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
and that they had the right sense Now he who thinks not this a Rule sure enough to reject the then contrary Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as that he must be a great Temporal Prince and such like must own the Pharisees to be rather in the right than our Saviour and his Apostles And yet all these Arguments of our Discourser would here take place even those which concern Translations for at that time the Jews who after the Captivity did not commonly understand the Hebrew did make use of some the Syriack or Chaldee Translations which though of Hebrew Original as much differs from it as our English from the Saxon and others and those very many of the Greek Version which is as much different from the Hebrew as our English is from either of them His § 9 10 11. contain what he would perswade his Reader a Protestant would say against his Discourse which he undertakes to answer These things concern not us who have already returned our own Answer otherwise than to let him know that sober Protestants do not speak so weakly and absurdly as in some things he there represents them § 12. He sayes Some will reply fundamentals are clear in Scripture True indeed some do reply to this purpose and not only Protestants but the ancient Fathers upon the like occasion Thus Origen when Celsus in opposing Christianity urged the obscurity and uncertain sense of Scriptures Orig. lib. 7. cont Cels answers That whatever was useful for their hearers to understand and might confer any thing to the amending of their lives these things the Prophets spake without all covertness according to the will of God But such things as were mystical and matters of higher enquiry and speculation than the vulgar were capable of these things they declared by allegories and dark sayings Austin de Doct. Christiana lib. 2. c. 9. saith Among those things which are plainly set down in Scripture are found all those things which contain faith and manners And Athanasius with his Council of Egypt in their Synodical Epistle to Jovian the Emperour tell him That the true and religious faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is plain to all being both known and read out of the divine Scriptures and all these sayings include fundamentals being clear in Scripture Against such Answers or Replies he who should first have considered whether his Church had ever given a Catalogue of Traditions in Points de fide or can yet agree to do it which he knows they cannot against himself as well as against reason tells us That a perfect Catalogue of fundamentals was never yet agreed upon and without this all goes to wrack and then he enquires Whether this be a fundamental that Christ is God and Whether this be clearer in Scripture than that God hath hands feet nostrills and passions like ours Concerning the Catalogue of Fundamentals though as to matters of meer belief Protestants have oft asserted that the Creed contains them all yet the requiring such a Catalogue in this case from Protestants as it is needless so to a sober Enquirer will seem ridiculous and the only true way to disprove this Assertion is to shew something to be fundamental which is not plain enough in Scripture to be thence believed To put a like case If I should assert That in England may be had all things which are necessary for the convenient subsistence of man would it not be a thing ridiculous to say that till I could distinguish all things necessary for this subsistence from things unnecessary and produce a Catalogue of them this cannot be truly asserted For suppose such an enumeration of things necessary attempted if any thing be omitted which to another seems necessary and is in England or if some thing be inserted which seems not necessary and yet is in England still this assertion of all things necessary for subsistence being here may stand good and can no way be disproved but by shewing that there is somewhat necessary for mans subsistence which cannot be had in England This I suppose this Author did discern and therefore will here venture to instance in a Fundamental not clear in Scripture but I think he will come off with very bad success It is concerning the Divinity of Christ which we own a fundamental and if this Author shall say it is not so plain in Scripture as thence to be believed he must contradict S. John who tells us he wrote for this purpose that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God John 20.31 So that he must either grant that this is so plain in Scripture that there is sufficient evidence there for our believing it or else he must say that when the Evangelist wrote that we should believe him to be the Son of God he had no eye to our believing his Divinity or his being God and he who will so assert will deny this to be a fundamental or else he must say that the Evangelist and the Holy Ghost who inspired him mistook in supposing enough written to declare his Divinity But he here seems to object and elsewhere that some who seem to follow the letter of the Scripture deny this as the Socinians What then This is not for want of evidence in Scripture but from making or devising wayes to avoid this evidence Will this Author say that there was no evidence of there being Angels and Spirits amongst the Jews because the Sadducees who had opportunity of observing all such evidence believed neither Angel nor Spirit And will he say that there was no clear evidence from the Word of Christ and his Miracles that they were from God because the Pharisees and other unbelieving Jews who conversed with him and saw his Miracles and heard his Word yet did not acknowledge them from God Now if this be so clear from Scripture as thence to be believed and that God hath hands feet and passions like ours be not so delivered as I shall shew in answer to his next Discourse where he urgeth this again then I may safely and truly conclude that the Divinity of Christ is much more clear in Scripture than the other Indeed that God hath hands c. like ours I know not of the least intimation of any such thing in the letter of Scripture though it should not be allowed the common and usual Figures of Speech which are intelligible enough to men of Reason since when it speaks of Gods Hand or Arm or the like it plainly shews them not like ours as God said to Job Job 40.9 Hast thou an arm like God and canst thou thunder with a voice like him These two properties therefore of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture notwithstanding all this Author hath jointly objected against it An Answer to his third Discourse shewing that the three next Properties of the Rule of Faith are agreeable to Scripture IN § 1. and 2. he layes down his third Property of the Rule
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
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
Faith ruine themselves Wherefore saith he blessed Paul saith Great is the mystery of Godliness God manifest in the flesh c. A little after he saith To make an exact search is that few can do but to hold fast the Faith belongs to all who are perswaded by God Then follow the words cited He that searcheth after that which is above his reach is in danger but he who abides in the things delivered is out of danger Wherefore we perswade you as also we perswade our selves to keep the Faith delivered and avoid prophane words of novelty thus far this Discourser cites but then follows and to fear an inquisitive search into so great Mysteries but to confess that God was manifest in the flesh according to the Apostles Tradition By this view of the whole sense of Athanasius it is evident he designs to put them off from curious questions about these high Mysteries to relie on the written Scripture Tradition which in these words he refers to And in the same Treatise he urgeth other Scriptures to confirm this point using these words concerning Scripture-testimony it speaketh evidently it teacheth us as manifestly The last testimony he cites from Athanasius is in his Epistle to Epictetus where inveighing against him who wrote that Christs Body was consubstantial to his Divinity he indeed saith That things that are so manifestly evil it is not fit to lay them further open or spend more time about them lest thereby contentious men should judge them doubtful Then follow the words by this Author referred to it is sufficient to answer to such things and say that these things are not of the Catholick Church nor did our Fathers so think But his next words are But lest our silence should make them shameless it is requisite to speak something from the holy Scriptures And after many arguments from Scriptures saith Wherefore let them confess that they have erred being perswaded by the holy Scriptures So that we see he no way rejects the Scriptures from being his Rule though he said as Protestants also will that some Heresies may be so absurd that it is enough against them to shew them contrary to all anciently received Doctrine and the Catholick Church and yet even in these he referred to Scripture as the best means of conviction Though the judgement of Athanasius be already sufficiently manifest I shall briefly refer to two other testimonies One is a fragment of his 39. Epistle where when he had reckoned the Books of Scripture he saith These are the wells of Salvation in these only is the Doctrine of Godliness declared Let no man add any thing to these nor take any thing from them Another testimony is observable amongst his various Treatises against divers Heresies he hath one which concerns this Discourser and if as some think it be Theodoret's Treatise it will still be of use to us against them Who say men should not search out of Scriptures but be satisfied with their own Faith Where very much to our purpose I only mention one short expression Wouldest thou that I should reject the Scriptures where then shall I have knowledge Wouldest thou that I should forsake knowledge where then should I have Faith But I suppose I need add no more to evidence that Athanasius made Scripture the Rule of Faith SECT XV. What was owned as the Rule of Faith by S. Basil OUr Discourser likewise pretends to have S. Basil on his side from whom he cites two testimonies which must be examined The first whereof is to be found in his first Book against Eunomius where when Eunomius requires them who hear or read him not to attribute any thing to the greater party or the multitude or the dignity of persons S. Basil answers in the words this Authour refers to Shall we being perswaded by thee judge the Tradition which in all Ages past hath prevailed under so many holy men more dishonourable than your impious conceits But is this to make Tradition a Rule of Faith When I say that I will account more honourably of S. Basil's Judgement than of this Discoursers fond conceits do I by this make S. Basil the Rule of Faith And why may not S. Basil prefer other Catholick Teachers before Eunomius and yet not make them a Rule of Faith Yea it is evident from the very place he designs not here to speak of the Rule of Faith but to speak against the arrogancy of Eunomius yet in this Book he urgeth many things from the Scriptures with such Prefaces to them as these We will demonstrate from the Scripture We are taught of the Scripture How accurately and evidently they testifie And these things seem to make Scripture a Rule of Faith His other testimony is from S. Basil against the Sabellions Arians and Anomaeans where observing that those Hereticks delighted in some Sophistical niceties and did not entertain the plain delivery in the Scriptures which was confirmed by the Fathers he exhorts in these words Lest thou shouldest separate the Spirit from the Father and the Son then follow the words cited by this Discourser Let Tradition deterr thee the Lord taught so the Apostles preached so the Fathers conserved it the Martyrs confirmed it let it suffice thee to speak as thou art taught And then he adds Away with these pieces of Sophistry either the Spirit is unbegotten or begotten if he be unbegotten he is the Father if he be begotten he is the Son if neither he is then a Creature Now that in this place he chiefly intends the confirmation of the Tradition in Scripture and the Councils decisions agreeable to this holy Scripture is evident from the design of his whole Book wherein he proves the truth by Scripture and thus declares his own sense not long before concerning the holy Spirit We exhort you that you would not seek to hear of us any time that which is pleasing to your selves but that which is well pleasing to the Lord and agreeable to the Scriptures and not contrary to the Fathers These words plead for the Rule of Scriptures not against them But that more clearly we may understand the opinion of S. Basil concerning the Rule of Faith I shall refer to his Treatise of Faith Tom. 2. where he declares That he would keep himself to what he had received from the Scriptures of Divine inspiration And a little after saith It is a manifest falling off from the Faith and evidence of Pride either to reject any thing of those things that are written or to bring in any thing of those things that are not written when our Lord Jesus Christ himself saith My Sheep will hear my voice What words could be more full to shew what he owned for the Rule of Faith SECT XVI What was by S. Austin accounted the Rule of Faith THis Discourser tells us he must not omit S. Austin I confess I wonder how he adventured to produce him when it is so manifestly apparent that he very frequently and
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
is not within the Churches authority 2. They may as well say that whole Christ is in one kind and therefore there needs no consecration of the Cup as that therefore there needs no distribution And so the Cup may be wholly rejected with as much Piety as the Laity are now deprived of it 3. What is contained in the Sacrament is contained in it according to the Will of Christ and his Institution and thereby the Bread is the Communion of the body of Christ and the Cup is the Communion of the blood of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 And (n) Ration l. 4. c. 54. n. 13. Durandus did truly assert that the blood of Christ is not Sacramentally in the Host because the Bread signifies the Body and not the Blood So he with somewhat more to this purpose And this is the more considerable because in the Holy Eucharist the death of Christ is represented and in the Cup his Blood as shed And Gelasius who was once Bishop of Rome when he heard that some received the Bread only and not the Cup declared what then it seems was Catholick Doctrine at Rome that they must either receive the whole Sacrament or be rejected from the whole because (o) de Consec Dist c. 2. comperimus divisio unius ejusdem mysterii sine grandi Sacrilegio non potest provenire the dividing one and the same Sacrament cannot be without grand Sacriledge Which words contain a more full and plain censure of what since his time is practised in the Church of Rome than can be evaded by the strained and frivolous Interpretations either of Gratian of Binius or Baronius And we have also much greater authority than his For besides what I have above mentioned this use of the Cup was part of what S. Paul received of the Lord and delivered to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 11 23-25 and it was matter of praise in the Corinthians that they kept the ordinances as he delivered them v. 2. 19. And what is asserted in the Council of Trent that the Church had just reason to order the Communion in one kind and what others say that it is more profitable to Christians and contains an honour and reverence to that Ordinance must suppose that their wisdom is greater than our Saviour's who did not know or consider with so much prudence as they do what is fit to be appointed and established in his Ordinance And since the Holy Ghost declared both the Bread and the Cup to be appointed to shew forth Christs death till he come 1 Cor. 11.26 they must therefore be both used to this purpose until his second coming and then no power was left to any Church to alter and change this institution And whilst some pretend reverence to God and this Sacrament in taking away the Cup from the people it would be considered that there can be no honour to God in acts of disobedience But if pretences of honouring God in acts of disobedience could render actions commendable Sauls Sacrificing must have passed for a pious attempt and the Doctrine of the Pharisees for the observing their vow of Corban must have been esteemed a Religious assertion 20. A third Instance I shall consider Of the propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is their pretending to offer a proper expiatory Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Mass which is derogatory to Christs own Priestly oblation whereby he once offered himself a compleat Sacrifice of expiation But the (p) Sess 22. c. 2. Council of Trent declares that in the Mass is Sacrificium verè propitiatorium a truly propitiatory Sacrifice and that it is offered both for the sins punishments and other necessities of the living Christians and also for the dead in Christ who are not fully purged And it pronounced an Anathema against him who shall say in missa non offerri Deo verum proprium sacrificium that in the Mass is not offered to God a true and proper Sacrifice or that it ought not to be offered for the quick and the dead And they declare it to be the very same Sacrifice which was offered upon the Cross And the (q) Catech. ad paroch jux dec Trid. p. 247. Roman Catechism saith that this Sacrifice of the Mass doth not only contain an efficacious meriting but a satisfying also and even as Christ by his passion did both merit and satisfie So they who offer this Sacrifice do satisfie And the Council of (r) Anath 3. Trent will have it offered for satisfactions 21. Now it is acknowledged that that perfect Sacrifice which Christ himself once offered is lively represented and eminently commemorated in the holy Communion and the benefits thereof are there received by the worthy Communicant and on this account this Sacrament especially is a Christian Sacrifice in a large sense The Eucharist how a Christian Sacrifice as that Jewish Feast was called the Passeover as it was a memorial and representation of the original Passeover when the destroying Angel passed by the Houses of the Israelites And it may be called a Sacrifice as it contains the performance of such a chief part of service and worship to God as renders them who do it aright pleasing and acceptable to God And therein we present our selves to God with our homage and oblations and our praises and supplications that we and the whole Church may obtain remission of sins and all other benefits of Christs passion And such great actions of Religion are in a more large sense though not in a strict sense frequently called Sacrifices both in the holy Scriptures as in Psal 51.17 Rom. 12.1 Phil. 4.18 Heb. 13.15 16. 1 Pet. 2.5 and frequently in the Fathers as may be shewed from Justin Martyr Tertullian Clemens Alexandrinus and divers others But this sense is so far from satisfying the Council of Trent that it pronounceth (ſ) ubi sup an Anathema against him who shall say it is only a Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving or a commemoration of the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross and not a propitiatory Sacrifice 22. Now that there is not nor can be in the Sacrament a proper Sacrificing Christ's Body and Blood to make expiation for the sins of men may appear from four Considerations Cons 1. Christ's once offering himself a Sacrifice Cons 1. The Sacrifice of the Mass derogates from the death and pussion of Christ was so compleat that it neither needs nor admits of any reiterating or that this or any other propitiatory or expiatory Sacrifices should be again offered This is observed by the Apostle to be one excellency of the Sacrifice of Christ once offered above the legal Sacrifices that whereas by reason of the imperfection of them the Priests offered oftentimes the same Sacrifices Christ by one offering had fully perfected his work and the Apostle therefore expressly saith he should not offer himself often Heb. 9.25 26 27 28. chap. 10 10-14 (t) de Missa l.
readings are preserved yet according to any of them there is a consent in all the matters of Faith unless there be some manifest mistake in any Copy which may easily be discerned to be the Scribes or Printers error nor amongst all these readings can any point of Christian Faith be so doubted of that it is not capable of receiving sufficient evidence from some Texts And though this Authour would pretend that from these various readings there is an uncertainty in all things in Scripture which is contrary to all reason yet others more knowing and learned Papists are so ingenuous as to grant what I here contend for Bellarmine de Verbo Dei lib. 2. c. 2. asserts that the errors of Transcribers in the Old Testament are not of so great moment that the integrity of the Holy Scriptures should be wanting in those things which belong to Faith and Good Manners for the most part saith he the whole difference of the various readings is placed in some little words which either do not at all or do very little alter the sense And ch 7. he declares that he asserts the same concerning the New Testament which he there asserted concerning the Old Indeed before the time of Christ there were more various readings in the Old Testament than there now is in the New as may appear not only from the various Cheri and Ketib and the Tikkan Sopherim and such like which are probably more ancient but also because the Copies used by the Septuagint and Samaritan differed in many various readings from the Hebrew Copies used by the Chaldee Paraphrast which probably were most in use in Christ's time and after received by the Masoreths and yet since they all agreed in the same points of Doctrine Christ and his Apostles both had recourse to them and so perswaded others and we think it is safe for us to follow such examples The Vulgar may here consider our several English Translations which as to expressions have in most Verses some difference and in some few places the one may give a sense somewhat different from the other yet since it is but in very few places where they do not all agree in the sence of the place and where they do not yet none of them do assert any truth of Doctrine which the others either do not assert or do deny the common Christians may hence see that which may make them rather the more secure than doubtful of these truths because the latter Translations though differing in words yet agree in all Doctrines with the former And if there be the same variety of readings in several Translations in other Languages this is no more than is in our English But as for the Originals though there be several various readings yet in comparison of our English Translations but one for many and yet fewer places where the same sense of that Text is not expressed by such readings though in some small difference of words which difference of words was occasioned partly from several of the Fathers citing the Scriptures as is with all men frequent not alwayes in the very same words but words of the same sense from whence many of these various readings in the New Testament had their Original or partly that the Scribes or they who copied the Scriptures might have some mistake where yet the sense remained intire for the most part But he inquires Why may there not have been some various readings formerly in those places which now appear in all Copies we have to agree which various readings may possibly have been blindly determined and so misguide us in the main points of Faith I answer That since there are very many ancient Copies and Commentators and Citations of Fathers which fully accord with our present readings and since there are some ancient Translations as Syriack Latine and others all which agree in the same and since there is an accord in these Books scattered and dispersed over the whole World if there had been any such different readings they must be every where determined before these ancient Copies Commentaries or Citations were written before the ancient Translations were made yea before the Copies of the Scriptures were dispersed into the several Regions of the World and this is to imagine that there must have been some general alteration determined in the great matters of Faith whilst the hand writing of the Apostles was preserved yea even in the Apostles daies which is impossible unless the Apostles to whom Christ committed his truth and their Converts who were numerous and prized this Doctrine above all the World should all against the clear evidence of their own knowledge and the Original Writings of the Apostles then amongst them conspire to corrupt this Doctrine and to falsifie the Records which contain it which to assert is not only highly unreasonable but exceedingly impious and blasphemous nor would it leave Oral Tradition safe How much all this speaks to common sense I shall express in a case which is very parallel Suppose a Jury in any case of concernment should observe an hundred Witnesses produced examined asunder and every one of their attestations written and one by one read to them as to the great matter to be proved every one of them agree fully and not so much as one dissents will they not judge this a sufficient evidence of any thing spoken though in some of these attestations there be some small difference in a word though not at all to add or leave out any considerable sense yea Will they not think the testimony the more firm as to the things attested because they all agree firmly in them though they never met together to conspire so to correct one another that there might not be a syllable different in their words The Scripture certainty of points of Faith is much greater than this since the Copies every one of which gives its attestation are abundantly more numerous and withal the main points of Faith are not only expressed in some one Text of Scripture but in very many places where there is a concurrence in all these Copies which speaks these truths more certainly free from all possibility of error Yet besides all this certainty we have much in the end of Scriptures writing and therein Gods care of it to assure us that it is not corrupt of this we spake somewhat in the former Discourse What he speaks of Bishop Usher observing so many various readings in the New Testament which he durst not Print for fear of bringing the whole Book into doubt This relation manifests it self to be such a story as I think neither this Author nor any man of reason either Protestant or Papist can believe upon serious consideration if he withal judge Bishop Vsher to have been a very knowing man No understanding Protestant can believe this because he knows that Protestants freely inquire after various readings and never the more doubt of Scriptures because there appears so full a
them out of design and by these men if in an allowed and confirmed Council both the present and future Generation must be determined But what he speaks of a future Generation easily discovering the innovation makes me think he forgets himself For how should the following Generation of Catholicks consistently with this Authours Principles discover it By former Monuments But he in this Book declares that they must not give heed to any former private mens Writings against the delivered Doctrine of the Church publickly attested And if any publick Writing though it be their own approved Canons seem contrary they must find such interpretation as will agree with this declared Doctrine and stick to it though it be wrested so that whatsoever can be shewed from History or Ancient Doctors as this Authour declares in his Corollaries is to such Papists of no account against present Tradition See Coroll 14.16 17. Yea if you shall produce a great number of opposers as may in many cases easily be done he will hold to the greater number in his present Council If you produce him a former Council against any now received Doctrine he must not rationally judge of the Tradition but from the present Tradition condemn that if it cannot be otherwise interpreted as Heretical If you produce the Eastern or Graecian or other Churches as delivering otherwise if this cannot by other means be evaded they must not be acknowledged by Romanists for true Deliverers But if we can produce an approved General Council have we not now such sufficient Monuments to discover thereby what was the Doctrine of the Church such Councils our Discourser calls the greatest Authority in the Catholick Church p. 129. Yet if the Council was approved and by the Roman Church acknowledged both for Catholick and General still they have a device to reject what ever dislikes them in such a Council by saying that it is ex parte approbatum and ex parte reprobatum or part of it rejected and part of it received by this device they reject part of the Second General Council at Constantinople and the Twenty eighth Canon of the Fourth General Council at Chalcedon which declares that their Fathers gave Priviledges to the See of old Rome because that was the Imperial City and therefore upon the same consideration they gave the same Priviledges to the See of Constantinople And thus they have rejected others of old as also part of the Council of Constance and the Council of Basil more lately concerning the Authority and Power of the General Councils over the Bishop of Rome Thus doth Binius and other Papists So that no way remains for a Papist thus principled to detect this Innovation where he hath contrary evidence much less in many cases where the matter now determined hath not been so distinctly of old treated of so that the Roman Church may innovate and yet expect to be believed that the Doctrine was ever delivered Provided they take care not so palpably to contradict their own publick and former delivery in such a way as no possible interpretation can make things consist one with the other If they do take this care there is room enough left for many innovations in Doctrine in points not clearly enough determined formerly in the publick Monuments of that Church and in those also by misinterpretations But though Papists consistently with their Principles can make no discovery of Innovations but must either make use of strained interpretations of former Writers or else must condemn those Writers yet Protestants can and do make this discovery And blessed be God that they of the Romish Church have not so blotted out the Writings of the Ancient Fathers though they have shewed some good will thereto nor have they been able so to correct the Letter of the Scripture according to their own sense as this Authour thinks convenient Cor. 29. but that we are able from them to discover the Error and Apostasie of the present Church of Rome of which in the close of this Discourse I will give him one instance § 6. From these Principles he concludes That since nothing new could be owned as not new in any Generation by the first nor a foregoing Age make it received as not new by Posterity by the second therefore since we hold it descended uninterruptedly it did descend as such To this I answer That if the former Principles had been both true as neither of them are yet would not this conclusion have followed from them because it supposeth besides these Principles many other things to be true which are either very improbable or certainly false First it supposeth that all points held as matters of Faith have in all Ages since Christ been delivered in such terms as ever delivered-points of Faith whereby they have been known distinctly from disputable opinions if this had been so the many Controversies whether such and such things were de fide shew the maintainers of them on the one side not capable of understanding plain words Secondly it supposeth that nothing can be received as ever delivered by a following Generation which was not delivered as ever received in a former Generation unless they declare something not to be new which they know is new For why may not that which is propounded as a probable opinion in one Generation be thought to be delivered as a truth in the next Generation and in some following Generations who cannot give an Historical account how far in every Age every Position was received it may be owned as a point of Faith by which means also Constitutions of expediency may be owned as Doctrines necessary In which case they now only hold as a matter of Faith what the former Generation held as a truth and so they hold no new thing differing in the substance from the former nor design they any thing new in the Mode of holding it Thirdly This supposeth that every Generation from the time of the Apostles have been of the opinion this Authour pretends to to design to hold all and nothing but what the immediately foregoing Generation held which is a point can never be proved For this would be indeed to assert that never any persons studied to understand any point more clearly than it was comprized in the words they received from their Fathers or else that when they had so studied they never declared their conceptions or opinions in such points or if they did declare them yet no number of men would ever entertain them And this is as much as to say that the Church never had any Doctors studied in the points of Faith or at least that such studies never were honoured in the Church and the fruits of them received and applauded by it which if it would not cast a great indignity upon the Church yet it is apparently contrary to the truth Fourthly It supposeth but proves not that all points of Faith have come down by the way of Tradition and none of them failed of
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
preserve or recover men from the snares of sin and to guide them into a true obedience to the will of God and the doing those things which are to the honour of Christianity by calming the unruly disorders of mens minds Where persons are engaged in any unaccountable practice with passion and fierceness there is no case wherein sin hath a greater dominion and government over man than in this For whilst any are carried on with rash heats these blind their minds and hinder them from a sober consideration of what they ought to do And there is no sinful indisposition wherein men are more averse from good counsel and more forward to be displeased with and oppose them who would direct them better And (z) Arist Ethic l 1. c. Aristotle observed from Hesiod that he who will neither consider things rightly of himself nor be advised by others is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a man of whose good there is little hope Wherefore he who will endeavour the recovering of men from such sins must be prepared to bear the hard words of such offenders which was the lot of Christ himself of his Apostles and many of the ancient Fathers in the like case Even as he that would be most instrumental to extinguish a prevailing fire may be scorcht and must be touched with some sense of the heat and flame 31. 2. It is impious to think the breaking the laws of God to be our interest Secondly Consider how much it savoureth of impiety that the urging the plain duties of meekness patience humility and reverence to Superiours should be thought things of ill and hurtful consequence and that passionate fierceness and disobedience should be esteemed things good and useful for mankind As if those things which God commands were for the prejudice of man of whose welfare he hath so great a care This would represent the Kingdom of Christ to be divided against it self and perswade men that if they will take care of their own true interest and do what is best for themselves they must cast off the yoke of Christ and comply with the temptations of the Devil But whoever will talk or judge at this rate if he do not stop his course and return from the error of his way is in a fair progress towards the renouncing his Christianity and the denying the wisdom and goodness of God in governing the world But then he must withal contradict the sentiments of his own reason and conscience since no man can think it just and fit that himself should be thus treated either with uncharitable censures and unjust reproaches and calumnies by others or with an untractable disrespect and an irreverent and undutiful behaviour from his own Children and Servants It would be folly enough for Subjects to think that those prudent Laws which are the contrivance of the wisest men are their burden and dammage and that it would be far better for every man to be wholly left to his own will when as the (a) Cic. pro Cluent Roman Orator truly observed Laws are the bond and the soul and life of civil society and the foundation of liberty and we are therefore subject to Laws that we may enjoy freedom legum idcirco servi sumus ut liberi esse possimus But it would be far more unaccountable to have such disparaging thoughts of the directions and commands of the infinitely wise God And it hath been a great part of Satans business in the world to perswade men to reject useful truth and rules of practice by raising prejudices against them and those that teach them This he oft doth by pretending that they are against the interest of men and that some ill design is laid by them who propose them In this manner he began with our first Parents in Paradise and so he proceeded against the Christian Religion as I have shewed 32. Obj. 2. But it may be further objected Obj. 2 If Religion be concerned ought not men to be zealous If Religion be concerned and in danger doth it not become every good man to be moved and zealous in this case and both to speak and act what may tend to its preservation To which I shall return four things by way of Answer with desire that they may all of them be seriously considered 33. Ans 1 Yes in Christian and prudent actions not in sinful passions Ans 1. It is very requisite he should in such a case be zealous and active as a Christian in the diligent exercises of an holy life and in frequent and devout prayer and supplication to Almighty God to procure his protection and defence against all the enemies of his Church and their ill designs And it is proper also for him to be active as a wise man in the use of all lawful and prudent means which agree to his place and station But he must not be active as an evil doer in giving himself the liberty to vent passionate slanders and uncharitable reproaches against others or to behave himself undutifully towards his Superiours If a Ship be in a storm it is desirable that its passengers should both pray to God and in their places put to their helping hand for its security but it very ill becometh them at that time to fall into quarrels with them who take the best care for its safety And it must be considered that (b) Just Mart. Paraen p. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Religion is not so much a name as a business of life and practice And therefore they who speak of shewing a great respect to Religion by disobeying its precepts do really lose Religion under a pretence of preserving it for though men may deceive themselves it is a truth of undoubted certainty that whosoever seemeth to be religious and bridleth not his tongue that mans Religion is vain it is an empty appearance and not profitable to himself 34. 2. Gods Kingdom needeth not the help of Satan and sin Ans 2. Religion can never be so in danger that God should need any sinful practices of men to uphold his interest His Kingdom is not so weak that it cannot stand without the assistance of the works of the Devil Such methods may help forward the ruine of a Church but will never be found the true way to its settlement and establishing Christ who founded his Church did support it when it was in the midst of persecutions even in its weak beginnings And the exercises of piety and all good conscience accompanied with innocent prudence are the way to put us under his care and intitle us to his protection but he will have no concord with Belial When the pressures of the Israelites were heavy in Egypt God delivered them from their Bondage And when their transgressions had at other times exposed them to great calamities and sufferings upon their returning to him he raised up Judges and gave them redress And he knows how to defend those who fear him by
continuing his discourse upon the same subject concerning the Eucharist and in the three verses immediately following using the same expressions of the Bread and the Cup cannot from the order of his discourse be otherwise properly understood than to have respect to the same things though by consecration advanced to a more excellent mystery 2. When the Apostle declares the eating this Bread and drinking this Cup to shew forth the Lords death till he come He both declares this action to be commemorative of Christs death by somewhat which represents the death of him who can die no more and by those words till he come he shews the proper substantial presence of Christs Body not to be in that Bread But the (e) Catech. ad Par. p. 128. Roman Catechism says the Apostle after consecration calls the Eucharist Bread because it had the appearance of bread and a power to nourish the body Now to pass by the strangeness of the body being nourished by that which is no substance it may be considered 1. That if the Romish Doctrine had been true it cannot be conceived that the Apostle purposely discoursing of the Eucharist and laying down the Christian Doctrine concerning it should so often call it what it was not and not what it was 2. Especially when this must have been a truth greatly necessary to be known And 3. Since it still continued in appearance Bread the Apostle would not have complied with those errors which the reason and senses of men were apt to lead them to if these had been truly errors but would have been the more forward to have acquainted them with the truth 25. Sixthly and is not favoured by some Traditions of the Romish Church I shall add though I lay no further stress on this than as it may speak something ad homines that if we may give credit to the approved Ritualists of the Romish Church there are ancient usages in that Church which bear some opposition to Transubstantiation It was a custom received and constantly observed in the Roman Church that the Eucharist must never be consecrated on Good Friday (u) Div. Offic. Explic. c. 97. Johannes Beleth an ancient Ritualist undertaking to give an account of this saith there are four reasons hereof his first is because Christ on this day was in reality and truth sacrificed for us and when the truth cometh the figure ought to cease and give place unto it And his other three reasons have all respect to this first And (w) Rational l. 6. c. 77. n. 34 Durandus in his Rationale undertaking to give an account of the same custom makes the same thing to be his second reason thereof and useth these very words also that the truth coming the figure ought to cease The intent of which is to declare that the Eucharist is a figurative representation of Christs Passion and therefore on Good Friday when the Church had their thoughts of Christ and eye to him as upon that day really suffering they thought fit to forbear the representation of his Passion in the Eucharist But this notion of the Eucharist is not consonant to Transubstantiation 26. What guilt there may be in worshipping what is not God though the belief of the true God be retained Having now discharged Transubstantiation as being neither founded in the Scripture nor consonant thereto as being opposite to the Doctrine and usages of the Primitive Church and as contradictory to sense and the principles of reason I shall upon this foundation proceed to add something concerning the dishonour done to God in giving Divine Worship to that which is not God and the great guilt thereby derived upon man Now it is confessed generally that the giving Divine honour intentionally to a Creature is Idolatry and an heinous transgression But it may be worthy our enquiry to consider how far guilt can be charged upon such persons who profess the only true God to be God and that there is none other but he and design to give the proper and peculiar Divine honour to him a-alone for such we may suppose the case of the Romanists in this Controversie waving here their exorbitant adoration of Saints the relative Divine Worship to Images and somewhat higher yet to the Cross but actually through mistake and delusion do conferr this Divine honour upon that which in truth is not God in confidence and presumption that it is what it is not and that it is an object to which Divine honour is due when in truth it is not so Now in what I shall discourse of this case in general the instances I shall first mention of some bad men are only proposed to give some light to the general resolution of this enquiry and therefore are by no means mentioned to any such purpose as if I intended to write or think any thing dishonourably of the Holy Sacrament which I would not think of but with a pious Christian reverence and due veneration 27. Wherefore I shall here lay down three Assertions Assert 1. The misplacing Divine Worship upon an undue object may be a very gross and heinous sin of Idolatry Assert 1. There may be an Idolatrous misplacing Divine worship consistent with believing one only and the true God though the profession of one only God and of him who is the true God be still retained with an acknowledgement that none other ought to be worshipped This with respect to outward acts of worship was the case of divers lapsed Christians who being prevailed upon by the terrors of persecution did sometimes either offer Sacrifice or incense to Pagan Deities or otherwise communicated in their Worship or did swear by them or the Genius of Caesar or did make profession of such things being God which they were sufficiently convinced were not God And the like miscarriages concerning outward acts of worship may arise from an evil compliance with others or from the great vanity and evil dispositions of mens own minds And concerning inward worship it is easie to apprehend that such acts as proceed from the heart and affections as the highest practical esteem love reverence and fear may be misplaced upon that which men in their judgements do not esteem to be God whilst they either do not consider these things to be acts of worship or else are more governed by their affections than their judgments But concerning such inward acts of worship as proceed from the mind and understanding such as to acknowledge in ones mind such a Being to be God and that Divine honour is due unto it and all Divine excellencies are inherent in it these cannot be performed to any Being but to that only which is thought judged and believed to be God But notwithstanding this even these acts may by delusions be Idolatrously misplaced whilst there is still continued this general acknowledgement and profession of one only God who is the true God 28. Simon Magus as (x) de Praescrip c. 46. Tertullian declares
Reader for since he apparently designs his Book for English men and all our English Translations now in ordinary use had their original since our departing from Popery and our generally received Translation is not above Fifty Three Years older than his Book yet he would have the vulgar to imagine that there might be many faults in transcribing these Translations in innumerable Copies before Printing when Printing was long before these Translations were first made But to pass this by ordinary Protestants may be thus satisfied concerning the Printed Copies of the Scripture by considering that there is as great care taken about Printing Bibles as about copying Records and more than about Printing any other Books and yet this Author who would perswade other to doubt so much of the Printers keeping to the truth of the Copy before him as to the sense of it I suppose would not have sent his Book to the Press if he had thought indeed the sense of it was not like to be expressed in Print He may further consider that our English Bibles are daily read publickly or privately by learned men and compared with the Originals and found to agree with them except in some particular errors of Print which as they are not in many expressions may be discerned by common observation And the ordinary Christian hath the more cause to be confident of our ordinary Impressions of the Bible because even the Papists who are enemies to them and do peruse them yet dare not charge them to vary from the first translated Copies more than is above expressed Ad § 8. To the sixth and last Objection concerning the sense of Scripture I answer The faith of the vulgar no nor of the learned neither doth not require a certain knowledge of the sense of all Scripture The discovery of God what he is and of Christ and what he did and suffered for us and of the Gospel Promises and Commands and such like are so plain that he who can understand any thing of common speech may understand so much of them as is necessary for him to know yea they are in Scripture oft delivered in the very words and phrases which Christ himself and the Apostles and Prophets made use of to their hearers to instruct them in the faith and holy life and therefore he who will censure the Scripture as not sufficiently plain to teach the great truths of God must condemn the Apostles likewise and Christ himself as not teaching so as to be understood and then must impiously tell the World that either none were by them brought to the faith or that they who were did not understand it Indeed he thinks strangely of man who imagineth that he must go to an Oracle to understand such things as these That Christ came into the World to save sinners That he dyed for our sins and rose again and shall judge the World If these and such like plain words which are abundantly in the holy Scriptures cannot be understood by common capacities I dare affirm that they can never know these truths by any words and phrases and so can never be helped by such men as this Discourser who can shew no other ordinary way to teach the matters of meer belief but by words unless they will embrace Enthusiasm Indeed many things in Scripture are hard to be understood concerning which this ordinary Christian may satisfie himself that since God gave him this Book to lead him to God it is evident from Gods end in writing it that he hath expressed so much as is necessary for him to know that it is not beyond his capacity to discern it if he diligently attend to it and what he is not capable of understanding he may be ignorant of without fear of losing salvation by such ignorance provided he be careful to use such means as God affords him and be willing to receive further instruction as he shall be capable of further knowledge And then this ordinary Christian may by this means be of a sound mind and of a more knowing head in matters of Faith than most Papists are who know as little or less of the things which are obscure in Scripture than Protestants do and by this means he may own Christs Divinity as may appear n. 23. Having now shewed that in all his Arguments hitherto produced against the Scriptures being the Rule of Faith there is nothing rational I shall now briefly shew that the promoting such Cavils as these or being perswaded by them would be a way very much to hinder Piety and even wholly to disown Christianity which I shall do in applying most or all his Arguments to some particular Cases We read that Josiah when the Book of the Law was found did by that in a Pious and Religious Zeal reform the corrupt wayes of Worship which is of the nature of Practical Tradition 2 Kings 23.2 3 4. and from thence received the determination of very considerable Points of Doctrine which no Oral Tradition had brought down to him to wit what great wrath God had denounced against Judah and Jerusalem for the neglect of keeping that Law 2 Kings 22.13 19. This pious work of his for which he was so highly commended by God himself 2 Kings 22.19 20. and Chap. 23.25 That there was no King like him before or after him should never have been performed by him had he hearkned to such a Tempter as this Discourser For 1. Josiah could not more certainly know the Book of the Law to be the Word of God than Protestants now do the Book of Scriptures 2. And Josiah had only the Books of Moses 2 Chron. 34.13 and could then no more know the whole Canon of Scripture than we do 3. And before this Book was found he knew not that these Scriptures were any where preserved and after it was found having only one Copy and that probably written by they knew not whom he had not so much evidence of its integrity as Protestants now have of the whole Scriptures by the consent of all Copies 4. And if he was not capable of knowing the sense truly he should neither have humbled himself nor have reformed Judah Thus we see it would have destroyed his Piety to have been guided by these irrational Objections Consider next the state of Christianity When Christ came into the World as he condemns the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees which made void Gods Commandments so in the great Point of Faith concerning the Messias who and what manner of person he should be c. Christ sends his hearers to the Scriptures to learn John 5.39 and S. Peter when he spake of the glory of the Transfiguration yet saith 2 Pet. 1.19 We have a more sure word of Prophecy to which you do well to take heed Yet the Jews then had no more certainty than we have that Scriptures are Gods Word how many Books there are that they were preserved entire that they were rightly translated and rightly copied
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
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
This same History is related also both by Clemens and by Papias and after this Mark preached in Egypt that same Gospel which he had written Thus Eusebius Hist Eccles lib. 2. c. 10 11. and to the same purpose relating the words of Clemens lib. 6. c. 14. But our Discourser tells us He dare affirm that Presbyterians and Protestants adhere to their Faith because their Fathers or Pastors taught them it and not upon the evidence of Scriptures letter to their own private judgements because they who are brought up under Mr. Baxter are apt to follow him and others Mr. Pierce To this I answer That Protestants value the judgements of their Teachers if they think them to be learned and good men but yet in the Articles of Christian Faith and the great truths of God they do discern other grounds and surer to rely on than the opinion of Teachers and therefore whatever Teacher should contradict such truths they would not follow him And if any persons are so unstable as in such things to be led away by the Authority of any men they are far from being grounded Protestants In some matters more difficult or Controversial many Protestants are not capable of being better satisfied than by the judgment of their Pastors and are to be commended for following them yet in this case they own not their judgment as a Rule of their Faith but the best help to their understanding in a case of difficulty But if any Protestant by misapprehension do close with such things controversial as necessary points of Faith if afterwards he discerns them matters of Controversie not clear in Scripture or that the contrary is rather true and grounded on Scripture he will then submit his former apprehensions to the greater evidence now received And by this means through diligent examining very great multitudes of Protestants who have given up themselves impartially to follow Scripture truth have received some opinions different from some particular opinions of their Parent or Teacher And even all other Protestants who are not capable of making trial of the grounds of all controverted opinions yet unanimously will acknowledge that the trial of any truths by the Scripture is much more considerable than by any Teachers judgment and therefore if they were capable they would much rather chuse to be stedfastly fixed in any truth by the former than to be only perswaded to it by the latter Whence it appears that Protestants generally own only the Scriptures for their Rule And were there ever any who desired to be instructed in Philosophy or any Science designing therein to follow reason as their Rule who were not as much guided by their Teachers or Instructers as Protestants are by theirs that is to value their Authority or opinion until by examination of it by the Rule they should discern it an error § 6. He tells us That Objections made against a Prophetical afflatus and against the res traditae or things delivered instead of Tradition it self can have no force against his opinion I shall not dispute the truth of these things but shall so far satisfie this Authour as to assure him my following answer shall proceed neither of these waies § 7. He tells us The first Property of the Rule of Faith doth agree to Tradition to wit it is evident to all as to its existence because we see and hear daily sounds and actions about Practical Doctrines conveyed down to us But is this all that this Authour thinks necessary to be proved Did he not demand much more concerning Scripture than that the Book might be seen and the words heard did he not then require proof that Scriptures are Gods word c. Surely it is not only requisite that some thing should be delivered and received but at least it must be necessary for every Generation to know that all that Faith which the former received and professed is fully delivered and rightly received by them For since as himself saith in this Paragraph Tradition is the open conveyance of Doctrines if they be either not delivered or not received there is no conveyance and so a failure of the thing it self which is Tradition Now we assert that there can be no certainty of any such exact delivery in any one Generation since the Apostles daies and that for these reasons First because many matters especially in difficult things may be mistaken for want of right understanding and then these mistakes will be delivered That they are mistaken by many appears by the disagreement of great numbers and disputes about several Doctrines whether they be de fide or not and about the sense of Papal Decrees and Canons of Councils whence it is certain they do not all apprehend the truth or at least will not confess they do which will as much overthrow Tradition Secondly It 's possible that through the prevalency of corruption and sin in a. Generation of men they may much lose that knowledge of God which they had even in matters of Faith and then cannot deliver it aright It 's certain it was thus in the Generations after Noah in that great point concerning the true God and his Worship and there was then as much to be said from the nature of Tradition as now among Papists and therefore there can be now no security to the contrary unless the piety of all Ages could be demonstrated which the great complaints of the Teachers of several Ages renders impossible Thirdly because through the working of mans thoughts in apprehending and considering and explaining truths many things are concluded as consequences and explications of truths which were not received from the former age thus in almost all the Books and Discourses of the Papists and in the Book of this Authour are many particular assertions considerations and speculations which were not received from the open Tradition of the foregoing Age and they are here delivered and may hence by others be received Fourthly there may also be a combination through great viciousness or disrelish of truth against some particular truth which opposeth either the outward interest or the corrupt life Thus God complains of the Jews Jer. 5.30 The Prophets prophesie falsely and the Priests bear rule by their means and my people love to have it so Fifthly there may possibly be an omission of the delivery of many things to be delivered and true and I dare say it is impossible for this Author to prove upon his Principles that all truths are handed down from one Generation to another either amongst the Learned or the Vulgar and yet it will concern him to do it concerning every revealed truth since he rejects or at least will not own the distinction of truths into fundamental and not fundamental All these things considered there can be no certainty that there is any sure Tradition § 8. He saith The second Property belongs to Tradition to wit it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to any inquirer For it is certain if
eighth Century and many other cases Now before the determination of such a Council it is not evident which are the true deliverers from the way of Tradition since both parties contend for their own delivery and no other Rule of Trial must be admitted according to this Discourser but delivery or Tradition and upon the former considerations it appears that the best deliverers may be the fewest And this may be as uncertain after a Council since there is nothing else to ascertain us but the vote of a major part which in many Councils hath certainly been the worser part and maintained Heresie and therefore so it may be in others where there can be no evidence given to the contrary And by Determinations of Councils the lesser part and their Adherents are determined to reject their way of delivery and receive the other and by this means the lesser number which may be in the truth must disclaim their own sense and judgment to submit to the judgment of others which may be in the wrong and so the true Tradition may be lost Yet that it may appear more evident how vain the pretence to demonstration in this Discourse is I shall applie his way of demonstrating to some other cases which it will fit as well as Romish Tradition It is certain that after Moses the true Doctrine was dispersed among the Jews and after Noah who was a Preacher of righteousness amongst his Sons they had the greatest hopes and fears to ingage them to this truth and these are the causes of actual will and the truths are knowable therefore both Gentile Tradition from Noah and Jewish from Moses were indefectible according to this Discourser's Principles and so the true Religion may at this time be found either among Gentiles or Jews Yea it was certain that Gods will was declared to Adam and Eve in Paradise and to the Angels that fell before their fall and they had the greatest hopes and fears to perswade them to keep to this will of God knowing that obeying it was their happiness and deserting it their ruine these hopes and fears are the causes of actual will and the duties themselves both knowable and practicable and they had no corrupt inclinations to sway them therefore according to this demonstrator Adam and Eve and all the Angels did continue in their obedience The same way of demonstration would prove that never any Heresies could either be broached or by many be received in the Christian Church But in these cases who sees not that it will be answered that either the truths of God declared were not sufficiently heeded or else the causes of hope and fear were not sufficiently applied and at all times acknowledged and observed and that in such cases there was a corruption either in belief or in practice but then every eye will see that this might as well be imagined in the Romish Church as in any other company of men So that he hath made it as clear that the Romish Tradition is indefectible as that the Gentile and Jewish Traditions were and are and as certain as it is that there is no Devil or fallen Angel and no fall of man and consequently no sin in the World and no Heresie ever in the Christian Church But here it is needful to do this Authour that right as to observe his unusual modesty that he intitles this Discourse not a demonstration but an indeavouring to demonstrate § 6. He speaketh to this purpose If any shall object Original Corruption indisposeth Parents wills since Christs Doctrine was intended to be an Antidote for that Original malice to say it is universally applied and preserves none good is to question Christs wisdom and many thousands Martyrs and Confessors did hereby overcome the declivity of their wills Again nature cannot incline all to this sort of sin to teach their Children what they think will damn them but most strongly carries them to the contrary To this I may in the first place observe that neglects of duty might be if there had been no Original corruption as was in Adam in Paradise and in the Angels where was no antecedent sinful inclination but they were only capable of sinning Yet I assert there is more danger by Original corruption and its prevalency both as to the Will and Understanding Now Christs Doctrine is indeed a poise or Antidote against this yet this is first where this Doctrine is carefully entertained and retained but not so that there should be no fear of its being retained in any Church S. Paul did not nourish needless fears for his Corinthians who had this Doctrine lest their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ nor were they untrue complaints of his Galatians Chap. 3.1 Who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth And we Protestants can discern nothing to shew that this Doctrine must needs be otherwise a poise in the Romish Church than in the Corinthian or Galatian Secondly where this Doctrine is retained it is a poise against Original corruption in a considerable degree yet not so as to remove all imperfections proceeding from Original sin which may hinder right delivery of all truth for though in some excellent persons there be a willingness to deliver truth yet there may be some mistake even in holy Martyrs and Confessors The Church of Rome as well as we own Cyprian as a Saint and Martyr and yet acknowledge him to have erred and most Africans then with him in delivering that they who were Baptized by Hereticks ought to be rebaptized so that in following good men there may be mistake but they are more like to err if they be bad as many certainly are But concerning his last clauses it is no way necessary to suppose that to invalidate Tradition Parents must design to teach Children what they think will damn them we suppose very many may design truth and good who yet may be in error yet there may be others who through prevalency of corruption in themselves may design to corrupt the truth and may teach their Children so and all this out of that Principle that prevails with men to wicked lives which is not a design to damn themselves but a design to gratifie their evil affections S. Paul 2. Cor. 2.17 speaks of many who corrupt the word of God and S. Peter foretells of others who shall bring in damnable Heresies and we know the Jews did teach their Children to worship Baalim most probably this was not out of design to damn them however we know no demonstrations to prove that Romanists have higher affections to their Children naturally than Jews had or that when there is danger of truth being corrupted in the Christian Church they of the Romish should be exempted from liableness to that danger § 7. He thus proceeds If any object the fickle nature of the will he answers Good is the object of the will Now infinite goods and harms sufficiently proposed are
partake of our flesh and blood and made our Body his and became Man of a Woman Wherein he plainly enough makes use of the holy Scriptures to decide the Controversie concerning that point of Faith or rather to confirm that matter of Faith against its opposers SECT IX Of the Rule of Faith acknowledged by the Fathers and first of Coelestine AS it was easie to shew the general consent of the ancient Fathers to the Protestant Doctrine in this particular I shall now indeavour to do it in all those our Discourser pretends to be on his side and to avoid over great prolixity I will confine my self to them only His first citation is from Coelestine in his Epistle to the Ephesine Council where his words somewhat mis cited by the Discourser are to this purpose We must by all means indeavour that we may retain the Doctrines of Faith delivered to us and hitherto preserved by the Apostolical Doctrine But what is here for Oral Tradition Doth Coelestine tell us that that was the way of delivering and preserving truth till his time No such matter yea in the beginning of this Epistle he saith That is certain which is delivered in the Evangelical Letters But that we may better understand Coelestine whose Letter to the Council of Ephesus was written against Nestorius consider first his Letter to Cyril who confuted Nestorius in which are these words This truly is the great triumph of our Faith that thou hast so strongly proved our assertions and so mightily vanquished those that are contrary by the testimony of Divine Scriptures Yea in his Epistle to Nestorius he calls that Heresie of Nestorius a perfidious novelty which indeavours to pull asunder those things which the holy Scripture conjoins And in another Epistle to the Clergy and people of Constantinople he hath these words of Nestorius He fights against the Apostles and explodes the Prophets and despiseth the words of Christ himself speaking of himself of what Religion or of what Law doth he profess himself a Bishop who doth so foully abuse both the Old and the New Testament And in the end of that Epistle thus directs those Constantinopolitans You having the Apostolical words before your eyes be perfect in the same sense and the same meaning These words of Coelestine seem plainly to shew that in the Romish Church Scripture was then the way whereby to try Doctrines But if this be not the sense of these words of this Roman Bishop which seem so plain I may well conclude that the words by which the Roman Church of old delivered truth were not generally intelligible and so their Tradition must be uncertain SECT X. What was the Rule of Faith owned by Irenaeus THe next Father he cites is Irenaeus from whom he cites three testimonies From Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 4. though the naming the Book was omitted by him he would prove that the Apostles gave charge to the Bishops to observe Tradition and that it is a sufficient Rule of Faith without Scripture in which he abuseth Irenaeus From Irenaeus lib. 1. c. 3. he to the same end cites this as his testimony Though there be divers tongues in the world yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same the preaching of the Church is true and firm in which one and the same way of salvation is shown over the whole world Of which words only the first clause is in the place cited in Irenaeus but these words The preaching of the Church is true and firm c. though glossed upon by this Discourser as considerable are not to be there found in Irenaeus and if they were they would not serve his purpose as may by and by appear And from Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 3. though he mis-cites it lib. 1. c. 3. he cites words p. 138. to prove that the Doctrine of the present Church is the Doctrine of the Apostles Now that I may give a true account of the meaning of the words cited and also of the judgment of Irenaeus I shall first observe from Irenaeus himself what kind of Hereticks those in the Primitive times were who occasioned these words and how he confutes them and next which was his own judgement of the Rule of Faith Concerning the former Irenaeus lib. 3. c. 2. tells us That those Hereticks when they were convinced out of the Scriptures were turned into the accusing of the Scriptures themselves that they were not right nor of authority that they were variously spoken and that the truth could not be found out of them by those who have not Tradition and that the truth was given in a living voice which was the wisdom in a Mystery which every one of these Hereticks pleaded themselves had in Valentinus or Marcion Cerinthus or Basilides And when they were challenged to hold to the Tradition of the Apostles and their Successors in the Church they said they were wiser than the Apostles and so would neither hold to Scripture nor Tradition since they are slippery as Serpents indeavouring every way to evade he saith they must be every way resisted After this c. 3. he contends with them concerning Tradition and shews that the Churches Tradition is much more considerable than these Hereticks and hath the words which our Discourser cites p. 138. All they who will hear truth may discern in the Church the Tradition of the Apostles manifest in the whole world after which he adds We can mention the Bishops which were by the Apostles instituted in the Churches and were their Successors and if they had known any Mysteries to teach them who are perfect they would not have concealed them from them Further to manifest what was this Tradition he refers to Clemens his Epistle saying from thence they who will may know the Apostolical Tradition of the Church That there is one God c. Then that Polycarp who conversed with the Apostles whom Irenaeus had seen was a more faithful testifier than Valentinus or Marcion and he declared the same Doctrine and from his Epistle to the Philippians they who will may learn the preaching of truth and that John who lived to the time of Trajan was a true witness of the Apostles Tradition Cap. 4. He observes That the Church are the depository of truth and if any have any dispute of any question ought they not to have recourse to the ancient Churches in which the Apostles conversed and from them to receive what is certain concerning the present question And then he adds which our Discourser also cites p. 131. But what if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures ought we not to follow the order of Tradition which they delivered to those to whom they committed the Churches To which Ordination assent many Nations of those Barbarians who believe in Christ having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit without Paper and Ink and diligently keeping the ancient Tradition believing in one God c. And after saith They who believe this Faith without
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