) Baron Annal. Ecc. An. 302. n. 22. Baronius observes that there was numerus prope infinitus eorum qui ne codices sacros traderent lubentissimo animo mortem oppetiverunt almost an infinite number of those who with the greatest readiness of mind chose death rather than to deliver up the Holy Books And they who did deliver them were accounted grievous offenders and called Traditores the name given to Judas who betrayed our Lord and of these as (p) Advers Parm. l. 1. Optatus saith there were many of all ranks both Laicks and Clergy 12. The use of the Scriptures is of such excellent advantage to promote piety and the happiness of men that the Psalmist under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit declares the blessed and good man to delight himself in the law of the Lord and to meditate therein day and night Psal 1.2 And this makes him so to increase and be fruitful in good works that v. 3. he is resembled to a tree planted by the rivers of water which brings forth his fruit in due season And the excellent use of this Divine Law is described Psal 19 7-11 in converting the soul making wise the simple and other great benefits Yea they are of such manifold and compleat use for the good of man that the Apostle declares them able to make one wise unto Salvation and to be profitable for doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished to every good work 2 Tim. 3.15 16 17. And they have that mighty efficacy to prevail on the hearts and consciences of men that our Lord acquaints us that they who would not hear Moses and the Prophets would not be perswaded though one arose from the dead Luke 16.31 13. But the Romish Church prohibits the use of the Scripture to the generality of their Communion as is manifest from the Index of prohibited Books (q) Conc. Trident Sess ult prope sin which was ordered by the Council of Trent and was compleated about the end of that Council but the confirmation thereof was referred to the Pope by the Decree of that Council and it was approved by the Authority of Pius the Fourth In this (r) Indic Reg. 4. How far vulgar Translations are prohibited in the Roman Church Index it is declared That since it is manifest by experience that if the Holy Bible in the Vulgar Tongue be permitted generally without distinction there would thence from the rashness of men more hurt arise than advantage in this matter it must be left to the judgement of the Bishop or Inquisitor that with the advice of the Parish Priest or Confessor he may grant to them the reading of the Bible in the Vulgar Tongue translated by Catholick Authors whom they shall understand may receive by such reading not hurt but increase of faith and piety which faculty they should have in writing But whosoever without such a faculty shall presume to read or to have them may not obtain the absolution of their sins unless they first deliver their Bibles to the Ordinary And then follows the penalty of the Bookseller who shall sell or otherwise procure such Bibles to them who have not a faculty And from this Index the substantial part of this rule is expressed in (Å¿) Panstrat Cath. Tom. 1. l. 10. c. 1. Chamier and somewhat more at large in the Book of t Jacobus Ledesima the Jesuit (e) Ledes c. 15. De scripturis divinis quavis lingua non legendis and is mentioned in some English Writers It is therefore condemned as a very heinous and mortal crime without all these cautions to have or read a Bible in the Vulgar tongue though it be in a version of their own And if it be considered how liable to censure and dislike the use of such Bibles are in the Romish Communion as their own Writers declare it may thence be concluded that many zealous Papists will be backward to desire any such thing which others must not expect to obtain And upon further consideration of what difficulties may be expected in the gaining this faculty and the procuring the consent of those by whose authority and with whose advice it must be obtained any reasonable man
thing concerning Christ or his Church or any matter of faith or rule of Christian life which is not contained in the Scriptures But there was nothing taught in the Apostolical Doctrine to assert or give any countenance to the Popes infallibility or his Universal Supremacy to the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass to the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints and many other things now delivered as points de fide in the Church of Rome of which divers are mentioned in this Chapter And these new matters of faith have so altered and changed the ancient Christian Religion that with these mixtures it is very unlike what was declared by Christ and his Apostles 35. The Council of Trent declares their (n) Sess 4. c. 1. All these under the name of Traditions made equal with the Scripture receiving the holy Scripture and their Traditions to be pari pietatis affectu reverentia with the like pious affection and reverence Indeed it calls these Traditions such as were from the mouth of Christ or were dictated by the Holy Ghost and received in the Catholick Church But since after their declaring thus much and expressing the Canon of the Scripture with the additional Books received in the Romish Church they tell us that this was done that all men might know what foundation they would proceed on in their confirming Doctrines and reforming manners it is manifest that all Doctrines of Faith or practice delivered in that Council which are not contained in the Scriptures are reputed to be such Traditions as are of equal authority with the Scriptures And in the (o) Form Juram an 1564. Bull of Pius the Fourth many of these Doctrines are particularly expressed and in the end of it an hearty acceptance is declared of all things defined in the Council of Trent and it is added that this is the true Catholick faith extra quam nemo salvus esse potest out of which no man can be saved And this all who have cure of souls and preferments in the Church must own by their solemn Oath and Vow And yet how little that Council in its Decisions kept to the true Rules of Catholick Tradition is sufficiently evident from what they at this very time declared concerning the Canon of the Scripture for their taking into the Canon several of those Books which we account Apocryphal hath been plainly proved by Bishop Cosins to be contrary to the Vniversal Tradition of the Church 36. And if no man may with honesty and above it add any thing to a mans Deed or Covenant as if it were contained therein how great a crime is it to deal thus with Gods Covenant But the Church of Rome not only equals her Traditions containing many new points of Faith with the Scriptures and what is the true Christian Doctrine but it really sets them above the Holy Scriptures though they be in many things contrary thereunto For they make Tradition such a Rule for the Scripture that it must signifie no more than Tradition will allow Sect. IV. And to this purpose their (p) In Bull. pii 4. Clergy swear to admit the Scriptures according to that sense which the holy Mother the Church hath held and doth hold who is to judge of the true sense of Scripture And hereby they mean the Church of Rome there called the Mother of all Churches SECT IV. Of the publick allowance or injunction of such things amongst the Papists as either debase the Majesty of God or give divine honour to something else besides God THose things deserve to be condemned as greatly evil which debase the Majesty of God or deprive him of that peculiar Glory and Worship which is due to him alone and they who practise or uphold such things ought to be esteemed as evil doers in an high degree Honour which in a suitable measure belongs to every Superior as to a Father or a Prince in the highest measure of it is proper to God and that reverence which is due to him is necessary to be reserved solely for him both from the rules of Justice and Piety and also because God is in this respect a Jealous God 2. 1. Images of the Deity are used by the Papists But First It is an abasing the Majesty of God to represent the glorious infinite and invisible God who is a pure Spirit by a material Image This is frequently and publickly practised in the Church of Rome and is there allowed and defended by many of its Writers (a) De Eccl. Triumph c. 8. Cardinal Bellarmine hath one Chapter on purpose to prove Non esse prohibitas-imagines Dei that Images of God are not prohibited and he cites Cajetan Catharinus and others as defending the same and one chief argument which he useth to prove this is Ex usu Ecclesiae from the usage of the Church And he there declares jam receptae sunt fere ubique ejusmodi imagines that now such Images are almost every where received and that it is not credible that the Church would universally tolerate any unlawful thing Where he also declares that these were approved both in the second Council of Nice and in the Council of Trent But the making an Image of the true God stands condemned in the holy Scriptures even in the Second Commandment against the Divine Law Thou shalt not make to thy self any Graven Image thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them And that the Divine Law doth not only forbid the Images of a false God or an inferiour Deity but such also as were intended to represent the true God is manifest from Deut. 4.15 16. Take good heed to your selves for you saw no manner of similitude in the day the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire lest ye corrupt your selves and make you a Graven Image the similitude of any figure or the likeness of Male or Female And this Command is the more to be considered because of that emphatical caution which is used by way of Preface thereto 3. It was one of the hainous sins which generally prevailed in the Pagan World that they changed the Glory of the Incorruptible God into an Image made like to corruptible Man and to Birds c. Rom. 1.23 This is agreeable to the Pagan practice And though I charge not the Roman Church with running parallel to the Pagan Idolatry yet this disparaging the Divine Being by setting up visible Images and Representations thereof and giving Worship to them under that relation was one of the great Miscarriages of the Gentiles and yet the chief part at least of the Gentiles did not think these very Images to be the proper Beings of their Gods For besides their acknowledgment of the Wisdom Purity Goodness and Power of the Deity which many Testimonies produced by Justin Martyr Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius and other Christian Writers do express there was also retained amongst them such Notions concerning the
Faith c. 24. n. 3. to promote and protect the profession of the Gospel and to take care that men of corrupt minds do not divulge Blasphemies and errors inevitably destroying the souls of them that receive them But in other cases such as differences about the waies of the worship of God they say there is no warrant for the Magistrate under the Gospel to abridge Christians of their liberty And when the Declaration of Faith in the Congregational Churches was the same with that of the Presbyterian Assembly except in such things as they thought fit to alter there were several things in the Chapters concerning liberty of Conscience and the Civil Magistrate there were divers expressions relating to the power of Secular Rulers in matters of Religion which they expunged Among others this was one (d) Assemb Confes c. 23. n. 4. It is his the Magistrates duty to take order that Vnity and Peace be preserved in the Church and all corruptions or abuses in Worship and Discipline prevented or reformed and all the Ordinances of God duly setled administred and observed And these things give intimations of disliking any Uform establishment of a setled Order in the Church confirmed and fixed by the Sanctions of the Secular Authority as a standing Rule to which the Members of the Church should conform themselves And one of their chief Writers hath declared himself against this with more than ordinary fierceness much exceeding the bounds of Christian sobriety which I think is but a mild expression for such violent words as if this were a grand part of Antichristianism He says (e) Dr. O. Of Evang. Love c. 3. p. 43. those who by ways of force would drive Christians into any other Vnion or agreement than their own light and duty will lead them into do what in them lies to oppose the whole design of the Lord Christ towards them and his rule over them Now to call the enacting any Uniform rules of Order and the establishing them under any Penalties the opposing the whole design of Christ and not only so but the doing it as much as in them lies as if this were equal to the persecutions of the Christian Name by the most furious of the Pagan Emperours is an expression which will easily appear to speak great passion but litle or no consideration 4. And not long after we are told among other things that for Christians (f) Ibid. p. 44 45. by external force to coerce or punish those who differ from them upon account of various apprehensions relating to the Worship of God or of any Schisms and divisions ensuing thereon is as foreign to the Gospel as to believe in Mahomet and not in Jesus Christ And now whither are we come and what do we hear or read that the care of Governours and the use of their Authority to maintain the peace and Union of the Church and the due order of Divine Worship and Service should be made to be parallel to the renouncing Christianity and imbracing Enthusiasm Surely this is such a speaking evil of Dignities and even for their pious care and zeal as Michael the Archangel durst not have undertaken But as all pious Princes under the Old Testament took care of the due order and establishment of Religion by their Authority and when the people did amiss as to worship in high-places or were guilty of other miscarriages in Religion this is in the Scripture charged as a fault upon the Prince and they were commended when they kept up a right method of Religion and particularly when they pulled down the high places I suppose it may be said by some that these high places were prohibited by the Divine Law but they ought also to consider besides what might be otherwise said that Schisms and Divisions are also plainly prohibited by the commands of God and the worshipping in high places was a sort of Schism And under the New Testament the power and duty of Rulers is declared to be for the punishing evil-doers and the praise of them that do well If therefore the disobeying the Divine precepts in a case where piety and charity thereby becomes neglected the interest of Religion weakened its friends grieved its enemies incouraged peace undermined and the glory of God hindred all which are contained in unwarrantable Schisms and Divisions I say if this be evil-doing the Secular Ruler is not only warranted by the Christian Doctrine but is obliged in duty to God duly to indeavour by his power to put a check thereto And this is that which the most pious Princes have been sensible of and careful to perform as appears by many Imperial Constitutions and practices and the Laws of other Kingdoms 5. But it is more particularly asserted by those of the Congregational way that a particular Congregation hath by the Institution of Christ such a power within it self that there is no other Ecclesiastical Authority whether of any more extensive part of the Church or of any Synods or of any other Superior Ecclesiastical Governour which hath any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over such a Congregation or the members thereof To this purpose they in New England declared (g) Answ to Q. 3. We do not know any visible Church of the New Testament properly so called but only a particular Congregation And they who met in the Assembly at the Savoy declared (h) Of the Instit of Churches n. 6. besides these particular Churches there is not instituted by Christ any Church more extensive or Catholick intrusted with power for the administration of his Ordinances or the executing any Authority in his name And herein this more general Assembly seem not to allow so much as some of them had before granted that against an offending Church persisting in its miscarriages (i) Apolog. Narrat the Churches offended may and ought to pronounce the heavy Sentence of renouncing all Christian Communion with them until they repent And concerning Synods and consequently the Canons of Councils we are told that (k) Of the Inst of Ch. n. 26. in Cases of difficulty and difference they allow Synods to consider and give advice but they are not intrusted with any Church-power properly so called or with any Jurisdiction over the Churches themselves to exercise any Censures either over any Churches or persons or to impose their determinations on the Churches or Officers And they of New England particularly denying any such Authority to Synods or Councils declare that (o) Answ to Qu. 18. Church Censures of Excommunication or the like belong to the particular Church of which an Offender is member out of the Communion whereof a man cannot be cast but only by his own Church Now from all this it is manifest that this is a great Principle of Independency that every particular Congregation and all the members thereof are exempt from all Superior Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction nor is there any higher church-Church-Authority appointed by Christ to which they ought to be
subject besides that of this particular Congregation 6. But First This is contrary to what the Holy Scriptures declare and all the ancient Churches of God agreeably thereto have practised concerning the right order and Government of the Church What is more evident in the Scriptures than that the several Churches of Christians were under the Authority and Government of the Apostles themselves which is sufficient to manifest that it was no Institution nor intendment of Christ that particular Churches should not be subject to any Superior Ecclesiastical Authority Nor was such Governing Authority peculiar to the Apostles themselves but was by them thought requisite to be committed to the care of others Hence for instance Titus was in Crete appointed by Saint Paul to ordain Elders in every City and to set in order the things which were wanting Tit. 1.5 and other expressions of his Governing or Episcopal power are contained in divers expressions of that Epistle But it must be a strange strength of imagination that can inable any man to conceive that when Crete was a Country almost three hundred miles in length and so greatly peopled that it was very anciently called Hecatompolis as having a hundred great places or Cities within its Territories and Titus was to ordain Elders in every City yet all these should make up but one particular Congregation unto which the power of Titus should be confined 7. And concerning the Authority of Councils it is manifest that upon occasion of some Judaizing Teachers disturbing the Christian Church at Antioch the Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. met together and gave their authoritative decision concerning Circumcision and other Jewish Rites not to be imposed on the Gentile Christians any further than they particularly injoined This may well be called a General Council since it not only pronounced a decisive determination concerning the Universal Church expressing what the Gentiles were not to admit or were obliged to practise and on what terms the Jews were bound to admit and not scruple Communion with the Gentiles but also had in it such persons who being Apostles had an undoubted universal Authority over the whole Church And whereas the decision of the Apostles themselves alone and their Authority had been of it self abundantly sufficient to lay an obligation upon the Christian Church in that particular case the Apostles notwithstanding this took in with them the Elders of the Church to debate and consider of this matter Act. 15.6 which is a sufficient evidence that the Apostles did allow such Elders or Church-Officers as they established in the Church to have a power in Councils to order and determine what related to the affairs of the Church by Synodical Authority for otherwise the Apostles would never have joyned them with themselves to this purpose 8. And S. Paul was so forward and zealous to require a general obedience to the decision of this Council that in his Ministry he delivered to the Cities where he preached the decrees for to keep which were ordained of the Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem Act. 16.4 And here that expression of his delivering these Decrees as not only ordained of the Apostles but of the Apostles and Elders also deserves to be considered as thereby laying a more clear and manifest foundation for the Authority of future Synods and Councils of the Officers and Bishops of the Christian Church And it may be further observed that case in which S. Paul rebuked S. Peter Gal. 2. was his not acting according to the rules of this Council and a complying further with the Jewish Rites and the favourers of the Circumcision than was here determined and not being ready to own that liberty of the Gentile Church which was contained in this Synodical decision 9. And consonant hereunto the ancient Christian Churches did all along greatly reverence the authoritative decision of Catholick Councils and Synods the Canons of which are so well known to all men of ordinary reading that he must be a man greatly ignorant of Ecclesiastical affairs who knows nothing of them And in several General and Provincial Councils and in those Canons particularly taken into that ancient Code called the Canons of the Apostles or into the Codes of the Universal Church of the Western Church or the African Church many things were established by them for the peace unity and order of the Church and especially for the promoting purity therein and the degrees of the punishment by suspension deposition excommunication and the continuance thereof upon the offenders are there plainly determined to be a Rule for the several Churches to act by And in these ancient Councils when there was great occasion for such heavy sentences the most eminent Officers or the Bishops of those most renowned places in the Christian Church were deposed or excommunicated by their Synodical Authority and not by their own particular Church Thus was Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioch deposed by the Council at Antioch Nestorius Bishop of Constantinople by the General Council of Ephesus and Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria by the General Council of Chalcedon to which multitudes of other instances may be given And in particular Churches the great and eminent authority fixed in Bishops though the Canons allowed but one Bishop in the greatest City with its precincts is sufficient to shew that the particular Congregations in that City had no such Independency of power and Government So that this branch of Independency opposeth the Apostolical order and the constant practice and sense of all primitive Christian Churches from the Apostles 10. Secondly This notion of Independency lays a foundation for perpetual confusion and division in the Church and subverts the precepts for Christian Unity For according to this Principle so far as concerns power and authority any company of men may set up for themselves apart and multiply Sects and distinct Communions and none having any Superior Government over them these parties and divisions may be perpetuated and subdivided to the scandal and Reproach of Christianity and no way left for any authority in the Christian Church to check and redress them So that this notion is perfectly fitted to serve the interest of Schism and discord and to heighten and increase but is as fully opposite to the Unity and honour of the Christian Religion For if we should admit for the present the scanty and imperfect notion of Schism which Dr. O. (p) Review of Sch. against Mr. Cawdr c. 8 9. hath framed that it is needless divisions of judgement and discord in a particular Congregation when departing from it is no Schism if the guilty party should so far unchristianly foment such discords as to deserve the censure of that Church and shall withal proceed so far as openly to separate and depart from it they have by this means according to this notion after a strange and admirable manner set themselves free and clear both from sin and censure For when they have thus openly separated from
who appointed not this kind of Covenanting established the Christian Church in that way of Unity that it was one Church but these have ordered this method for the dividing it 20. Secondly This casts a disparagement on Christs Institution of Baptism as if this Ordinance of his was not sufficient and effectual for the purposes to which he appointed it whereof one was the receiving Members into his Church and the Communion thereof The Scriptures declare Christians to be Baptized into one Body 1 Cor. 12.12 and that they who are Baptized into Christ have put on Christ Gal. 3.27 and therefore by this Sacramental Ordinance members are received into fellowship with Christ and communion with his Church But these expressions in the Assembly-confession of (i) Conf. c. 27. n. 1. Sacraments being Instituted to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the World And of Baptism being ordained by Christ for the solemn admission of the party Baptized into the visible Church are rejected and left out in the declaration of Faith by them of the Congregational way And we are told by the New England Independents that (k) Answ to 32. Qu. to qu. 4. they do not believe that Baptism doth make men members of the Church and they there say strangely enough that Christ Baptized but made no new Church Wherefore when Christ appointed Baptism to receive members of his Church this Covenant which he never appointed is by them set up thus far in the place and room of it 21. Thirdly By making this Covenant the only right ground of Church-fellowship they cast a high reflexion on the Apostolical and Primitive Churches who neither practised nor delivered any such thing as if the Apostolical Model must give place to theirs and those first Churches must not be esteemed regularly established But this Covenant managed in the dividing way is somewhat like the practice of Novatus who hath been ever reputed guilty of great Schism who ingaged his followers by the most solemn Vow that they should never forsake him nor return to Cornelius their true Bishop only his Covenant had not a peculiar respect to a particular Congregation But this bond of their own promise and vow was intended to keep them in that separation which the more solemn Vow of Baptism and undertaking Christianity ingaged them to reject And it is a great mistake to imagine that the former ought to take place against the latter or that men may bind themselves to act against the will of God and that thenceforth they ought not to observe it 22. Fourthly The confinement of Church-membership to a single Congregation entred under such a particular Covenant is contrary to several plain duties of Christianity For according to this notion the peculiar offices of Brotherly Love as being members one of another and that Christian care that follows thereupon it limited to a narrow compass together with the exercise of the Pastoral care also which ought to be inlarged to all those professed Christians with whom we do converse And it is of dangerous and pernicious consequence that the duties of love and being helpful to one another and provoking to love and good works upon account of our membership with the Church visible though these things be in practice too much neglected should be straitned by false and hurtful notions and opinions It was none of the least miscarriages of the Jews that when God gave them that great Commandment to love their Neighbour as themselves they should satisfie themselves in the performing this duty with a much more restrained sense of the word Neighbour than the Divine Law intended And it must not be conceived that false imaginations concerning the bounds of the Church and fellowship therein will be esteemed in the sight of God a sufficient discharge from the duties he requires men to perform to others nor will this be a better excuse under Christianity than the like mistake was under Judaism 23. Thirdly I shall consider their placing the chief Ecclesiastical power and authority in the Body of the people or the members of the Church To this purpose by some of them we are told that (m) Answ to 32. Qu. to Q. 14. in Peter and the rest the Keys are committed to all Believers who shall join together in the same confession according to the Ordinance of Christ and they give the people the power of (n) Answ to Qu. 15. censuring offenders even Ministers themselves if they be such And on this account at least in part I suppose the Congregational Churches in their Declaration of Faith omitted the whole Chapter of (o) Ch. 30. Church censures contained in the Assembly's Confession in which they had declared the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to be committed to the Church Officers Now besides that the way of Government and Censure by the major Vote of the people hath been the occasion of much confusion in some of their Congregations that which I shall particularly insist on is the great sin of intruding upon any part of the Ministerial Authority or neglecting due regard or reverence thereto How plain is it in the Scripture that the Apostles governed and ordered the state of the Christian Church and that Timothy and Titus and the Angels of the Churches did and were to do the like It was to the Apostles as chief Officers of the Christian Church that Christ declared Joh. 20.23 whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained and Matt. 18.18 whatsoever yet shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever ye shall loose in Earth shall be loosed in Heaven And by these and such like words the power of inflicting Censures and receiving to and conferring of the priviledges of the Church as well as of dispensing all those Ordinances whereby the grace of God and remission of sins are particularly tendered are appropriated to the Officers of the Church as part of their Office 24. In this plain sense were these Christian Laws generally understood by the Primitive Church which practised accordingly which they who read the ancient Canons must necessarily confess And the same is manifest from the particular Writers of the first Ages For instance even (p) Cyp. Ep. 27. S. Cyprian from what our Lord spake to S. Peter of the power of the Keys and of binding and loosing infers the Episcopal honour and that every act of the Church must be governed by those Prefects or Superiors And from those words and what our Saviour spake to his Apostles Jo. 20. about remitting sins he concludes that only the Governours in the Church (q) Ep. 73. can give remission of sins And when Rogatianus a Bishop complained to Cyprian concerning a Deacon who behaved himself contumeliously towards him S. Cyprian commends his humility in addressing himself to him (r) Ep. 65. when he had himself power by virtue of his Episcopacy and the
Because such Adversaries the Church will have and the highest advantage they can have against the Church is to shew her Rule uncertain But this only proves that enough may be said for the Rule of Faith to vindicate it against all such Adversaries which is indeed true yea and more than this that enough may be said to convince them if they will attend to it and be not obstinate and however to satisfie all unprejudiced men that these obstinate Adversaries are in error and may be confuted But more than this is no way necessary to provide for the conviction of the obstinate If Porphyry Celsus or Julian were not convinced shall any conclude that God was wanting in the Rule of Faith to his Church But indeed the satisfaction of such Heathen Adversaries must be procured not only from the Rule of Faith which will shew what was delivered by Jesus and the Apostles and Prophets but also from other arguments and testimonial evidence not only to prove that this Rule was delivered by Jesus but also to shew the things so delivered to be of God and therefore true The sixth and seventh properties That it is certain in it self and ascertainable to us I do admit And indeed these two properties if by ascertainable to us we understand that we may be sufficiently certain concerning the Rule and what is contained in it include all the former so far as they are truly applicable to the Rule of Faith For to be certain and ascertainable to us includes so much of his two first properties as belong to this Rule of Faith that is it is evidenceable to all both as to its being and its ruling power seeing to be evidenceable and to be ascertainable is one and the same thing Yea if it be certain and it 's certainly thus ascertainable or evidenceable to us his third fourth and fifth Properties will be the consequent effects hereof so far as they of right appertain to this Rule of Faith that is where there appears certainty ascertainable it will have these effects it will justifie them who most stedfastly and undoubtingly rely on it and will satisfie inquisitive Dissenters and rational Doubters and will be able to convince the most acute Adversaries Whence it appears that his seven Properties are needlesly and without sufficient distinction multiplied and all the rest are well reducible to the two last to which if we add what I before observed concerning this Rule that it must be the best Guide in all matters of faith we have then three Properties which alone are sufficient to direct us to the Rule of Faith to wit its certainty its evidenceableness and its fulness exactness and compleatness as to all points of faith But since his Discourse I now examine is ordered according to his seven Properties saving that he himself Disc 2. confounds or at least conjoyns the two former it is necessary for me to follow him in his own way and to examine the Rule of Faith by what we have found to belong to it in all these Properties Answer to Disc 2. shewing that the two first Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture OUR next work is to examine by these marks what the Rule of Faith is He tells us § 1. That the owned pretenders to it are only two Scripture and Tradition but withal insinuates That Protestants do indeed make private Spirit private Reason and the Testimonies of Fathers the Rule of Faith because these are they which do ascertain them of Scripture sense Now we Protestants do own Scripture as our Rule of Faith which was surely delivered to us by succession from the Apostles and do assert that what ever Properties do belong to the Rule of Faith are truly and fully applicable to the Scripture but unwritten Tradition we reject from being this Rule knowing that there is no certain and infallible delivery of Christian Doctrine thereby Nor do we any way make either private Reason or a private Spirit whether he mean an Enthusiastick Spirit which Protestants disclaim or the same thing with private Reason or Testimonies of Fathers our Rule of Faith For if Protestants should try any Doctrine by any of these immediately without referring them to Scripture they would as to that Doctrine make them their Rule but this no Protestant will do in matters of meer belief or supernatural Revelation But if they make use of their reason to apprehend the words phrases and sense of the Scripture that thereby they may more fitly judge what the Scripture will determine as to any matter of faith this is no more to make this a Rule than an Artist who measures any Materials by an exact known Rule can be said to make his eye his Rule because he judges by his eye how his Rule is applyed to the thing measured but in case he shall make use only of his eye without any other Rule then only can his eye be called his Rule Indeed the followers of Tradition and all rational men may as well be charged with making private reason their Rule as the followers of Scripture since by reason they are ascertained of Traditions sense for they make use of reason to judge what the words signifie which are delivered to them and what ground they have to receive them else could not their assent of Faith be as this Author acknowledgeth it must be rational Disc 1. § 14. unless he can imagine a man to give a rational assent which is not directed by reason Nor can we be said to make the Testimonies of Fathers our Rule though in plain truths we value them owning the same truth which we embrace as delivered by the Rule In some more difficult Scriptures we make use of them to satisfie our reason by their reason and evidence and this is to use them in the same manner we use our reason In other places difficult we make use of their authority as a probable motive to perswade us to encline to a sense by them delivered if it be not contradicted by greater authority or reason But in this case where there is no other evidence we do not urge such an interpretation or such a sense of such a Scripture necessary to be received as a Point of Faith but allow it in such a measure probable and to be assented to as the Authorities shall require § 2. He notes that when we make Scripture our Rule we must understand not Scripture sens'd but to be sensed that is their characters in a Book with their aptness to signifie I answer We assert the written words of Scripture to be a Rule of Faith as the words therein contained do manifest their own sense being in themselves in all things fit and necessary to be known sufficiently intelligible by men whom God hath endued with reason and understanding That is the words of Scripture which are written by inspiration from God do in the same manner declare Gods meaning in what he reveals which is the
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may
may maintain his ground of suspense with a Might it not be otherwise If he may do so is this any fault in the Rule of Faith or any excuse to him to suspend his assent when he can make no rational exception Were not the Miracles of Moses sufficiently convictive so long as some Egyptians said Might they not be otherwise than from God and was not all that Christ did and spake enough to declare his Doctrine to be from God and a Rule of Faith because the Jews not only said May it not be otherwise but that it is otherwise and must the Rule of Faith now be needs made another thing by us from what it was made in the beginning by Christ himself shall the Scripture now be required to have that condition of a Rule of Faith which it is certain did not at the beginning of Christianity belong to the Rule of Faith If this satisfie not suppose amongst the Beraeans in S. Paul's time there should have been or were some of this Authors principles who thought Faith a Vice if not founded on demonstration and would smile at any man who should talk of demonstrating so much of Scripture as was requisite to found their belief in it and so should refuse to assent to and believe S. Paul when others searching the Scriptures did believe Will this Author so own these principles of this Discourse to say that these sceptical Vnbelievers acted more rationally than S. Paul's Converts and that they who believed his Doctrine by searching the Scriptures did betray their reason and their Faith was a Vice when S. Luke owned them of a noble Spirit and declared them to have searched diligently § 4. He comes to the fifth property that it is convictive of the most obstinate and acute Adversaries Though obstinate persons are capable of no conviction yet we acknowledge that the Rule of Faith is defensible against all opposition and is such that the most acute Adversaries may be satisfied concerning it if sufficient evidence will prevail with them And this we assert concerning Scripture He now supposeth a Deist to enquire How we know the Book of Scripture to be Gods Word and supposeth us to answer By its excellencies These excellencies indeed give considerable evidence especially as he saith to eyes enlightned by faith and do further strengthen and satisfie them yet we need not nor do not assert this alone sufficient to give a rational account to all men without taking in how these Books were received and delivered in the Church as we formerly shewed But he saith his Deist will shew you Texts against known science and in his judgement contradictions Will he shew Texts against known science but what if he cannot and what if some expressions in Scripture are more suited to vulgar apprehensions than the Sciolists notion shall any reject so excellent a Writing because it condescends to speak intelligibly to the lowest capacities Nor where there is proof given of this being Gods Word can seeming contradictions to his judgment be sufficient not to receive it since somewhat mysterious and sublime may come from God and to understand aright all things written by the Pen-men of Scripture it is requisite to be acquainted with the circumstances of History measures proverbial expressions and the like and then he might reconcile as learned men have done many things which now to him seem contrary But he saith his Deist will shew you many absurdities and Heresies in the letter of Scripture as that God hath hands feet and passions like ours Here as his former words are unsavoury his latter are untrue Scripture speaks indeed of Gods hands and feet but no where saith he had such like ours Such things as are thus spoken of God in Scripture have a true literal sense if that may be called literal which is tropical and why may not Scripture be allowed to make use of Tropes or Metaphorical expressions as well as all other Writers and all Discoursers where the sense is easily discernable to reason which is requisite to be used that we may understand any Writing Now the considering what knowledge we have of God by reason and the pondering other places of Scripture which plainly speak God to be a Spirit and considering likewise how these words of hands and feet c. are oft used in a figurative sense this will plainly convince that they must be understood so when they are applied to God When the Romanists by Tradition deliver that the Pope is the Head of the Church will they not expect that mans common reason and what they otherwise teach of the Church should teach all to allow a tropical sense of the word Head and not that they should forthwith imagine that that Church whereof the Pope is the Head should have the outward shape of Man Woman or Beast Thus Celsus whose Arguments against Christianity were much of the nature of this Discoursers makes this an Objection against Christians that they speak unworthily of God as of the work of his hands the mouth of God and the voice of God And Origen lib. 6. cont Cels thought it sufficient to answer that Christians did understand all these in a spiritual not a corporeal sense and that if Celsus had read other places of Scripture he might thence know that Christians would not think otherwise of God It is an unchristian assertion to charge the letter of the Scripture which is the very words of the God of Truth with heresie where we have sure ground of it's interpretation both from other Scripture from Reason Against the latter he objects that then we disown the Scripture Rule and make our Reason and other knowledge our Rule I answer when we include Scripture we cannot disown it yet withal we own Reason as that whereby we judge of the significancy of Words and Phrases as well in Scripture as elsewhere he who doth not this either doth not understand Phrases or hath a prodigious art of understanding without reason Yea we do profess to make use of that knowledge we have of God by Reason thereby to understand the better other expressions which concern God in Truths revealed since we are certain that God gave the Scriptures as a further revelation to man who was supposed to have that Reason and Conscience which God had endued him with But he further in § 5. challengeth the consciousness of our own thoughts whether we do not bring thoughts along with us to interpret Scripture by and these from Tradition or what we have heard and received Here I shall give him a true and faithful account of the Protestants carriage in this thing which must be by a distinction of Persons and Texts of Scripture In such Texts as appear plain where the necessary truths are contained none of us bring any such thoughts to interpret by but discern the evidence plainly in it self and from thence we hold such Truths as Points of Faith In Texts of Scripture which appear more
know the definitions of the Council of Trent especially such a way as he intimates p. 211. it is not hard for Protestants to find For to run to the Printed Books which contain the Acts and Canons of that Council here presently appears the multitude of little actions both in the Printing and first Copying If he shall tell us they receive the Canons of that Council or any other not as they are in Books but by Oral Tradition I shall then examine whether there be not the same and greater difficulty about such Tradition For it is certain that there are as many mistakeable little actions in speaking a word as in writing it every tittle requiring the pause in the voice and every letter pronounced being a distinct framing of the Organs of Speech and both experience and reason will tell a man that he may more frequently mistake in speaking a word than in more leisurely writing it by a Copy since speech is more quick and admits not of so long consideration for every little action as writing doth and every man knows that where there are many phrases and sentences there may be somewhat sooner omitted in speaking where he hath no outward help for his memory than in transcribing where the memory is perfectly relieved by the Copy before him So that in the way of Oral Tradition besides the several little actions of the Organs of Speech there are other little actions of the Memory more lyable to the error than the eye is in viewing a Copy Hence it will appear that this Authors perswading men in this § 4. to account Scripture not to be certain in it self is built upon this foundation That God hath not indowed man with so much wisdom and discretion as to guide his speech or hand so as to speak or write intelligibly or according to his meaning or intention And this is as much as to say That men cannot converse with one another and that no truth can be delivered from one to another no nor falshood neither and he who will be perswaded to this will not be a Protestant nor a Papist neither a man of any Religion nor of any Reason § 5. He tells us If it were certain that there was care taken for the faithful transcribing the Scripture much might be said thence for its certainty but as it is capable of many mistakes so especially in the New Testament experience testifies there hath been no such diligence by the divers readings of the several Copies and thousands of corrections of the Vulgar edition His Objection to disprove the use of care especially in the New Testament must be first answered and then we shall evidence that there hath been abundant care What he speaks of the Vulgar Latin which is the Translation in request in the Romish Church and made use of by many others the thousands of corrections he mentions speaks that Church none of the best preservers of Records But after all these corrections was there any point of Faith or Manners wherein after the corrections it differed from what it was before the corrections if it differed in none then such various readings do not declare the Scriptures even in that Translation in any thing to misguide in discovering whatever concerns Faith or holy life though such various readings should remain But if the Vulgar edition did differ in any such matter of Faith or holy life this would condemn the Roman Churches Tradition which hath professed to own and receive what ever was in the Vulgar both before its correction and since and so must differ from what it was in that point of Faith or Manners Touching various readings in the Original Copies and almost all if not all Translations it is evident there is no difference in any point of Doctrine nor considerable in words and phrases And though it be impossible to prove concerning every single Copy that it was faithfully transcribed by giving an account of the manner how it was done yet there remains an abundant rational proof that the Copies of the Scripture and particularly of the New Testament have been generally written with much fidelity because the several Copies which may yet be seen written in several Countries and in divers Ages shew such an agreement in them all and in the Ancients citations of them that they speak one thing the same truth and with so very little variation of any word that to a diligent attender this speaks much of care attention and diligence in transcribing To all this I add that it is certain that the Ancients were very industriously accurate in their transcribing Books and made it a great point of conscience to be attentive in it even in other Books and no doubt more especially about the holy Scriptures and did to their Copies subscribe their Names that it might be known by whom they were written What exact diligence the Ancients used in transcribing Books may be observed from an instance related by Eusebius Eccles Hist lib. 5. c. 20. concerning a Book of Irenaeus at the end of which Irenaeus wrote thus I adjure thee who shalt transcribe this Book by our Lord Jesus Christ and by his glorious presence when he cometh to judge the quick and the dead that thou compare what thou shalt transcribe and amend it diligently according to this Copy whence thou shalt transcribe it and that thou shalt likewise transcribe this Oath and put it in thy Copy And this he saith he thought profitable to put in his History that in this thing they might have example of the care and diligence of those ancient and truly holy men If such care was to be taken of Irenaeus's Works surely no less of the holy and Divine Writings § 6. He goes about to shew That Scripture cannot be certain as to its sense especially to the Vulgar where he repeats that Arts and Sciences are necessary to understand the Letter which was before said by him and is above answered Disc 3. § 7. and need not here be repeated He further tells us That an acute Scholar can blunder the conceptions of the Vulgar concerning Scripture and give them a seeming clearer interpretation of his own In many points of Controversie and difficult Texts we acknowledge a Scholar may do so but it is no way necessary that the Vulgar should be able to determine them and be firmly setled in the knowledge of them but in matters of Faith more plainly discovered it is otherwise If he thinks they may be perswaded by a Scholar to think any other sense more clear than that which offers it self and is obvious in such phrases as these That Jesus is the Christ that he was born of the Virgin and died for us and such like he must find men of much lower capacities than Protestants are and indeed such as cannot understand the meaning of what that Scholar shall speak since he cannot speak plainer words and then I know not how they can be perverted by him yea such
men are not so much as capable of being instructed at all in the knowledge of Faith or matters of mere belief unless this Author can discover some other way of instruction in these things than by plain words But doth not this cavil strike at all wayes of knowledge and even at Tradition as much as Scripture For if the plain words of Scripture may be perverted by a Scholar are not the words delivered by Tradition capable of being in the same manner perverted If not it must either be because the same words written or read cannot have so plain a sense as when they are spoken without reference to any Book or else the Teachers of the Romish Church must be thought wiser than the Spirit of God and the Apostles in that they can speak the plain truths of God better and with less lyableness to mistake than the Apostles wrote who yet professed to use plainness But he asks when we see Protestants and Socinians making use as they conceive of the best advantages the letter gives them yet differ in so main points as of the Trinity and of Christs Divinity what certainty can we promise to weaker heads I answer weaker heads may well enough be satisfied with that evidence which men of greater parts through prejudice do not entertain In the beginning of Christianity the wise men of the World who pretended to be guided by the best evidence did not all agree in so main a point as which was the true Religion whether Christianity Judaism or Gentilism will it thence follow that there was no expecting that men of ordinary capacities should discern evidence enough to perswade them to be Christians and that there was no rational hopes of their conversion though many thousands of them believed Or in the matter now in hand can he imagine that until all learned men of Protestants and Papists are agreed in so main a point as which is the Rule of Faith no ordinary capacities can he satisfied concerning this Rule upon any solid grounds I am confident himself doth not think so and Protestants are fully certain of the contrary In like manner Protestants in general even the Vulgar appear fully satisfied about the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ from the evidence which Scripture gives to these great truths yea so plain are they in Scripture that he must be acute in devising waies to evade the evidence of these truths who doth not receive them nor can we think that the Socinians could either deny these truths or entertain their own way of interpretation if it was not that these truths are above the reason of man to comprehend as it is rational to imagine much is which concerns the Infinite Divine Being and that they do too much magnifie reason in not receiving any thing which reason cannot conceive how it is or may be and so in truth it is not their making Scripture the Rule of Faith but rather in these points the setting up another Rule and making Scripture the thing ruled which is the cause of their not owning these truths Having now answered all his Objections and vindicated Scripture from all his Cavils I may conclude that THE SCRIPTURE HATH ALL THE FOREMENTIONED PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE RULE OF FAITH After this § 7. he excuseth himself as not having spoken this against Scripture upon his own principles but that all he hath spoken as he saith but I have shewed the contrary follows upon the Protestants principles This speaks him to act a part in the disgracing Scripture which he is ashamed to own and therefore he here acknowledges high excellencies in these sacred Oracles For if he indeed think there can be no certainty of Scriptures being the Word of God and of the Canon of Scripture from the Churches delivery and of the uncorruptness of it as to Faith from the agreement of ancient Copies then he must without dissimulation profess that upon his own Principles all those imperfections are attributed to Scripture since the Papists yea the Popes themselves have acknowledged that they have none other way to be assured of these things by and reason will evidence they can have none other which the Protestants cannot have as well as they But if he thinks there be any certainty in these proofs he must acknowledge that Protestants who own these proofs have this certainty But he saith all he designs is That Scripture is most improper for a Rule of Faith and was never intended for such as may be evinced because the Apostles and their Successors went not with Books in their hands to deliver Christs Doctrine but with words in their mouths whence Primitive Antiquity learnt their Faith before those Books were universally spread among the Vulgar much less the Catalogue acknowledged What he speaks of the Apostles not having Books in their hands either refers to the Books of the Old Testament or of the New As to the Old Testament 't is certain that both Christ and the Apostles sometimes had them in their hands and which is most considerable had them ordinarily in their mouths to declare from thence the Doctrine of Christ Thus Christ beginning at Moses and all the Prophets expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself Luke 24.27 And S. Paul Acts 17.2 3. reasoned out of the Scriptures opening and alledging and Apollos Act. 18.28 convinced the Jews shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ which being in the Synagogue it is not much to be questioned but they had with them the Books of the Scripture as was the manner of the Jews teaching as we read 2 Chron. 17.9 they taught in Judah and had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them And had not Philip the Book of the Prophet which he expounded when he converted the Eunuch But possibly he meant they had not the Books of the New Testament in their hands Indeed before they were written they could not have them nor could they then be a Rule However the Apostles and Evangelists testimony was then and now is the Rule to know what was delivered by Christ but their testimony by Speech was temporary and could not remain after their death while this continued it was a Rule of Faith but they also had another way of testimony which was by Writing and this as it continues with us is to us a Rule of Faith because their testimony and so S. John calls his Gospel his testimony Joh. 21.24 and Saint Peter speaks to the same purpose of his Epistle 1 Pet. 5.12 What he speaks of the Apostles and their Successors not having their Writings in their hands after they were written is a gross falshood as will more plainly appear from what in the end of this Book may be observed from several Authorities of the Ancient Fathers Yea S. Paul and Barnabas with other Apostolical men went to preach to the Gentiles with the Epistle of the Synod of Jerusalem in their hands Act. 15.22 which was the first
that they who did see the Law given on Mount Sinai yet knew not the first or second Commandment Yea after many severe judgments to shew how necessary the observation of Gods Commandments were yet when they served Peor in the Wilderness and joined themselves to other Gods frequently in the times of the Judges and of many of the Kings of Israel could this be for want of knowledge when the Law of God was among them which would teach them otherwise Yet if this Authour shall think it was of great ignorance this will as much destroy his way of Tradition since it will then follow that there was not sufficient delivery of truth from hand to hand to make it knowable And yet many of these defections were very general in all the people and Priests and their serving Baalim which their Fathers taught them was of long continuance § 10. He asserts by way of Answer to an Objection That men cannot be as much justified for believing Scripture because setting aside Traditions help this only depends on skills judgements and fancies and not on certain sense either for the meaning or letter of Scripture Touching the letter of Scripture we set not aside the help of Tradition but have a very sure way of Traditional Record to relie on and I have in former Discourses shewed that we have a certain knowledge of Scripture both as to letter and sense Yea the sense of Scripture is more easily discovered in many concerning truths than the sense of Tradition can be because though the words be supposed equally intelligible whether written or spoken it is more evident that the words found in Scripture are such as contain the sense of Scripture than that such and such words do contain the sense of the Church Tradition Because it is certain that in many concerning points there are many things delivered by several in the Church which yet are not by the Papists themselves owned for Church Traditions so that it will be hard if not beyond the reach of the Vulgar to understand what words in many points he may doubt of do truly express the sense of the Church unless he can hear it plainly expressed in some approved and received Writings such as either Scriptures Canons of Catholick Councils or Liturgies or the like the former as this Authour too much rejects so all or almost all his Arguments will as much plead against the other which the Vulgar are not capable of searching Yet that we may compare the evidence to the common apprehensions of men given by Scripture or by Oral and practical Tradition let us follow him in observing which evidence a Jury would soonest close with The case is by him in this § very unfaithfully propounded Whether they would condemn a man upon the testimony of six Witnesses upon sight or upon the judgment or opinion of a thousand men for as we have shewed it is not only skill and opinion that Protestants do ground upon but delivery of Records and therefore the case in truth should be thus propounded Whether if any matter of Fact be inquired of they would be the more swayed by the appearance of several persons who assert that they have heard many say that they heard many others say that they received from others and they from others by hearsaies at the fortieth or fiftieth hand or by others who shall produce plain Records and those preserved safe in several Courts which all agree in testifying it was otherwise Or if the Question be about any Legacy if the one party brings such hearsaies abovementioned and the other brings a Copy of the Will preserved in the Court and evidence that in the same manner it was inrolled in several other Courts is it not plain the latter will appear the better Evidence to the common sense of mankind But in this § 10. he further adds The Vulgar have reason to believe there was such an one as King James or Queen Elizabeth of which they are no otherwise ascertained but by Tradition but if you pump their common reason about the Authority of the Statute Book you shall find them at a loss Concerning King James or Queen Elizabeth they may indeed own them by the common received Tradition because they know this is actually delivered by those who knew it and that it is not capable of a mistake nor could any interest be supposed to devise this nor can mens conceptions of this vary from what is intended to be delivered but in none of these things can men have security in the delivery of many truths by Oral Tradition as was observed in Answer to § 7. But to put the case more like this of discovering which is more justifiable of believing Scripture or Tradition I demand whether as to all considerable actions atchievements or constitutions under these Princes it be more rational to relie on what appears in common fame concluding that nothing is considerable which was not there preserved or to apply our selves to some good Historians especially if we could be certain we could find such as had a certain knowledge of all such things and had a faithful design to commit the truth and nothing else to Writing concerning all these things This security we have concerning the Scriptures since it is certain the Apostles and Evangelists did fully know all points of Faith delivered to the World by Jesus Christ and did declare them in their Writings with like faithfulness Concerning the Vulgars knowledge of the Authority of the Statute Book it is evident that if they hear the Statute Book to be published by such a man or the Statutes by him collected they can thence conclude that as far as they can be assured that it was his Work and that he was certainly able to collect these Statutes and did in this act according to his utmost knowledge so far they are assured of this Books Authority as also as far as they are assured of the faithfulness and ability of judgment in them who own it as such But in all these things we have certainty of Scripture that it was written by the Apostles and Evangelists by the general Tradition of it as such by all Churches that they were able and faithful and their Books faithfully written both from our Saviours approving them to dispense his Gospel and his Church receiving them as such dispensers even in these Writings and God himself bearing them Witness both with Signs and Wonders and manifold gifts of the Holy Ghost So that we are as sure concerning Scripture as a man could be of the Authority of a Statute Book if he knew there was a collection of our Common Law as was done by Justinian's order in the Civil made approved and confirmed by order of the Supreme Power and thereby Enacted that this Collection should be owned as the Statutes of England Here it would be a madness to doubt So that this third Property of the Rule of Faith is agreeable to Scripture but not to Oral
of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule that if any Christians should live under such a Power as this Author speaks of should be a self-condemning tyranny over mens consciences if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule they must live in patience meekness peace humility and subjection to the Higher Powers and it must be from pride wrath passion malice and refusing to be subject all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures that all Rebellion against Government must proceed Whence amongst the Primitive Christians where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Christ his Son with the holy Spirit which is the only God and the Christians knew there was none else and punished them for not worshipping as Gods them whom they knew were no gods yet in this case the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governours If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule both as to Faith and Life be prevalent as it will guide us aright into the truth so it will end all quarrels silence all animosities and contentions and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet peace friendship and love as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth § 5. He tells us The use of this Discourse is to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition to be very few to which he hath received our answer § 3. and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady than that laid to preserve mankind I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation § 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader that the way of Tradition is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind I would only advise him to be so ingenuous as to speak plainly out his meaning and say that as in mankind the causes for keeping intire the nature of man are such that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man who really were not so the way to preserve Tradition is such that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth when indeed they had it not and if he would thus do he might amuse his Reader but would never deceive him having before told him that there have been many Hereticks in the World and that even amongst these the way of continuing Heresie is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori § 1. HE declares That he will trie to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause § 2. he saith this seems needless against Protestants who yield the points of Faith we agree in to have come down by this way of Tradition He presseth therefore from Protestants a candid Answer to these Queries 1. Was not the Trinity Incarnation and all other Points in which we agree held in all Ages since Christ by Gods Church 2. Whether seeing those points were held ever of Faith Fathers did not actually teach Children so or the former Age the latter if so they came down by Tradition 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things had any such been 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause and its formal effect so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery But because he fears the Protestant will flie off here he will follow his designed method Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies than that he would flie from such shadows To the 1. Qu. I answer That if we indeed understand by Gods Church that number of Christians who have intirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion they must needs have held these great truths likewise But many have pretended to be Gods Church who held them not Nor hath this belief been alwaies preserved in the Churches who once imbraced it since the Eastern Churches who before received the true Doctrine of Christ were drawn aside by the Arian infection and denied those points which shews Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points in any particular Church To the 2. Qu. I answer That in the Church of God which ever held these points Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines yet were they not only nor chiefly continued by the way of Oral Tradition For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule as shall be after shewed from their Writings and Fathers taught Children chiefly then by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching but they had also the Scriptures read among them and perused by them and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church chiefly from the Scriptures Irenaeus testifies even of those Primitive times Adversus Haeres lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge which is come even unto us being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures That Christians then received their instruction in the Church chiefly from Scriptures he likewise sheweth lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to flie from the Opinion of the Hereticks and flie unto the Church and be brought up in its bosom and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures For saith he the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World therefore the Spirit of God saith Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise that is eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies and those very clear I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority Yea such was the esteem of the use of Scripture that in the Primitive times before their Children were taught matters of human literature they were instructed in the holy Scriptures Thus was Origen brought up Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures Sozom. Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only in the true Church of God as indeed they have not been yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition as would secure the right delivery of all other things For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition depending upon this supposal that in such a Society it hath alwaies been rightly delivered and rightly received which
manifest themselves to be a Church unless by recourse to some other Rule or way of evidence Disc 5. because they may in this way err from the Faith and so not be faithful Cor. 3. They may be members of a Church who are not followers of Tradition because by ordinary and sure means they may have Faith Cor. 4. They who renounce Tradition for their guide and close with Scripture are not cut off from the Faith thereby because they imbrace hereby the most sure Rule of Faith Cor. 5. The followers of such Ancestors who so renounced Tradition have the same security that they may have Faith by relying on the Scripture as a Rule Cor. 6. The followers of them who renounce Oral Tradition may rightly claim to be a part of Christian Tradition or deliverers of the Faith because they receive the Scripture Doctrine in written Records and so deliver it to others Disc 2. So did the Apostles deliver Doctrines to the Jews from the Old Testament Cor. 7. They who pretend to reform what is delivered as matters of Faith in any Church guided by Oral Tradition may hold the true Christian Faith because such Churches may err in the Faith as did the Jewish But then such Reformers must come to what appears by Records to be the Faith at first delivered Cor. 8. The followers of this way of Tradition cannot evidence who are truly faithful and of the Church because their Tradition is no sure Rule Disc 5.6 8. And if any should hold the Faith intire after successions of Tradition this is by chance and not demonstrative in the way of Tradition Cor. 9. The disowners of Tradition who hold to Scripture can give certain account who are to be held as truly faithful because they have a sure Rule to try this by which is the Scripture Cor. 10. Such who hold not this Tradition can rationally punish them who revolt from their Faith because they can by Scripture Rule sufficiently evidence the certainty of their Faith and the guilt of such revolters Disc 7. Cor. 11. That company of men hang together like the Body of a Christian Church who close with the Scripture and adhere not to Tradition because they hold Christs Doctrine delivered to them by the Apostles and Evangelists Writings whence the Roman Church is highly Schismatical for disowning all others and accounting it self the Vniversal Church Cor. 12. Tradition may be argued against out of the letter of Scripture because while Oral Tradition is uncertain Scripture is preserved certain by the delivery of Records which is a more sure and excellent way of delivery of Christs Doctrine Cor. 13. The Authority of some Churches may in reason be opposed against Tradition viz. The Authority of the Ancient Church against the present Oral Tradition because since Tradition is defectible the Doctrine of the Ancient Church might both differ from the present Church and is most like to be in the truth What he pretends of Tradition being Antecedent to the Church and including the living voice of the whole Church essential concerning present Tradition is a vain surmise for how can the present Tradition of which we dispute be antecedent to the Church sixteen hundred Years since established and since it is defectible Disc 6.8 how can it include the voice of that Church Cor. 14. Fathers or Councils may rationally be alledged against present Tradition for if they be Fathers or Councils now owned as Catholick by the holders of Tradition they will shew the inconsistency of Tradition with it self If they have formerly been owned as Catholick they will shew the change of Doctrine in the way of Tradition Cor. 15. Disowners of Tradition in right of reason must be allowed to argue against Tradition out of Scriptures Fathers and Councils for this is no matter of courtesie nor any argument only ad hominem but ad rem since they have a certainty of these things from Traditional Records Disc 2 3 4. How little the testimony of Tertullian is to his purpose see in the next Discourse in inquiry into Tertullians opinion of the Rule of Faith Cor. 16. The Authority of History or Testimonial Writing may be alledged against Tradition because matters of fact past and the former state of things may run contrary to present Tradition And the credibility of the Historian may be evident by his impartial writings agreement with other Writers by the testimony of other faithful Writers or the present Tradition concerning him or if in Church-History by his having been formerly received as a Catholick Writer Cor. 17. Other Tradition may in right of reason be alledged against Romish Oral Tradition for though the sure Christian Tradition be the most firm of any yet since the Traditional Records of Ancient Churches Disc 5. n. 20. and the delivery of truth in Scripture Disc 5. n. 18. are much surer than Oral Tradition and the different delivery in other Churches may be as sure as in the Roman they may be alledged against it Cor. 18. Arguments from Reason may be urged against Oral Tradition for since this Tradition is weak and fallible it may be disproved by reasons which are strong and solid Cor. 19. Instances may be argued from against Traditions certainty for since Tradition is defectible instances may have that Historical certainty which Tradition hath not and may in the allowance of the Author be delivered by Tradition and so shew its inconsistency Cor. 20. The denying Oral Tradition doth not dispose to Fanatickness because Protestants deny it not by recourse to a Light within but to a Rule without and rational evidence Cor. 21. Fanatick Principles may be confuted without the help of Romish Oral Tradition but not by it in a rational way for such confutation is by evidence of the 〈…〉 the contrary Now we can evidence the 〈…〉 and its being contrary to Fanatick 〈…〉 they cannot evidence the certainty of 〈…〉 Cor. 22. We may argue against Tradition without questioning the constancy of any species in nature or of mans-nature Because it is not founded upon mans nature but upon a supposal of his actions free from possible ignorance mistake corruption forgetfulness speculations and working fancies about notions received For by any of these which ordinarily attend man may Traditions certainty be destroyed Cor. 23. There is great possibility of various rational waies of arguing against Oral Tradition by Scripture Councils Fathers History Reason Instances c. Cor. 24. Oral and practical Tradition is no first Principle by way of Authority for matters of fact but Scripture-Tradition or other sure Traditional Records is such a Principle because Scripture and such Records are certain Disc 4. and Tradition is not Cor. 25. Nor is this Tradition self evident in matter of fact long since past because it is fallible and defectible Cor. 26. The certainty of Tradition being disproved that Church which relies on it cannot thereby be certain that it holds Christs Doctrine because this Tradition may err in this
Doctrine Cor. 27. Traditions certainty being disproved general or Provincial Councils or Societies cannot be infallible by proceeding upon it because it may both mislead and be mistaken Cor. 28. The Roman See with its head cannot be infallible by Traditional certainty because Tradition is fallible Nor hath the Church of Rome any particular advantages to render it hereby more infallible than any other When he here saies That the joint indeavours Preaching Miracles and Martyrdom of the two chief Apostles at Rome were more vigorous causes to imprint Christs Doctrine than were found any where else He sure forgat Jerusalem where were the joint indeavours Preaching and Miracles of Christ Jesus himself and all his Apostles the Passion of Jesus and Martyrdom of other chief Apostles and Prophets and yet in that Church were professed by the Bishops both Arianism and Pelagianism and therefore Rome cannot be proved free from false Doctrine by such Arguments Nor will its constant visible profession make more for Romish Oral Tradition than for Jewish or Gentile Tradition Cor. 29. If this Tradition were established and put in practice according to this Discoursers mind the Romish Church could not be secure that they have any Copy of Scripture truly significative of Christs sense Because if as this Author here talks They should correct Scriptures Letter by the sense of mens hearts it would be wonderfully depraved because in this sense Tradition may and doth err But we know Sixtus and Clemens went not this way in correcting the vulgar Latin And themselves declare that ancient Copies and Writings were their Rule for correction And by these means Protestants have a Copy preserved significative of Christs sense by the several deliveries of Scripture Copies in several Ages and Churches Cor. 30. Tradition disproved Scripture can no waies be infallibly interpreted by this Oral Tradition because it is fallible and false But Protestants in all things necessary can infallibly understand the sense of Scripture since such things are delivered in clear and plain words Cor. 31. Tradition being disproved the Church which relies on it may receive as held ever what was not so held ever Cor. 32. Whence also errors opposing Faith may be received by the followers of Tradition as Faith because they may err in the Faith Cor. 33. Notwithstanding Tradition Erroneous opinions may generally and with publick Authority spread themselves in the Church because this defectible Tradition may deliver errors by the viciousness of some and the liableness to error in others Cor. 34. By the same reason may errors gain sure footing and abide in the Church in the way of Tradition because as many Opinators who deliver their conceptions of truth may both mistake themselves and be mistaken by others for testifiers of the sense of the former Generation and as many corrupters of truth may be mistaken by others for deliverers of truth as was the case in the prevalency of the Arian and other spreading Heresies so may the determination of a confirmed Council where error hath taken place give it sure footing among them who stand ingaged to own that Council which is the case of Papists Cor. 35. The ignorance or corruption of the Church-governours and the better part being overpowered may hinder many corrupt opinions from being ever declared against the way of Oral Tradition and cause many true opinions to be so declared against that without rejecting the way of such Oral Tradition they can never be received Because Tradition when once it errs can never return without denying it self Cor. 36. By the same reason Erroneous Opinions may constantly abide in the Traditionary Church What he here saith That following evil practices will necessarily shew them opposite to Faith is his erroneous opinion because practices though bad if grounded on opinions held for truth are judged lawful by such holders nor can they be convinced of such practices being evil till first they be perswaded that such opinions were evil Such was the case of the Gentiles gross Idolatry the Pharisaical breaking Gods Commands as in Corban c. and Papists worshipping Images and Saints c. Cor. 37. Erroneous opinions and practices may fully prevail in the judgements and practices of the most faithful who follow the way of Oral Tradition Because since their Rule may fail them they may do their best to follow this and yet may their judgements and practices both miscarry Cor. 38. Erroneous opinions may be charged upon that Church which follows Oral Tradition because they may follow from that Churches Rule necessarily since Tradition is a false guide and they may be generally owned by that Church in its publick profession and the determination of its Councils Cor. 39. Therefore it is no weakness to object against such a Church such opinions and practices Cor. 40. Oral Tradition can be no first principle in Controversial Divinity for since it could be no otherwise a principle than by declaring what God said and it may err and fail in that it is therefore no principle in Divinity Cor. 41. If as this Author here reasonably concludeth Christs promise to his Church can bear no part in the Rule of Faith nor be any first Principle to manifest the certainty of the Churches Tradition then have great and many followers of the Romish Tradition hitherto erred in that this promise hath been held and delivered by them for such a Principle An Inquiry after and Examination of the consent of Authority to the foregoing Discourse AT last this Discourser proceeds to Authorities and testimonies both of Scripture Councils and Fathers which is an inquiry of very great use in this matter For since Protestants own Scripture as an unerrable guide if it pronounce Tradition to be the Rule of Faith then will we acknowledge it to be such and its reasonable to expect from Papists who own the Scripture to contain Divine truth and with the Council of Trent own no Tradition with greater reverence than the Scriptures that if Scriptures declare themselves to be the Rule of Faith then this may be generally received Concerning Councils and Fathers if these could be generally produced from the Apostles times Protestants will grant That what is so declared to be the Rule of Faith is certainly such But if only some Councils and Fathers in some after Ages be produced if such plead for Tradition Protestants own it not a demonstration because they know they might be in some error Yet concerning the known Councils and Fathers of the Ancient Church we are so confident that they were not mistaken concerning the Rule of Faith that we will acknowledge that to be the true Rule of Faith which was by them declared to be such But if generally the Doctrine of the Ancients be on our side then Oral Tradition will further evidently appear to be no Rule of Faith yea not only to be fallible but false and self-inconsistent if that which is now delivered concerning it be contradicted by the consent of the Ancient Church
c. 18. Cyril relates that when the Metropolitans and Bishops had disputed with Nestorius and had clearly shewed out of the Divine Scripture that he was God whom the Virgin bare according to the flesh and therefore evidently concluded him to err he was full of anger and exclaimed in his manner wretchedly against the truth So that it seems the Metropolitans and Bishops who opposed Nestorius made Scripture their Rule as the Protestants do but the Nestorians then were not for these written words as their Rule but for what is written in mens hearts in which the Nestorian assertion may claim some kindred with our Discourser To observe further what Rule of Faith was made use of against Nestorius we may understand it from the writings of Cyril of Alexandria who as he was the chief opposer of Nestorius so was he highly approved of by this Council of Ephesus for his appearing against Nestorius and also by Coelestine Bishop of Rome as appears in his Letters directed to him Tom. 1. Conc. Eph. c. 16. Cyril concerning the right Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ to the Empresses Eudocia and Pulcheria shews that his Book may be of use to reduce some from error and by various Arguments and demonstrations of the Divine Scriptures to strengthen them in the Faith who are nourished in the Doctrine of truth in that whole Book propounds Doctrines from the several Books of the New Testament against the Doctrine of Nestorius And I suppose it will be granted that that which in such a case of Heresie arising would stablish in the Faith and reduce to the Faith must be established upon and have evidence from the Rule of Faith In another Treatise of his to the same Empresses of the same subject he tells them The Scriptures are the Fountains which God spake of by his Prophet Isaiah saying Draw the waters out of the wells of salvation Wholesom Fountains we call the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists and a little after The speeches of the Holy Fathers and their Sanctions wisely stir us up that we should observe diligently what is most agreeing to the holy Scriptures and should with a quick sense contemplate the truth hidden in the Divine letters The same Cyril in an Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople declared his expectation that Nestorius would have returned from his perverse opinions and would with reverence imbrace the Faith delivered by the holy Apostles and Evangelical Writers as also by the whole holy Scripture and sealed that it might receive no damage by the voices and oracles of the holy Prophets Is not this to make Scripture a Rule of Faith I might add much more from Cyril and what shall be spoken concerning Coelestine who wrote to the Ephesine Council and approved it will further shew the Rule of Faith at that time owned by the Roman Church Therefore I shall here only subjoin one testimony of the whole Council of Ephesus in their Epistle to Coelestine Bishop of Rome Tom. 4. Conc. Eph. c. 17. wherein they related That the Letter of Cyril to Nestorius had been read in the Council which the holy Synod did approve by its judgement because it was in the whole agreeable to the Divine Scriptures and the Exposition of Faith which the holy Fathers put forth in the great Synod of Nice We here meet with their being guided by Scripture and the former decisions founded upon it but the Rule of Oral Tradition or any other unwritten Rule was to this Age a perfect stranger SECT VIII What was owned as the Rule of Faith at the time of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon HAving sufficiently evidenced the Rule of Faith at the time of the first General Council against Arius who denied the Eternal Divinity of the Son of God and of the second against Macedonius who denied the Lordship of the holy Spirit and of the third against Nestorius who divided Christ into two Persons I now shall briefly inquire what was owned as this Rule at the time of the fourth General Council against Eutyches who denied that Christ had two natures wherein Dioscorus was also condemned Now Eutyches was opposed by many Catholick Bishops and more especially was opposed and condemned by Pope Leo. But the Rule by which these Bishops as well as this General Council did condemn him was the holy Scriptures Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople in an Epistle of his extant amongst Leo's Epistles Ep. 6. saies There were some who knew not the Divine readings dispraise the Fathers and desert the holy Scripture to their own perdition such an one saith he was Eutyches amongst us Amongst the Epistles of Leo Ep. 53. is extant an Epistle of Eusebius Bishop of Millain and the Council assembled with him wherein that Synod declares their assent to the Faith contained in Leo's Epistle sent to the East because the brightness of light and splendor of truth did shine in it by the assertions of the Prophets Evangelical Authorities and the testimonies of Apostolical Doctrine Leo himself by whose means the Council of Chalcedon was called in which the errors of Eutyches were more fully censured in his tenth Epistle writing of the Eutychians sayes That they fall into this folly because when they are hindred by any obscurity in attaining the knowledge of the truth they have not recourse to the Prophetical voices the Apostolical Letters and Evangelical Authorities but to themselves And a little after of Eutyches he speaketh thus That he knew not what he ought to think of the incarnation of the word of God nor was he willing to gain the light of understanding to labour in the holy Scriptures And in the same Epistle cites and urges many Scriptures against Eutyches with such expressions as these He might have subjected himself to the Evangelical Doctrine in Matthew speaking He might have desired instruction from the Apostolical Preaching reading in the Epistle to the Romans ch 1. He might have brought holy diligence to the Prophetical pages and have found the promise of God to Abraham c. with other Scriptures in the like manner produced These testimonies of Leo evidence that he owned the holy Scriptures to be the best way to come to Faith and be stablished in it and is not this to be a Rule of Faith Yea he further observes that the neglect of them were the cause of swerving from the Faith To come to the Council of Chalcedon it self In its second Action this tenth Epistle of Leo was read and they declared they all believed according to that Epistle At the same time was read the Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius which as it was read in and approved by the third General Council Conc. Eph. Tom. 2. ch 3. So being in Chalcedon read they declared They all believed as Cyril did in which Epistle he shews that we must not divide Christ into two Sons nor make an union of Persons for the Scripture saith The Word was made Flesh which is nothing else but he did
not to be allowed to argue from the Scriptures against the Church since they were not Christians and owned them not c. 15 16 17. And therefore it must first be inquired from whom the Scriptures were and by whom and to whom and when delivered all which would shew that they were for them who followed Christ and his Apostles in the Doctrine by them publickly delivered which these Hereticks pretended not to do Hence it appears that what Tertullian here writes is no way against the Doctrine of Protestants but in such a case as this was they would themselves assert the same Now though it is impossible the Scriptures should be either a directing Rule or a convincing to those persons who reject them yet in this Treatise Tertullian owns them as such to Christians who receive them and withal asserts them as necessary to the Faith as may appear from these particulars c. 22. He declares That they who receive not that Scripture the Acts of the Apostles cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost was sent to the Disciples nor can they prove how when and by what means the Body of Christs Church was instituted c. 33. He prescribes against the Hereticks from the Apostles Writings c. 36. He hath these words Run through the Churches of the Apostles amongst which their very Authentick Letters are recited sounding the voice and representing the face of every one of them What else is this but to equal the delivery by the Scriptures with that which was from the mouths of all the Apostles In the same Chapter he saith John the Apostle puts together the Law and the Prophets with the Evangelical and Apostolical Letters and thence tenders this Faith to us to drink in To add but one place more c. 38. He saith of the Hereticks As the corruption of the Doctrine could never succeed without the corruption of the instruments so we could not have the integrity of Doctrine without the integrity of those things by which the Doctrine is delivered then he adds What the Scriptures are we are we are from them from their beginning and then shews that the Church doth keep them perfect which the Hereticks do not Next he cites Tertullian de carne Christi where c. 2. He supposeth That upon this account Marcion did blot out so many original instruments that is Scriptures least the flesh of Christ should be proved By what Authority saith Tertullian I pray if thou be a Prophet foretel something if an Apostle preach it openly if an Apostolical man agree with the Apostles and then follow the words cited by this Author If thou be only a Christian believe what is delivered Where it is manifest these words referr not to recommend to us Oral Tradition but the Canon of Scripture Soon after he tells Marcion that he is not a Christian but once was and now hath rescinded what he then believed where follow the next words referred to by this Author By rescinding what thou hast believed thou provest that before thou didst rescind it that was otherwise which thou didst believe otherwise So it was delivered moreover what was delivered that was true as delivered by those whom it belonged to deliver c. which words are of the same nature with the former and further condemn his rescinding or cutting off from the Scriptures those things which he once believed and were faithfully delivered for rescindere is not here to renounce as this Discourser translates it but to cut off or mutilate which indeed proves that it was otherwise before and this is the same in sense with what he calls his rejecting some Scriptures c. 3. his blotting out ch 4. his taking them away c. 5. and the same with what in this 2. ch he a little before called his blotting out the instruments of Scripture where having propounded the question by what Authority he did it and continuing his Discourse on the same subject after these words of rescinding he gives this answer Thou hast done it by no right at all Yet further that in this Discourse de Carne Christi he intended the Scripture for his Rule of Faith may be proved from ch 6 where speaking of the Body which Angels appear in Whence it is saith he nothing is manifest concerning it because the Scripture doth not declare it c. 15. He urgeth against Valentinus seven Texts of Scripture all which declare Christ to be Man and saith these only ought to suffice for prescription to testifie his humane flesh and not spiritual c. c. 22. when he had used many other Scriptures he saith The Apostle determineth all this Controversie when he declares him to be Abrahams Seed and then cites Gal. 3. adding We who read and believe these things what kind of flesh may we or ought we to acknowledge in Christ surely none other than Abraham had In the last place this Discourser cites two passages of Tertullian against Marcion to prove that the present Church contains in it the true Doctrine of Christ Now if it did so in Tertullian's time it is no way consequent that any particular Church must do so now unless it be by delivery of the same Scriptures The first place he cites but names not the Book is lib. 4. cont Marc. l. 5. where Tertullian's design is to declare the Ecclesiastical Tradition in the Scriptures to be preferred before what Marcion tenders as his emending the Gospel and so confirms the Protestant Doctrine For having observed that Marcion rejects the other Evangelists and corrupteth Luke He saith in the end of the fourth ch From the times of Tiberius to Antonine we meet with Marcion as the first and only emender of the Gospel And he observes his emending confirms ours whilst he emends that which he found first then follow the words cited by this Authour In short If it be manifest that is the more true which was the former and that was the former which is from the beginning that from the beginning which is from the Apostles in like manner that will manifestly appear to be delivered from the Apostles which is accounted Sacred in the Churches of the Apostles In which words Tertullian designs to establish the Scripture-writings against the Heretical corruption Whence it follows Let us see what Milk the Corinthians drew from Paul to what Rule the Galatians were corrected What the Philippians Thessalonians and Ephesians read c. so that Tertullian sends to the Scriptures which may be read Another testimony he ventures at is lib. 1. cont Marc. and saith it is more express but indeed makes nothing at all for Oral Tradition For this first Book being written to prove one only God against Marcion who in a Treatise called his Antitheses endeavoured to shew that there was not the same God in the Old Testament and in the New He observes c. 20. that some said that Marcion did not innovate the Rule but set it right when it was corrupted c. 21. He sheweth the Apostles never delivered any such
Churches were ordained by some one or more of the Apostles or of those Apostolical Men who received Ordination from them The ancient Testimonies of the Fathers assure us Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren l. 3. c. 3. Eus Hist Eccl. l. 3. c. 35. gr Acts 6.3 6. Acts 14.23 Eus Hist l. 3. c. 23. gr that Clemens was ordained by St. Peter and Polycarp by St. John The Scriptures acquaint us that the seven Deacons were constituted by the twelve Apostles and where Paul and Barnabas came they ordained Elders in every Church And Eusebius declares as a Matter of certain Truth that St. John in his old Age in some places made Bishops and in others planted whole Churches After the Apostles had committed particular Churches to the Care of their Bishops or Metropolitans they also intrusted the Power of Ordination peculiarly in their hands which indeed is included in committing to them the chief Care of the Church Titus 1.5 1 Tim. 3. 1-14 15. To this purpose Titus was appointed to ordain Elders in every City of Crete and Timothy directed how he ought to behave himself in the Church of God concerning the Ordination of its Officers And from these Principles the Truth of what Clemens Romanus declareth may be easily inferred Epist ad Cor. p. 57. That the Apostles ordered that when those chief Officers of the Church whom they had appointed should die 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others in their places should succeed them in the same Office and Ministration and therefore with a Power of Ordination And the universal Consent of genuine Antiquity shews the ancient Church to have received and followed that Platform and Model which was framed by the Apostles for Episcopal Eminency in Government and Power in Ordination To this purpose both Tertullian and Irenaeus urge this Tert. de Praesc c. 32. Iren. adv Haer. l. 3. c. 3. as a convictive Argument against the later Brood of Heresies That the Catholick Church could produce such a Catalogue of their Bishops and the Succession of them which would manifest that the first of them who was fixed in their several Churches was there placed by the Apostles themselves or by Apostolical Men their Assistants And the Succession in divers chief Churches is still preserved in ancient Writers and Ecclesiastical Historians And that the Power of Ordination especially was peculiar to the Bishop besides the Testimony of ancient Canons and Practice is acknowledged even by St. Hierom. Hieron ad Evagr. ◠And the placing of this Power in a single Person was of great necessity and usefulness for preserving the Churches Peace and Unity From hence I conclude that Episcopal Ordination was according to the Constitution of the Apostles and constant Practice of the Ancient Church the only regular way of entring into this Office and Ministry of Reconciliation and he that knows how easy a thing it is to raise plausible Objections almost against any thing will not be much moved by such as some produce in this case against so plain Evidence and general Testimony Indeed there have been some and but some Protestant Foreign Churches not the Bohemian as some English Writers have unfaithfully misrepresented it nor those of Sueden and the Danish Dominions nor divers others in Germany who have been without this Episcopal Ordination and it must be said that in this particular which is a matter of moment they are defective in that Primitive Apostolical Order which we observe But in the first fixing these Churches and their Ministry all things seem not to have been done as they would have chosen but as their present Circumstances would give them leave while they wanted that Privilege which our Reformation enjoyed the Consent of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Governors For besides the Expressions of particular Writers the French Protestants in their General Confession Confes Gallic c. 31. concerning the Entrance into the Ministry pleaded a Necessity in their Reformation of having some things done extra ordinem out of the regular Way with respect to the making up the Ruines and Decays of the Church Yea those Churches themselves and the most worthy Men among them are no Opposers but Approvers of this Government and Order as hath been sufficiently shewed concerning many principal Persons among them And even in the Synod of Dort when those sent from England asserted Episcopacy as Apostolical there was not as they declared in their joint Attestation any one Person in that Synod who spake a Word against it yea as Bishop Hall acquaints us the President of the Synod said Domine Divine Right of Episcopacy part 1. c. 4. non licet nobis esse tam faelices We may not be such happy Men. Now I conceive it becomes private Persons not to be over forward in judging other Churches but to express as much Charity towards them as the case will bear but to shew no such respect to any as to neglect a due Reverence to whatsoever is of God Wherefore I shall only note three things in general 1. That it is indeed a Truth that some positive Precepts may in extraordinary cases be dispensed with by the Goodness of God who will have Mercy and not Sacrifice This was that which warranted David's Men in eating the Shew-Bread In this case Circumcision was forborn in the Wilderness and the Jewish Casuists thought that Precept not to oblige Hor. Hebr. in 1 Cor. 7.19 when the circumcising an Infant was inevitably like to procure his Death The sacrificing in another place than that which God had singly appointed was practised by Samuel as well as others after the Destruction of Shiloh and before the Building of the Temple and by Elijah under the general Defection of Israel The celebrating Baptism by Persons unordained was allowed in the ancient Church Hieron adv Lucif si necessitas cogit as St. Hierom phraseth it And the Command that all the Males of Israel should three times in the Year appear before the Lord doth yet by the Letter of the Scripture give allowance to him who was in a Journey and by the reasonable Interpretation of the Jewish Writers 1 Sam. 1.21 V. Seld. de Syn. l. 1. c. 7. p. 186 187. the same Liberty was to be extended to those in Childhood and Infancy as Samuel was and to those in Sickness Old-Age and such like 2. Yet it becomes all good Men who are to obey God and reverence his Institutions not to be forward in judging themselves disobliged by the appearance of such Cases as they account extraordinary from Obedience to any of his Rules of Order When Saul thought he had a Case of Necessity to warrant his Sacrificing yet God was highly displeased therewith and deprived him of his Kingdom Nor might Vzzah touch the shaking Ark. 3. In ordinary cases he who willingly breaks positive Rules established by God's Authority is guilty of heinous moral Evil in disobedience to God's Commands contempt of his Government and