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
dividing principle and practice can be justified before Christ himself For if Christ will say to them who neglect to express kindness and respect to the rest of his members In as much as ye did it not to one of the least of these ye did it not to me Matt. 25.45 May not they fear lest they hear the same who rashly and unjustly cast contempt reproach and disrespect upon that Church which he owneth as his and disown and reject its Communion 15. But this which they call gathering of Churches by taking to themselves those who either were or ought to have been under other Guides and Governours of the Church in a different but more justifiable way and order is indeed a making divisions in a setled Church and separations from it And this practce of division and separation is so greatly displeasing to the Holy Spirit of God that there are many earnest and vehement expressions in the Holy Scriptures against it To which purpose the Apostle beseecheth the Romans to mark them who cause divisions and offences contrary to the Doctrine they had received and avoid them Rom. 16.17 even them who by good words and fair speeches deceived the hearts of the simple Against such separations the ancient and Primitive Christians were very zealous as I have noted in (u) Libert Eccles B. 1. C. 1. Sect. 3. another place and so are also the generality of the Protestant Writers 16. Such a way of separation which in the phrase and language of the ancient Christians was expressed by a Presbyter contemning his own Bishop and having a separate Congregation and erecting another Altar or different Communion as to Sacramental administrations was severely censured in those early times of Christianity In that most ancient (x) Can. Ap. 31. collection of Canons such a Presbyter and as many of the Clergy as joined with him were sentenced to be deposed and the Laity to be Excommunicated after admonition The Code of Canons of the Universal Church further determine concerning a Presbyter or Deacon who shall thus separate (y) Cod. Can. Eccl. Univ. c. 85. that his deposition shall be without any way of return to his former honour and dignity in the Church and that if he persist in disturbing the Church he should be reduced by the Secular Power as being seditious And the African Code in this case declare (z) Cod. Eccl. Afr. c. 10 11. that such a Presbyter should be ejected from his place and that he should be anathematized and the inflicting this double punishment which was not usual in the Church for a single crime shews of how heinous a nature this offence was then accounted when the Primitive rules of discipline were received 17. Amongst such Protestant Writers as are most in esteem with our Dissenters Calvin asserts it to be certain (a) Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.9 that this stone is continually moved by the Devil that he might break the Unity of the Church and he purposely opposeth and smartly condemneth (b) Inst l. 4. c. 1. in Ps 26.5 all separation from a true Church where the Holy Sacraments are duly administred and the true rule of Religion is imbraced The (c) Synops pur Theol. Disp 40. n. 37 41 42. Leyden Professors account the erecting separate Assemblies in the breach of Communion by them who hold the foundation of the Faith and agree with the Church therein upon occasion of external indifferent Rites or particular miscarriages in manners to be properly Schismatical and that this is one of the works of the flesh and renders a Society impure and that it is not lawful to hold Communion with such a Schismatical Church to which purpose they urge many Texts of Scripture And Zanchy treating largely hereof doth (d) Zanch. Miscel de Eccles c. 7. particularly undertake to maintain that though there be some diversity of Doctrine but in things not fundamental though different ways of Rites and Ceremonies though there be vices in Ministers or corruptions in people or want of due care in rejecting offenders from the Communion he that shall separate from a true Church upon these pretences shall not saith he escape the wrath of God and ira Dei manet super illum the wrath of God abides upon that person 18. How far such separations from our Church are made use of by the Romanists to serve their interest might be shewed of many of their Authors But I shall content my self here to observe what was noted by one of our own (e) Camd. Annal. Eliz. an 1583. learned Historians Mr. Camden concerning the time of Queen Elizabeth That when in her Reign some of the Ministry in dislike of the Liturgy Order and Government of the Church templa adire recusarent plane schisma facerent did refuse to come to our publick Worship and manifestly made a Schism this was done Pontificiis plaudentibus multosque insuas partes pertrahentibus quasi nulla esset in Ecclesia Anglicana Vnitas the Papists rejoicing at it and drawing away many to their party as if there were no Vnity in the Church of England 19. I shall now examine their particular Covenant whereby they ingage themselves to walk together as constant members of that particular Society or Congregation to which they join themselves Now this Covenant in a way of separation is no other but a bond of division and was to that purpose invented by the Brownists And that it was their practice is (f) Apol. for Ch. Cov. p. 41 42 43 44. acknowledged by the Churches in New England Against which such things as these may be justly alledged 1. That this contradicts another of their avowed Positions That nothing not instituted of Christ ought to be received or submitted to as terms of Communion with a Church and some of them more largely declare that (g) Answer to 32. Qu. qu. â—8 particular Churches have no power to make Laws for themselves or their members but to observe the Laws of Christ and if any Church presume further they go beyond their Commission and it would be sin to be subject to such Laws But such a particular contract with a single Congregation especially a separating one was never any part of Christs Institution But because this other opinion of theirs is also erroneous it is of greater concernment to observe that this way of Covenanting is opposite to the Institution of Christ in that by division and separation it breaks the Unity of the Christian Church which Christ hath established to be one Church and one Body But the dividing the Church into several Independent Societies which is contrary to what the Institution of Christ appointeth is so much designed by this Covenant that some of themselves tell us (h) ibid. Answ to Qu. 8. without this kind of Covenanting we know not how it would be avoided but all Churches would be confounded into one Now this is as much as to say that Christ and his Apostles
of this Principle of making Scripture our Rule that if any Christians should live under such a Power as this Author speaks of should be a self-condemning tyranny over mens consciences if in this case Subjects make Scripture their Rule they must live in patience meekness peace humility and subjection to the Higher Powers and it must be from pride wrath passion malice and refusing to be subject all which are directly contrary to the Scriptures that all Rebellion against Government must proceed Whence amongst the Primitive Christians where the Laws of their Persecutors commanded them the worship of a Deity and yet punished them for worshipping the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and Christ his Son with the holy Spirit which is the only God and the Christians knew there was none else and punished them for not worshipping as Gods them whom they knew were no gods yet in this case the Christian Principles which the Scripture delivers kept them in all loyal subjection to their Governours If this Principle of making Scripture every where our Rule both as to Faith and Life be prevalent as it will guide us aright into the truth so it will end all quarrels silence all animosities and contentions and would reduce the world to such a perfect state of quiet peace friendship and love as never yet flourished upon the face of the Earth § 5. He tells us The use of this Discourse is to conclude the deserters of the way of Tradition to be very few to which he hath received our answer § 3. and the Cause laid to preserve Traditionary Christians is far more steady than that laid to preserve mankind I have answered his comparison of Tradition and Propagation § 1. But if he will be so confident as to tell his Reader that the way of Tradition is as surely supported as the Propagation of mankind I would only advise him to be so ingenuous as to speak plainly out his meaning and say that as in mankind the causes for keeping intire the nature of man are such that no company in the World ever pretended themselves to be of the nature of man who really were not so the way to preserve Tradition is such that no Society of men ever did pretend to have received and held this truth when indeed they had it not and if he would thus do he might amuse his Reader but would never deceive him having before told him that there have been many Hereticks in the World and that even amongst these the way of continuing Heresie is the propagating of it by the way of Tradition An Answer to his eighth Discourse shewing that uninterruptedness of Tradition is not proved à posteriori § 1. HE declares That he will trie to conclude the indeficiency of Tradition from such an effect as can only spring from Traditions indeficiency of its Cause § 2. he saith this seems needless against Protestants who yield the points of Faith we agree in to have come down by this way of Tradition He presseth therefore from Protestants a candid Answer to these Queries 1. Was not the Trinity Incarnation and all other Points in which we agree held in all Ages since Christ by Gods Church 2. Whether seeing those points were held ever of Faith Fathers did not actually teach Children so or the former Age the latter if so they came down by Tradition 3. By what virtue did Tradition perform this and whether the same virtue was not as powerful to bring down other things had any such been 4. Is there not a necessary connexion between such a constant cause and its formal effect so that if its formal effect be those Points received as delivered ever the proper Cause must be an ever-delivery But because he fears the Protestant will flie off here he will follow his designed method Sure he rather supposed the Protestant could easily baffle these fancies than that he would flie from such shadows To the 1. Qu. I answer That if we indeed understand by Gods Church that number of Christians who have intirely and constantly held all the Principles of Christian Religion they must needs have held these great truths likewise But many have pretended to be Gods Church who held them not Nor hath this belief been alwaies preserved in the Churches who once imbraced it since the Eastern Churches who before received the true Doctrine of Christ were drawn aside by the Arian infection and denied those points which shews Tradition not certainly enough to preserve these points in any particular Church To the 2. Qu. I answer That in the Church of God which ever held these points Fathers did teach their Children these Doctrines yet were they not only nor chiefly continued by the way of Oral Tradition For the Primitive Christians made Scripture their Rule as shall be after shewed from their Writings and Fathers taught Children chiefly then by what they read and received by the writings of the Scriptures And the Children of these Parents had not only their Parents teaching but they had also the Scriptures read among them and perused by them and by this means in the Primitive times were these Doctrines continued That the Apostolical Doctrine was continued in the Church chiefly from the Scriptures Irenaeus testifies even of those Primitive times Adversus Haeres lib. 4. c. 63. The Doctrine of the Apostles is the true knowledge which is come even unto us being kept without fiction by the most full handling of the Scriptures That Christians then received their instruction in the Church chiefly from Scriptures he likewise sheweth lib. 5. c. 20. where he exhorts to flie from the Opinion of the Hereticks and flie unto the Church and be brought up in its bosom and be nourished by the Lord's Scriptures For saith he the Paradise of the Church is planted in this World therefore the Spirit of God saith Ye shall eat food of every tree of the Paradise that is eat ye of every Scripture of the Lord. For very many more testimonies and those very clear I refer to what shall be purposely discoursed in answer to his consent of Authority Yea such was the esteem of the use of Scripture that in the Primitive times before their Children were taught matters of human literature they were instructed in the holy Scriptures Thus was Origen brought up Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 6. c. 3. and Eusebius Emissenus according to the common custom of their Country in like manner first learned the Scriptures Sozom. Hist Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 5. To his 3. Qu. Were it certain that these truths had been preserved by the way of Oral Tradition only in the true Church of God as indeed they have not been yet this is not by any such virtue in the way of Tradition as would secure the right delivery of all other things For this is wholly contingent in respect of Tradition depending upon this supposal that in such a Society it hath alwaies been rightly delivered and rightly received which
SECT I. An Inquiry what is declared the Rule of Faith by the Scriptures HE first goeth about to prove by Scripture That the Rule of Faith is self-evident from Isai 35.8 This shall be to you a direct way so that fools cannot err in it Which words as cited by this Author shew only the knowledge of God under the Gospel to be so clear and evident that they who will seek after him and live to him though of low capacities may understand so much as is requisite for their right walking which Protestants assert also and own this evidence to be in Scripture But that Tradition may be proved this Rule of Faith by Scripture he alledgeth Isai 59.21 This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my Spirit which is in thee and my words which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart from thy mouth and from the mouth of thy seed and from the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth for ever But 1. to have Gods Word and Spirit in their mouth proves their delivery not a Rule of Faith or unerring then must the speeches of every private Christian who shall be saved be a Rule of Faith because the Scriptures assure us That every one who shall be saved hath both the Spirit of Christ and his word in their mouth see Rom. 8.9 Rom. 10.9 10. Mat. 10.32 2. Though all who are born of God shall have his word in their mouth this will not secure us that what is by any Society of men declared as truth upon Tradition is Gods Word no more than what the Psalmist saies Psal 37.30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom and his tongue talketh of judgement would assure that the Doctrines owned by the way of Tradition among the Jews were alwaies the true Doctrines since it might well be that those Jews were not such righteous men as it may also be that the generality of some visible Church are not Gods seed 3. Gods Word may be in the mouth where the holy Scriptures are the Rule We read Josh 1.8 This Book of the Law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate therein day and night Where it is evident that when Joshua was to keep the Law in his mouth he had the Book of the Law for his Rule and had his acquaintance with the Law by meditating in it God saith Mal. 2.6 concerning Levi The Law of truth was in his mouth and Vers 7. they shall seek the Law at his mouth and when they did thus in Ezra's time he read the Law out of the Book of Moses and that Book did Hilkiah send to Josiah While S. Paul professed his Faith with his mouth he declared that he believed all things written in the Law and the Prophets When we read Deut. 31.21 22. This Song shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their Seed vers 22. Moses therefore wrote this Song the same day and taught it the Children of Israel Is it not evident that it was from the writing of Moses that this Song was in their mouth and that writing by which they were taught surely was their Rule to know this Song by Next to this he urgeth as pithy and home but not to his purpose Jer. 31.33 I will give my Law in their bowels and in their hearts will I write it and notes that S. Paul contradistinguisheth the Law of Grace from Moses 's Law in that the latter was written in Tables of Stone and the former in fleshly tables of mens hearts But 1. What proof is here of Tradition being the Rule of Faith Had the Scripture said that under the Gospel Christians should receive the Law of God no otherwise than from one anothers hearts it might have seemed to serve his purpose S. Austin de Spiritu litera c. 21. having mentioned the place fore-cited of Jeremy and that of S. Paul to which this Discourser refers inquires what are the Laws of God written by God himself in their hearts but the very presence of the holy Spirit who is the finger of God by whom being present Charity which is the fulness of the Law and the end of the Commandment is poured forth in our hearts Now if God causeth his commands to be inwardly imbraced by a Spirit of love and piety this is far from conveying to them a Spirit of infallibility 2. Nor doth S. Paul contradistinguish the Law of Moses and the Gospel in those words but he contradistinguisheth the way of Gods inward writing in the heart from the way of his outward writing in those tables For even the Law of Moses was also written in the hearts of them who feared God as the Laws of Christ were more eminently in the hearts of Christians Hence such expressions as these Psal 119.11 Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee Psal 37.31 The Law of his God is in his heart none of his steps shall slide Yea Moses tells the Jews Deut. 30.11 This Commandment which I command thee this day it is not hidden from thee neither is it far of v. 14. but the word is nigh thee in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it Yet though Gods Law before the coming of Christ was in the hearts of his people yet was the Book of the Law then their Rule as now is the Old and New Testament 3. If that place of S. Paul be considered 2 Cor. 3.3 it will evidence that what the Holy Ghost going along with his Ministry had written in the fleshly tables of their hearts was enough to commend his Apostleship which is the scope and design of that place but it no ways signifies that these Corinthians even at this time were not capable of erring in any Doctrine of the Faith for he declares to them in this same Epistle chap. 11.3 that he fears lest as Satan beguiled Eve so their minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ 4. And if we could have been assured as we cannot that the delivery of truth in the Church of Corinth was a Rule of Faith this would plead much for the Tradition of the Greek Church rather than of the Roman which agreeth not with it and so would destroy Romish Tradition But as this Discoursers citations of Scripture Authority are very impertinent I shall in brief observe whether the Scripture do not evidently declare it self to be the Rule of Faith To the which purpose besides many other places observed in the foregoing part of this answer let these be considered S. Luke 1.4 5. It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first to write unto thee in order most excellent Theophilus that thou maist know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed Now that is a Rule of Faith which is the best way to ascertain us of Faith and from these words it is evident that even in the times
every one of them must effect it by taking such assertions as he findeth in the Holy Scriptures or such as are consequent from them Where in the end of the same Prooem he declares in other words the Rule laid down not many Periods before in the beginning of it which is quite opposite to the design of Oral Tradition I shall yet further confirm this by two other passages out of those Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The one lib. 1. c. 3. where when he had declared that some of the Greeks and Barbarians owned the Son of God he adds We according to the faith of his Doctrine which we have for certain divinely inspired do believe that it is no other wayes possible to expound the more eminent and more divine account of the Son of God and to bring this to the knowledge of men but only by that Scripture which was inspired by the Holy Ghost that is by the Evangelical and Apostolical as also that of the Law and the Prophets Now it is not conceivable that he who believed that without the Scriptures there could be no eminent Christian knowledge of Christ should lay any other Rule of Faith or exclude Scripture from being that Rule The other passage is lib. 4. c. 1. It is not enough he sayes for them who discourse of such and so great things to commit the matter to humane senses and the common understanding but we must take for the proof of the things we speak the testimonies also of the Divine Scriptures which testimonies that they may afford us certain and undoubted faith either in such things as are to be spoken by us or in those that are already spoken it seems necessary to show that they are the Divine Scriptures inspired by the Spirit of God which he there undertakes to prove What can be spoken more fully to make Scripture both the only Rule and a certain and undoubted Rule of Faith And if yet nothing will satisfie but the word Rule we shall find that also toward the end of his fourth Book immediately before his Anacephalaeosis where he saith our understanding is to be kept to the Rule of the Divine Letters Though enough hath been already observed to shew the great mistake of this Citation from Origen I shall yet farther take notice that the phrases which deceived this Author Ecclesiastica Traditio Ecclesiastica Praedicatio do both of them amongst the Fathers oft signifie the delivery in the Church by the holy Scriptures But to avoid multiplying instances concerning Ecclesiastical Tradition I shall refer to what shall be spoken concerning Clemens Alexandrinus whose Scholar Origen was and to what is hereafter cited from Athanasius against Samosatenus concerning the phrase of Ecclesiastical preaching we may observe a like phrase in Austin de Vnitate Ecclesiae c. 16. Let them shew their Church if they can in the prescript of the Law in the predictions of the Prophets in the Songs of the Psalms in the words of the Pastor himself in the preachings and labours of the Evangelists that is in all the Canonical Authorities of the holy Books Somewhat alike expression is above cited from Irenaeus lib. 2. c. 46. and from Leo Ep. 10. in Sect. 8. n. 2. His other testimony from Origen is at the end of his 29 Hom. in Matt. We ought not to believe otherwise than as the Churches of God have delivered us by Succession Which words he there speaks to the same purpose with the former to assert the way of the Churches Tradition and that Scriptural against the Hereticks To understand Origen herein it is not amiss to observe a little before these words he expounds the abomination of desolation to be a word which stands in the place of the holy Scriptures and perswades to depart from the Creator who is the only and true God and to believe another God we know not whom above him to whom none is like In which words he evidently refers to the ancient Hereticks and in the beginning of his 30. Hom. names Basilides Marcion Valentinus and Apelles to whom he referred every one of which as the Church-History informs us brought in another God from the true Concerning these Heresies Hom. 29. at the end he exhorts that though they should pretend some Scriptures they should not believe them but keep to the Churches Tradition Why they are not to be believed in pretending to some places of Scripture he sheweth Because the light of truth doth not appear from any place of Scripture but from all Scripture that is of the Law Prophets Evangelists and Apostles That the Churches Tradition he recommends is that only which is grounded upon and according to Scripture is evident in that a little before he saies The abomination of desolation doth alwaies superadd something to what is in the Scriptures and the shortning those daies he expounds that the good God will cut off all those additaments to Scripture by whom he pleaseth Origen here all along agrees with the Protestants Rule but no way with Oral Tradition nor with any thing else that differs from Scripture or adds to it but he accounts all such as the abomination of desolation It were easie to observe many other testimonies from Origen which I omit as supposing I have from these two places chosen by this Authour shewed enough that Origen owned the Rule of Scripture Protestants as well as Origen would not have men be deluded by the subtilty of any Hereticks who pretend to urge Scripture and yet they no more thereby disown its being a Rule of Doctrine than our Saviour did disown it as a Rule of Life when he would not be tempted by the Devils citing the words of Scripture to act against its commands SECT XII What was the Rule of Faith owned by Tertullian THree Discourses of Tertullian are referred to by this Discourser The first of which is de Praescriptione adversus Haereticos cited Corol. 15. where he will not allow Hereticks to argue out of Scripture The design of this Treatise of Tertullian is to evidence that the Doctrine professed in the Church of Christ was the true Christian Doctrine against such Hereticks which were of the same mold with them Irenaeus and Origen opposed who either would not admit the Scriptures cap. 17. or else changed the very proprieties of the words not allowing their known significations but imagining in them strange things which no way appear which was the way of the Valentinians c. 38. And these Hereticks were not satisfied with what was delivered by Christ and his Apostles but produced other things c. 8. Against these he pleads prescription as to the true Christian Doctrine as being from the Apostles and having Communion with them He shews there is no disputing with such Hereticks from Scripture since they will not stand to it c. 17 18. And since these Hereticks did not own the only God and Jesus Christ and the holy Spirit c. 7. and 13 14. He urgeth That they were
real Holiness at all Is this a Representation of Religion like that made in the Scripture The Doctrine according to Godliness which requires the doing the Will of our Father which is in Heaven and declares that without Holiness no Man shall see God Or is this like the Primitive Spirit of Christianity where serious diligence in the Exercises of Contrition and Piety was thought requisite for receiving Absolution Shall these Men be accounted the Patrons of Good Works who against the Doctrine of St. James assert that Men may be saved without Works or any holy Action and who run up to the highest and most absurd Positions of Solifidianism even the Belief of the Non-necessity of holy Actions and Dispositions They have found a way if it be a safe one how Works of Iniquity tho they stand condemned by our Saviour may have an entrance into Heaven without true Conversion But such will find that De Poen c. 5. as Tertullian spake in a like Case Salvâ veniâ in Gehennam detrudentur notwithstanding their Pardon they will be cast down to Hell For if we say we have fellowship with him and walk in Darkness we lie and do not the Truth These Doctrines of Rome are fit for the Synagogue of Satan but no such unclean thing may enter into the Congregation of the Lord. But whomsoever they follow let us follow St. Peter to be diligent that we may be found of him in Peace without spot and blameless I now come to discourse of the Persons to whom this Ministration is committed which I shall speak to in a fourfold Consideration 1. To us the Officers of the Gospel-Dispensation not to the false Apostles nor yet to the Jewish Priesthood The Ministry of the New Testament excelleth that of the Old even as the New Covenant and the Grace of the Gospel goeth beyond the Law as the Apostle discourseth largely in the third Chapter of this second Epistle to the Corinthians The Legal Dispensation in general was a Dispensation of Condemnation which pronounced a Curse upon Offenders but gave not Power and Grace to perform Obedience and the external Observations therein enjoined were a heavy Yoke And that Acceptance which holy Men had with God under the Law was not from the particular Jewish Covenant as such but chiefly from the Terms of Grace declared to Abraham who is called the Father of the Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision only but who walk in the Steps of the Faith of Abraham Rom. 4.11 Indeed they had then Sacrifices for Sin and a Way of Atonement but these things as they were strictly legal did only tend to obtain the Favour of God that the Offenders should not be cut off or be exposed to Temporal Judgments But it was not possible that the Blood of Bulls and Goats should purge away Sins the Guilt of which their repeated Oblations did declare to continue And the Reverence to God and Obedience was in these Observations chiefly valuable But these Sacrifices as they fell under a more large Consideration were also Evidences of the Mercy of God in receiving Sinners and were Testimonies of God's particular Favour in being willing to bless that People if they would hear his Voice and obey him and did also adumbrate the Grace of the New Testament Rom. 3.21 which the Apostle tells us was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets But the Gospel-Ministration declareth Christ by his Mediation to have actually obtained and effected a compleat Way of Reconciliation and confirmed that Covenant which is established upon better Promises and is properly and eminently the Ministration of Righteousness proposing most excellent Blessings with a sure and plain way to obtain them and affording such Assistances as are needful And this Gospel-Reconciliation is so committed to the Ministry that they ministerially dispense the Blessings thereof by declaring its Doctrine by Benedictions and Absolutions and by dispensing the Sacramental Symbols of Divine Grace 2. To us with primary respect to St. Paul who wrote this Epistle and the other Apostles They were in a peculiar manner intrusted with the Ministry of Reconciliation for they were the chief Witnesses of Christ's Resurrection and the principal Testifiers of the Christian Faith and received their Doctrine and Office immediatly from Christ They were the Foundations next to Christ himself of the Christian Church and the infallible Guides thereof and were furnished with singular Assistances and the Power of the Holy-Ghost And the Extent of their Authority was in some parts thereof unconfined and unlimited even St. Paul saith he received Grace and Apostleship for Obedience to the Faith Rom. 1.5 among all Nations including Rome also divers Years after St. Peter was said to be Bishop there The Apostles were the highest Officers of the Christian Church 1 Cor. 12.28 Eph. 4.11 under Christ himself and the Scriptures tell us God set therein first Apostles and therefore none above them Indeed St. Peter whom we highly honour as an eminent Apostle had a kind of Primacy of Order yielded to him but with no design to depress the other Apostles above whom he had no distinction of Office The Power of binding and loosing promised to St. Peter Mat. 16.19 was on like manner given to them all Mat. 18.18 And that ample Commission John 20.21 23. As my Father sent me so send I you Whos 's soever Sins ye remit c. doth give them all an equal Authority And tho St. Paul was last called we read that St. Peter gave to him the right-hand of Fellowship Gal. 2.9 2. Cor. 11.5 Chap. 12.11 and in two several places of this second Epistle to the Corinthians the Holy-Ghost tells us he was in nothing behind the very chiefest Apostles And tho there are many Privileges and Prerogatives reckoned up to St. Peter in which Subject many Romish Writers are very diligent the Prerogatives of St. Paul upon due consideration will either equal them or not be much inferior to them It was St. Paul not St. Peter who was taken up into the third Heaven who saw our Saviour after his Ascension into Glory who laboured more abundantly than they all who was miraculously called and was in a peculiar manner the Apostle of the Gentiles and who wrote a much greater part of the New Testament than any other of the Apostles did And for that late Notion That the Power of the Keys was given only to St. Peter in that he was appointed by Christ singly to declare the Gospel first to the Gentiles both this confined sense of the Power of the Keys and of its being peculiar to S. Peter is against the sense of Antiquity and also that which is particularly insisted on is a mistake For though God by a Vision directed St. Peter to open the Door to the Gentiles yet all the Apostles had before that time the Commission which he first made use of to go and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 Mar. 16.16 and
his heart bringeth forth evil things And this is that which the usual observation of the world hath testified as (f) Hierocl in Pyth. Carm. p. 140. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hierocles declared men speak either good or evil sutably to the contrary inclinations of their minds There is indeed some difference here between the evil and the good heart The man of a malicious spirit may sometimes speak fair and smoothly even unto flattery and a wicked man may speak good words and act the hypocrite and the reason of this is because an evil heart may incline the man to dissemble and speak falsly but such words though they carry a fair appearance are evil words because full of fraud unfaithfulness and dissimulation But where the heart is good and upright there true integrity prevails and though an evil man may in many outward things speak and do as the good man doth out of hypocrisie and still continue wicked no good man can speak and do evil things according to the practice of the sinful and vicious person and whosoever doth so must be really wicked because goodness and uprightness both hate all counterfeiting and dissembling and all other compliances with sin and evil 7. and speaks a prevalency of sin But there is so much evil and wickedness contained under this sin of defaming others that a great part of the testimony which the Apostle gave of the Jews being estranged from true goodness and piety and being under sin is included herein He declares from the writings of the Old Testament Rom. 3.13 14 15. Their throat is an open Sepulchre with their tongues they have used deceit the poyson of asps is under their lips Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness Their feet are swift to shed blood c. Now the sense of most part of these words is plainly contained in this sin I am declaring against And when the Apostle mentions their mouth being full of cursing it may be worthy our observation that contumelious speaking against and reproaching others doth in some degree really include in it the true and proper nature of cursing it being a plain declaration of the persons wishing and desiring evil to him of whom he speaks And what S. Paul adds that their feet are swift to shed blood even this is frequently the natural effect of the same sin For when men by evil speaking especially of their Superiours have wrought themselves and others into a greater dislike of them and hatred towards them how oft this hath fomented fierce passions and wrought dispositions to cruelty and put men upon insurrections and forwardness of shedding blood the Histories of all times and the remembrance of this last Age in our own Nation will give undeniable evidence Now such a temper which gives an apparent indication that they who practised such things were turned aside from God and the ways of piety cannot be thought reconcileable with the holiness and purity of the Christian Religion 8. Thirdly This practice is mighty dangerous 3. It exposeth the offender to condemnation with respect to mens great and eternal interests Many are too neglectful in calling themselves to an account for their words but God hath assured us that at the great day he will take an account of them and will not then allow that liberty that men now give themselves in evil speaking but even this sin may be sufficient to bring upon them eternal condemnation Our Lord hath declared Matt. 12.36 37. That of every idle word men shall give an account in the day of Judgment For by their words they shall be justified and by their words they shall be condemned And these words of our Saviour are so solemn and weighty as laying down a rule of proceeding in the future judgment and condemnation that they ought not to be slighted and disregarded but to be seriously pondered and considered Many of the ancient Writers interpret this Text concerning such words as were not useful and profitable to edification Thus S. Basil S. Hierom Greg. Magnus and others And (g) Iren. adâ—â— Haeres l. 4. c. 31. Irenaeus mentions them as such a Doctrine of our Saviour whereby he advanceth and exalteth the Christian Religion and the rules and precepts thereof And it is thence inferred that if such words which are not of use to good shall be under the heavy condemnation of the great Day much more those which are contumelious and include evil 9. But this strict interpretation Mat. 12.36 Concerning every idle word explained would deny Christians the liberty of ordinary conversation and that freedom of familiar speaking concerning common affairs which is necessary thereunto and it cannot well be thought that our Saviour whose yoke is easie would lay such a severe restraint upon his Disciples under pain of eternal damnation And therefore the notion entertained by Grotius and Dr. Hammond that by every idle word is understood every false and evil word including what is unseemly and unbecoming Sobriety is the much more probable sense of our Saviours speech and the account they give of it is very reasonable and considerable And this is a sense that wants not the authority of some of the Ancients Thus Theophylact expounds these words and so doth also S. Chrysostome both upon S. Matthew and (h) Chrys Serm. 62. in Paralyt elsewhere And (i) Eus praep Ev. l. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius declares that upon account of these words of our Saviour the Christians would not admit either any lye or any reproach nor any filthy nor any unseemly word 10. This sense is also agreeable to the manner of the Scripture expression in divers other places where it speaks of things and words hurtful and evil under such phrases as most directly signifie their being not useful Thus S. Paul calls such words as turn men from piety 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain words Ephes 5.6 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 empty or vain babling 1 Tim. 6.20 2 Tim. 2.16 and the expressions of an empty word and an idle word are not much unlike but under that phrase the Apostle evidently intends wicked and sinful words So when the Idols of the Gentiles are oft called vanities as Act. 14.15 and the adhering to them a becoming vain in their imaginations Rom. 1.21 it is not only intended that these things are void of goodness but that they are things abominable So the Apostle intends that it will be of pernicious consequence to men when those who watch for their souls give up their account with grief when he only expresseth it to be unprofitable Heb. 13.17 And the Holy Scripture calls the works of darkness unfruitful when it designs them to be accounted hurtful Ephes 5.11 11. And this interpretation of these words of our Lord accords very well with the truth delivered in other Scriptures that revilers and lyars shall not inherit the Kingdom of God and that his Religion is vain who bridleth not
his tongue It is very suitable also to the occasion on which our Saviour spake these words which was the Pharisees defaming his Miracles and him in working them as if he did them by Beelzebub And therefore this speech hath a particular respect to words of calumny The sad doom of Reproachers hence observed and speaks the heavy doom of such persons as please themselves with speaking evil of others when Christ himself shall come to judge Let every Christian therefore stand in awe of this threatning of our Lord and carefully observe that precept of S. James Jam. 2.12 So speak ye and so do as those that shall be judged by the law of liberty Both our words and actions will be hereafter judged according to that Gospel which passeth a Sentence against reproaching expressions And the Gospel is such a law of liberty that besides other advantages they who will seriously mind their duty may under it and by the grace thereof be set free from the power and rule of their passions and lusts and therefore the serving these under the grace of the Gospel is utterly inexcusable 12. Fourthly 4. A pious government of the tongue is an excellent Christian perfection The good and pious government of the tongue is a very considerable perfection in the practice of Religion For this manifests such a person to have gotten the victory over the passions and disorderly motions of his mind which are apt in others to discover themselves by rash words the tongue being a quick and glib mover and oft forward to express any prevailing irregular discomposure of the Spirit Hence Jam. 3.2 If any man offend not in word the same is a perfect man and able also to bridle the whole body But these words of that Apostle must be so understood as to speak particularly the perfection of him who thus behaves himself upon the true principles of Christianity For it must be acknowledged that passionate and reproachful words may be suppressed in some by the advantage of their natural temper of mildness and courteousness which doth not much encline them to this sin whilst they live in the practice of others In others they may be restrained by the rules of policy and subtilty and a strong resolution in the managing of some design and much may be done in others by mere rational and Philosophical considerations There are many instances among the ancient Philosophers and their followers of such persons as gained a considerable mastery of their passions and a great command of their words and actions Among others Socrates was a rare instance hereof if he came any thing nigh that admirable character that (k) Xenoph. Memor l. 1. p. 710. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Xenophon gives him That no man ever saw Socrates do any action or heard him speak any word that was contrary to Religious piety or unholy This was mighty considerable though we understand it only with respect to the rules of morality admitted under the Pagan Philosophy And it is unbecoming Christians to come short of such examples when their Religion doth so wonderfully go beyond all the principles of Ethnick Philosophy 13. Where this is wanting the Christian spirit hath not had its due effect Christianity tends to bring men into a lively sense of the only true God to a clear knowledge of that excellent revelation delivered by our Saviour it guides unto that universal purity which excludes all the Idolatry and other vices which the most refined Paganism did admit it sheweth obedience to its precepts to be of the highest concernment imaginable from the plainest manifestation of the great account and judgment to come and the future state either of endless glorious perfection or of intolerable torment And it also most expresly manifests the great necessity of well governing the tongue both as to the practice of Religion and the obtaining everlasting happiness and it affords the aids and grace of the Holy Spirit to assist and enable us to the performance of all those duties it injoyns upon us Now this Religion cannot be received in any considerable degree by them who entertain the practice of evil speaking and reproaching which is contrary and opposite to it to the author of it and to the obtaining the good it proposeth to its followers But where the true fear of God and a conscientious regard to all the rules of the Christian life have prevailed for the well-ordering of the tongue it may be expected that they will have a like power and efficacy for the government of the whole man And where this member is disordered it becomes an incendiary and as a pestilential Contagion spreads abroad venome and evil and in S. James's expression it sets on fire the course of nature and it is set on fire of hell who also saith it is a world of iniquity and defileth the whole body Jam. 3.6 And the Great miscarriages of the tongue which in that Chapter are complained of with divers earnest and emphatical expressions appear plainly to be the censuring and speaking evil of others and the promoting and exciting strife and contention CHAP. II. The excessive disorders and unreasonable extravagancy of speaking evil when men give way to their passions and uncharitable temper manifested especially from the Censures our Saviour underwent SECT I. The best deserving persons are oft under obloquy and undeserved Censure Sect. I THese things being premised I shall now come to discourse 1. Of the great disorder of an ill-governed tongue in censuring and reproaching 2. Of the sinfulness of this practice and the great guilt thereof 2. First The tongue is such an unruly evil as S. James calls it Jam. 3.8 that when men indulge themselves in uncharitableness and censoriousness it puts them upon the contriving Censoriousness is unruly and wonderfully extravagant or pursuing the most unaccountable and unreasonable calumnies and slanders Good Hezekiah shall fall under the lavish revilings of a Rabshakeh and his reformation excellently and piously performed will be condemned as impious And Christianity it self was made a matter of reproach by Saul whilst he was a blasphemer a persecuter and injurious and by many others who professed themselves enemies unto it and the Christians in general were spoken of as evil doers 1 Pet. 2.12 But we cannot better discern how ungovernable and extravagant the censorious and uncharitable tongue is than by considering the instances of our blessed Saviour and other excellent men Even the Holy Jesus when he conversed upon Earth escaped not the sharp and bitter reproaches of reviling tongues though he deserved no censure nor gave any just occasion for any The persons considered who bear reproach And therefore what he and other good men met with will abundantly manifest the strange unruliness of a defaming temper which is contained under no bounds and limits of truth justice or charity 3. This may especially appear by our enquiring into three things 1. What the great excellencies were
of Sin yet he must not be owned as a good man because he was not in all things so strict as some of their errours directed them to be While they were more severe and rigid he shewed himself more mild and gentle even towards Publicans and Sinners and hence was reviled as their friend He had not that reverence for the vow of Corban which the Pharisees had but declared against the evil of it as making void the Commandment of God which required a due honour to Father and Mother Nor had he that opinion of the rest of the Sabbath day as to think it not lawful for himself to heal or for his Disciples to pluck ears of corn and he was therefore censured and condemned of the Jews And thus it fares in part with others also who are his followers and so it frequently hath done in the best times of Christianity Many men have had such a zeal for their own errors that if others live the most holy and angelical lives in conscientious obedience to the moral laws of God and in a pious reverence to all the Christian institutions and precepts of our Saviour they will not acknowledge these to be good men or such as have any true care of Religion or piety if they do not join with them in their mistaken notions and their practices founded upon those mistakes 13. On this account the Catholick Church On this account the Catholick Church was defamed as impure and carnal and the true members thereof have oft-times fallen under unjust censures When the abetters of the Novatian Schism declared against second Marriages and the admitting those to repentance in the Church who were lapsed after Baptism they so far judged the Catholick Church impure for practising contrary to their errors that avoiding its communion they gave themselves the name of the Cathari or the persons who were pure And that themselves were the authors of this name whereby they were afterwards known and that they called themselves thereby in a way of distinction from the Catholick Christians hath not only been declared by Dionysius Alexandrinus and Theophilus Alexandrinus and other private Authors but it is also affirmed by the (q) Conc. Nic. c. 8. Conc. Const c. 7. two first general Councils And after Tertullian declined to Montanism though that Sect impiously owned Montanus to be the Paraclete and this Author of them was guilty of very great impurities of conversation he defamed the Catholick Church and its members as being (r) Tert. de Monogam adv Psychicos carnal because it allowed of second Marriages and did not prolong its Fasts and stationary abstinence to such late hours of the day as the Disciples of Montanus did And the Donatists in the vehemency of their Schism upon the like pretence of greater strictness and rigidness towards them who had offended ran to that height of censure against those pious Bishops and Christians who kept communion with the Church as to call them (s) Baron An. 348. n. 38. Pagans And the like might be noted concerning others 14. Zeal when well guided very useful but partial or misplaced hurtful Zeal and the greatest strictness of life and conversation when it is well ordered and directed is of excellent use but a pretending hereto is really hurtful when it acts by a mistaken rule It was the miscarriage of the Pharisees that they were earnest and strict about their Corban but loose and negligent concerning the fifth Commandment and shewed a great respect to the Sabbath but gave not due allowance to works of mercy and charity Let every man be as conscientious and strict as he can be in entertaining all needful truth in practising all the great duties of Religion and avoiding all evil But let not zeal be spent about such lesser things as are in truth of no concernment in Religion nor let any make such measures the standard to judge of the piety either of themselves or others for then they must miscarry This is to act like a man who hath some mistaken fancies of the best road and will allow none to be skilful travellers but them who wander with him out of the right way The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost Rom. 14.17 It is not concerned so much about such lesser things of which many men are fond as about practising all righteousness minding the wayes of peace and unity and being greatly delighted in the exercises and rewards of the Christian hope and obedience 15. But that I may prevent the misapprehending what I mentioned concerning some of the Jewish errors above mentioned I shall here add by way of caution that though they were too nice and vainly strict concerning their Sabbath it is a fault amongst us much to be lamented and needful to be amended that very many in our age are too loose in neglecting a due reverence for the time of Worship and the Worship of God it self as I shall hereafter further note And they who neglect the worship of God whatever party they are of cannot approve themselves the faithful Servants of God 16. Secondly Our Holy Saviour was accused 2. The worthiest persons have been oft charged with promoting the Devils work and depraving Religion of complying with the Devil and carrying on his work and corrupting Religion The Devil is so bad that whatsoever proceeds from him and whosoever join themselves to him to serve him are deservedly hateful Now our Saviour was manifested to destroy the works of the Devil and he actually overthrew his Kingdom He cast out Devils and dispossessed them of that outward dominion they had over the bodies of many men and he so vanquished the evil Spirit and that Idolatry sin and wickedness which he set forward in the world that he gained the victory over the Devil with respect to that inward dominion whereby he had governed the hearts and lives of the children of disobedience He also silenced his oracles whereby he had obtained a great veneration among the Gentiles And so admirably did our Lord prevail against all the power of Satan that even Porphyry an Apostate from Christianity and Patron of Gentilism confesseth that from the time that Jesus was honoured in the world the Gentile Gods who were no other than evil Spirits lost their power As (t) Euseb Pr. Evang. l. 5. c. 1. Eusebius relates these are his very words even in that Book which he wrote against Christianity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after Jesus was worshipped none had any sence of the manifest help of the Pagan gods 17. And yet notwithstanding all this so unreasonably spiteful were the reviling tongues of his adversaries that against all the evidence in the world he was charged with acting from the Devil and promoting his interest And when he cast-out Devils they would not allow this to be otherwise done than by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils The Holy Jesus
apprehend to be most natural the Apostle in those latter words v. 5. which are the key to the former owneth and confesseth some sudden unadvisedness in what he had expressed v. 3. When in the beginning of v. 3. he said God shall smite thee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive S. Paul by the Spirit of Prophecy did know that Ananias would come to an untimely end and in these words expressed so much For he would not have made use of this form of speech in the name of God meerly in a passion And though Ananias lived after this several years in honour yet afterwards (m) Joseph de Bell. Jud. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiding himself for fear of the Bands of Robbers who were very mischievous in Judea he with his Brother was taken and murdered by them That phrase of a whited wall with other such like might in some cases admit of a favourable interpretation to denote painted innocency and not real according to the usage of the Jewish way of expression (n) Parâ—â—2 ch 1.11 hereafter noted Yet this and the words following being spoken in some passion as appears from the connexion of these clauses Thou whited wall for sittest thou to judge c. the Apostle being admonished thereof readily owns that there was something unawares uttered in those sudden expressions His formâ—r sudden words not free from all fault There are indeed by many great pains taken to acquit S. Paul from being chargeable with any even the least fault in what he had here spoken notwithstanding his own free acknowledgement as the like is done by many also to free S. Peter from all blame Gal. 2. notwithstanding S. Paul's own reproof of him and his plain declaration that he was to be blamed v. 11. And therefore I think it may be worth my pains in a weighty matter of practice to endeavour the clearing this place from difficulty and I hope there will appear so much usefulness therein as may excuse the largeness of my discourse concerning the explication of these words 44. Some with (o) Chrys in Act. 23. S. Chrysostome think that what the Apostle said to Ananias contained no expressions of any undue disrepect but that he used a just freedom in speaking thus to a Ruler and that when he unjustly received hard measure from him notwithstanding S. Chrysostom endeavours to excuse them it was requisite he should so speak to him with this openness and sharpness But this is opposite to the genuine sense of v. 4. 5. And therefore to reconcile those words to this sense they think that the Apostle spake these words I wist not that he was the High Priest for it is written Thou shalt not speak evil of the Ruler of thy people in such a way of complyance with his auditory that his hearers might think him to have blamed the use of such expressions towards Rulers when in truth he did not do so nor intended any such thing And by this method that there might not appear any even the least fault in the Apostles practice they admit a want of sincerity in what he declared as a duty and doctrine that thereby he intended to guide men into a mistake and deceit and that includes a very great fault in practice also And this is much the same thing with that which S. Austin justly blames (p) Aug. Ep. 15. in S. Hierom's defence of the fact of S. Peter above-mentioned and the admitting this would cast a mighty aspersion on the Apostolical Doctrine And that S. Paul himself did not think sharp words needful to be returned to a Ruler in such a case of injury is manifest enough in that when Festus told him he was besides himself and was mad Acts 26.24 25. he presently treated him with honourable respect I am not mad most noble Festus nor did the Holy Jesus give such a return though but to an inferiour Officer of the Court who stroke him with the palm of his hand John 18.22 23. 45. Many others are of opinion that when S. Paul said and several methods used by others he wist not that he was the High Priest he thereby justified his former words by denying him to be an High Priest to whom if he had been so indeed he ought not to have thus spoken To this sense (q) Aug. Ep. 5. ad Marcel l. 1. de Serm. Dom. in Monte. S. Austin inclines upon thoughts that S. Paul would now own none other under the title of High Priest but only our blessed Saviour And yet it is plain that S. Paul did give this very title of High Priest to him who was so called amongst the Jews Acts 22.5 and when all the Christians in Judea were still zealous for the Law even the Apostle also still expressed so much honour to the Priestly Service at the Temple that he there purified himself and designed to offer his Offering Acts 21.26 Others think that he denyed Ananias to have any just authority (r) Erasm in Act. 23.3 because he tyrannically commanded him to be smitten as if Christians were not to reverence them that are over them not only the good and gentle but also the froward 1 Pet. 2.18 and our Religion teacheth that if we do well and suffer for it and take it patiently this is acceptable with God v. 20. And (Å¿) Annot. in Act. 23.5 Grotius supposeth the Apostle might reject the authority of Ananias because saith he he came into his Office by purchasing it with money But I can see no particular proof of his accusation and Josephus speaks oft of him as a person of great reputation and honour and however such a crime in an inferiour Officer will not make invalid the authority of a superiour by which he acts untill the superiour shall think fit to recall it even as David's sentence concerning the possessions of Mephibosheth was not void of it self though procured by Ziba's lye until David had otherwise determined And it is abundantly sufficient against alll these pretences in this Paragraph to observe that the Holy Scriptures and the Spirit of God in them do frequently own Ananias to be at that time an High or Chief Priest Acts 23.2 ch 24.1 ch 25.2 and it is a bad way of solving a difficulty by presuming that to be false which the Holy Scriptures declare to be true Nor would it be any thing considerable in this case if it be granted that Ananias was not properly the High Priest as will appear from what I shall now add 46. Whether Ananias was High Priest or not He was manifestly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an High or Chief Priest but very probably he was not eminently the High Priest who entred into the Holy of Holies In the Old Testament sometimes and often in the New there are more persons than one who are called Chief Priests and so there were in this very Council before which S. Paul now appeared Acts 22.30
Eucharistia consecrabatur ut comprehendit simul Missam Catechumenorum haec est communissima acceptio And hence such portions of Scripture as are parts of the publick service are included in that rule and Constitution which relates to the whole And the (i) de Verbo Del c. 15. Cardinal declares that what is done by the Protestants is a real and practical asserting their heretical opinion against the Church whilst they ordinarily translate the Scriptures into the German French and English tongues and publickly read and sing them in the same tongues In England before the Reformation I know of no allowed translation into English made by any whom they own to be of their Communion That of Wiclef though out of the Vulgar Latin must not be owned as such Since the Reformation the Romanists have translated the Testament into English but though these Books may be procured by some few persons they are not easily had by very many And it is probable that in some Popish Countries they may have no translation of the Scriptures into their Vulgar tongue to this time which carryeth any publick approbation or allowance with it 24. A third impediment of piety in the Romish Church 3. Of their publick Service and Prayers in a tongue not understood by the people which I shall instance in is their having the publick Prayers and the administration of the Offices of the Church in a language not understood by the people which is a great hindrance to their devotion That this practice is generally used and is established and appointed in the Church of Rome is sufficiently known and is manifest from the foregoing Section But that the Primitive Church did generally own the fitness and usefulness of having the publick service and Prayers of the Church in a language understood by the common people is evident enough from what was then practised and established Publick Offices in the Primitive Church were performed in a tongue commonly understood In a great part of the Eastern Church where the Greek language was then the common speech of the Country as is well known and doth appear from the popular Homilies of the Greek Fathers which they spake in that language they had their publick prayers and service of the Church in the Greek tongue and not in the Latin and some of the ancient Liturgies then used in that tongue are still extant And in that part of the Western Church in which the Latin was then the Vulgar or commonly known language as in Italy and many other parts the publick prayers and service were performed in that tongue and not in the Greek or any other not commonly known in that Country And this is proved from those parts of the ancient Latin Offices which are still preserved 25. But in such other Countries where neither of these languages were commonly known there are sufficient instances of the use of other languages which were known In those Eastern parts where the Syriack language obtained they had their publick Offices in that language And a Collection of sixteen Syriack Offices are declared by (k) Gabr. Sionit de Ritib Maronit in init Gabriel Sionita to be in a Manuscript in his possession many of which were used together in the same Church and others probably in other Churches and in other Ages And after the first Centuries when the Arabick and the Coptick or Aegyptian language prevailed much in Egypt and the Patriarchate of Alexandria they had also the Coptick Liturgies as (l) In Epist ad Nihusium praef Rituali Cophticarum Athanasius Kircherus testifies And that part which might seem least needful to be in the Vulgar tongue which concerns the Ordination of their Ecclesiastical Officers who might be presumed to understand other tongues was translated by Kircher into Latin out of a very ancient Manuscript in which all the Ritual was in the Coptick tongue except the exhortations which were in the Arabick This translation was by Kircher sent to Nihusius 1647 and by him published five or six years after And several other Liturgical forms both in Syriack and other languages used in those Eastern Churches are mentioned by Ecchellensis in the account he gives of several Authours and Books written in those languages in the end of his Eutychius vindicatus And I doubt not but further proof may be given of this matter That the people might understand the Service care was taken by the Imperial Law by them who have the opportunity of seeing and consulting such Writers 26. To this general and practical testimony of the Church in former ages I shall add three particular testimonies but all of them of a publick nature all which acknowledged the usefulness of the people understanding the publick Offices of the Church and in the two former there was care taken thereof The first is out of the Imperial Law in (o) Justin Novel 137. c. 6. which it is enacted that the Bishops and Priests should express the Prayers at the holy Communion and at Baptism with a voice that might be heard by the faithful people for the raising the souls of the hearers into a greater devotion and affectionate giving glory to God And then that Law citeth the words of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.16 Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks seeing he understands not what thou saist Which imperial Law takes care that the Prayers of the Church may be understood by the people for their profit providing that the words thereof should be audibly pronounced and supposing these Prayers to be expressed as they then were in a language commonly understood A second testimony is from the Roman Pontifical in which was continued down to the Council of Trent by the Roman Pontifical a direction at the Ordination of Lectors as is noted in (p) Hist Con c. Trid. l. 6. p. 470. the History of that Council ut studeant distincte articulate legere ut à populo intelligantur From whence it is easily collected that when that Pontifical was composed the service of the Roman Church was then in that language which was understood by the people and the sense of the Roman Church then was that it was requisite it should be understood and by its authority it took care that it might be so expressed as to be understood But when after some time the Latin tongue by degrees grew out of vulgar use especially under the various Mutations in the Empire there was then want of care to order the expressions of the publick service to be such as would suit the capacities of the people 27. The third testimony is from the Council of Trent which declares (q) Sess 22. cap. 8. Etsi Missa contineat magnam populi eruditionem Patribus tamen visum non expedire ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur Quamobrem retento Ecclesiae Romanae ritu
used in the Church of Rome as these (w) Conc. Trid. ubi sup c. 1. that Christ who is present in Heaven by his natural presence is present in other places in substance by that way which we can more easily believe than express by words and the Roman Catechism saith (x) de Euch. Sacr. post med this change must not be curiously enquired into for it cannot be perceived by us and Baronius declares that (y) Baron An. Eccl. an 44. n. 49. modo ineffabili transubstantiatur it is transubstantiated by an unspeakable manner But it is manifest from their plain decisions that these and such like expressions relate either to the manner of the Divine operation or to the way of explicating how he can be substantially present in every Sacrament while he is ascended into Heaven and sitteth at Gods right hand for the manner of his presence it self they have expressed to be by Transubstantiation as above explained 16. But that the elements of Bread and Wine No Transubstantiation is proved from Scripture have not their substance changed into the proper substance of the Body and Blood of Christ may appear First Because there is nothing in the Institution of this Sacrament from whence the nature of this Sacrament must be discerned or any where else in the holy Scripture which affords any proof for Transubstantlation It is observed by (z) Hist Transubst c. 5. n. 3. Bishop Cosins that Scotus Durandus Biel Occam Cameraoensis Bishop Eisher against Duther and Cardinal Cajetan did all acknowledge that Tiansubstantiation could not be proved sufficiently from Scripture and their words are by him produced and that Bellarmine declared himself doubtful thereof Those words of our Saviour so much urged by the Romanists This is my Body do not determine the manner of his presence or that he is Transubstantially there and so carnally that according to the (a) Catech. ad Par. p. 223. Roman Catechism his bones and nerves and whole Christ is there substantially contained But this may well be so understood that he spiritually and sacramentally under visible elements exhibits the Sacrifice of himself so as to apply it to true Christians and interest them in it and the blessings and benefits thereof Nor do the use of the like phrases in Scripture import any substantial change of the things themselves When S. Paul speaks of the Israelites 1 Cor. 10.4 that they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them and that rock was Christ it cannot be supposed that the substance of the Rock should be changed into the substance of Christ who was not yet Incarnate When S. John declareth Joh. 1.14 The word was made flesh it cannot be thence affirmed without Heresie and Blasphemy that his Divine Nature was changed into his Humane Nature And when our Lord had spoken Joh. 6. of eating his flesh and drinking his blood and added upon his Disciples being offended at those sayings v. 63. It is the spirit that quickeneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you are spirit and they are life he hereby and also by what he speaks of believing both in the beginning and ending of that Discourse and towards the middle of it v. 35.47 48 64. sufficiently directs them to a Spiritual sense of those things which he had spoken And a like interpretation of those words Take eat this is my Body is somewhat directed by the same expressions and is also most suitable to the nature of the Sacrament nor can those words mentioned both by S. Luke and S. Paul Luk. 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 This Cup is the new Testament be otherwise understood than Sacramentally and somewhat figuratively and these also are expressed as part of the institution of the Eucharist 17. It was not owned in the Primitive Church Secondly The Doctrine of Transubstantiation is inconsistent with the sense of the ancient Church This is particularly and purposely manifested in that Book of the late Reverend Bishop of Durham which I referred unto in the foregoing Paragraph and therefore I shall only mention some few Testimonies Tertullian arguing against Marcion who denied the reality of Christ's Body as other ancient Hereticks asserted him to have had only the appearance of a Body saith (b) Tertul. cont Marc. l. 4. c. 40. Christ took Bread and distributing it to his Disciples made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the figure of my Body but there had been no figure unless the Body had been in truth Now the manner of his expression concerning the figure of Christs Body shews him not to have accounted the Body of Christ to be substantially but representatively in the Sacrament And his manner of arguing shews him not to have understood or owned the Romish Transubstantiation For it might be said to one who should thus argue and hold the Romish Principles by one of the Disciples of Marcion that there is in the figure the appearance of such a Body which after consecration is not real viz. Bread and Wine and therefore it is then fit to resemble what is of like nature In the Dialogues of Theoderet it was urged in the defence of the Heresie of Eutyches that as the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are made other things and changed so the Body of Christ after its assumption is changed into the divine substance and nature But this is answered by the Orthodox person to the Heretick (c) Theod. Dial. 2. that he is here taken in the Nets which himself made for the symbols or mystical signs do not after their Sanctification depart from their own nature but remain in their former substance form and shape And Prosper speaking of the Eucharist saith this (d) De Cons Dist 2. c. Hoc est heavenly bread after its manner is called the Body of Christ when it is indeed the Sacrament of his Body and it is called the Sacrificing his Flesh and the Passion Death and Crucifixion of Christ non rei veritate sed significante mysterio not being so in the truth or substance of the thing but in the Mystery which signifieth it To these particular testimonies I shall add two things The one is that it is attested by (e) Hesych Hesychius to have been an ancient usage in the Christian Church that after the Communion was ended the remaining elements were burnt in the fire But if Transubstantiation had been then believed that what remained in these elements was no other substance but the Body and Blood of Christ which continued to be such so long as the species of the elements remained it must needs have been an horrid and prophane thing for Christians to cast their Saviour into the fire to be consumed there and no such thing could certainly have entred into their hearts 18. The other thing I shall add is that when in the beginning of Christianity the Pagans falsly aspersed the Christians with
did own himself to be the most high God and as Irenaeus relates (y) Iren. adv Haeres l. 1. c. 20. that it was he who appeared as the Son amongst the Jews and descended as the Father in Samaria and came as the Holy Spirit in other Nations and they who were his followers both in Samaria Rome and other Nations did worship him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the chief God as (z) Justin Apol. 1. Justin Martyr affirms and (a) Eus Hist Eccl. l. 2. c. 13. gr Eusebius from him Now if it should be supposed that the Gnosticks should own the true God and that there is no other God besides him and should therefore design to give Divine honour to him alone but should be perswaded that he was incarnate in Simon Magus and thereupon should worship him with Divine honour this could not excuse them herein from being Idolaters And whereas Montanus and the propagators of his Heresie did declare him to be the Paraclete as is oft expressed in Tertullian and is affirmed also by divers Catholick Writers as (b) Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 14. Eusebius (c) Basil ad Amphil. c. 1. Basil and others or as (d) de Consec dist 4. c. Hi vero Gregory expresseth it that he was the Holy Ghost if any of his followers professing Divine Worship to be due only to the True God and the three persons of the glorious Trinity should upon a presumptive delusion believe that the Holy Ghost was imbodied in Montanus and thereupon yield to him that Divine Worship which is due to the Holy Ghost this could not excuse them from Idolatry 29. Assert 2. All Idolatry is not equally heinous Assert 2. In Idolatry which is in its nature a great and grievous sin all the acts and kinds thereof in misplacing proper Divine Worship are not equally heinous and abominable There is a great difference from the temper of the persons whence acts proceding from sudden surprize from weakness of understanding or from great fear are not of so high a guilt as those which proceed from carelesness of duty neglect of instruction or contempt of God or wilful enmity against the true Religion There is also difference in the acts of worship which I mentioned n. 27. as also from the plyableness of temper to be drawn from them and the resolved obstinacy of persisting in them And there is a difference also with respect to the object to which Divine Worship is given whence the worshipping of Baal or the Gods of other Nations in opposition to the God of Israel was more heinous than the Idolatry of Jeroboams Calves because it included a professed departing from the true God and the worshipping of Simon Magus was the more abominable as including a following him and consequently rejecting the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion But the Idolatry of the Calves was not of so high a nature nor did it utterly exclude the ten Tribes from all relation to the Church of God though even this would exclude those persons who designedly espoused it or who perversely or negligently joined in it from the blessing of God 30. Assert 3. All misplacing Divine honour upon an undue object which is Idolatry is a very great sin Assert 3. All sorts thereof are greatly evil To suppose that ignorance and mistake should be any sufficient plea or excuse is to reflect upon the goodness and wisdom of God as if even under the Christian revelation he had not sufficiently directed men in so important a duty as to know the object of Divine adoration or whom we are to worship And how little any misunderstanding upon the grounds laid down by the Romanists is like in this case to be available for their excuse I shall manifest by proposing another case which may well be esteemed parallel hereunto As our Saviour said concerning the Eucharistical Bread This is my Body so there is a greater plenty of expressions in the Scriptures which are as plausible to confer Divine honour upon pious Christians They are said to be partakers of the Divine Nature to be born of God The Remish Adoration of the Host parallel'd to be renewed after the Image of God and that God dwelleth in them and that Christ is formed in them and is in them and that they are members of his body of his flesh and of his bones and with respect to them he said to Saul why persecutest thou me and he will say to others I was an hungred and ye gave me no meat c. and the Spirit of God dwells in them Now if from such expressions as these any sort of men should give Divine Worship to every Saint in pursuance of that fond notion of some Fanatick heads that they are Godded with God and Christed with Christ and consequently to those in Heaven as well as to those on Earth and thereby multiply the objects of Divine Adoration really beyond all the Polytheism of the Gentiles I doubt not but they of the Church of Rome would account this abominable Idolatry Nor would they think it sufficient here to be pretended that these worshippers own only one true God and give Divine Worship to the Saints only because they believe them to receive a new Divine Nature in becoming Saints and to put on Christ and to be changed into the nature and substance of that one God and though this may seem as contrary to sense and reason as Transubstantiation doth they therefore believe it because God hath said it if their manifestly mistaken sense of Scripture be allowed and they can confidently rely on his word And if we compare these two together the grace of the Sacrament is very excellent but it is that which is to be communicated to the communion of Saints and conferred upon them But the nature of the pious Christian is so much advanced above that of the Sacramental elements that that must be confessed to be true which was affirmed by Bishop Bilson (e) Differ of Christ Subject Unchr Rebel Part. 4. p. 713. that Christian men are members of Christ the Bread is not Christ abideth in them and they in him in the Bread he doth not he will raise them at the last day the Bread he will not they shall reign with him for ever the Bread shall not But these and such like words we mention not as having any low thoughts of the Holy Sacrament but as owning the truth of the Sacramental elements remaining in their created substances and even these we duly reverence as set apart to an holy use and purpose but we most highly value the great blessings of the Gospel and the spiritual presence of Christ which though it be tendred in the Sacramental elements yet being the invisible grace of the Sacrament is to be distinguished from the visible sign thereof To this we have our eye chiefly in the Sacrament according to that ancient admonition (f) Cyp. de Orat. Dom. sursum
separating party can justifie it self it must be able to plead truly and manifest that the Church from which it departs is so corrupt in Doctrine or Worship that it cannot Communicate therewith without sin and that its differing from it is founded upon its casting off such things as are really sinful and evil still retaining and embracing all such things as are true and good even all the rules of Faith and Life and due Order which the Christian Religion doth direct and include 3. Beginning with the Quakers I might take notice of their want of ordinary civil and courteous behaviour and outward expressions of reverence to Governours when Christianity injoins kindness humility courteousness and the due expressions of them to all men and honourable respect to be given to Superiors I might also mention their condemning the use of an Oath even in judicial proceedings which if rightly undertaken is an act of Religion in a solemn acknowledging the Omniscience and righteousness of God and is the most effectual way for the discovery of truth the maintaining justice preserving rights and ending strife But waving very many blameable errors received amongst them I shall insist on four things which their Teachers have both in their Writings and Discourses vigorously asserted which are of such a nature that those who embrace these Principles and practise according to them may well be esteemed to be as far from true Christianity as any persons who pretend to the name of Christians Yet in so wild and Enthusiastick a Sect I do not undertake to give assurance that they in all things do all of them hold the same opinions but do hope some of them may be drawn off from some of these evil Doctrines and Positions Here I shall observe 4. First Their denial of and casting reproachful expressions upon the Holy and Glorious Trinity The acknowledging the Trinity is a great part of the Christian Faith our Creed directing us to believe in God the Father Almighty and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord and in the Holy Ghost And (d) Conc. Nicen Constantinopol the two first General Councils of the Christian Church were in a good part imployed in vindicating and asserting this Doctrine against the Arian and Macedonian Heresie And this Christian Faith is not only contained in and plainly deduced from the Holy Scriptures but is summarily expressed in that form of Christian Baptism which our Saviour established when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost And this Baptismal form which the Holy Scriptures express is so considerable a testimony to the Doctrine of the Trinity that many of those Hereticks who denied the Trinity thought themselves concerned not to own this generally established form of Christian Baptism but boldly undertook to innovate and change that form our Lord had ordained and his Church from him (e) Just Mart. Apol. 2. Tert. de Bapt. c. 6. 13. had universally received Upon this account (f) Sozom. Hist l. 6. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eunomius altered the Baptismal form not Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost but into the death of Christ And amongst the Arians who owned not the Son to be co-eternal and of the same substance with the Father the form of Baptism was perverted and (g) Theod. Lect. Collect. l. 2. Theodorus Lector relates concerning an Arian Bishop who Baptized into the Name of the Father by the Son and in the Holy Ghost And before these when Paulus Samosatenus denied the Divinity of Christ his followers the Paulianists were injoined by the Council of (h) Conc. Nlc. c. 19. Nice to be re-baptized since the Baptismal form by them used (i) v. Justel in Cod. Ecel c. univ 19. was not into the Holy Trinity which he did not acknowledge And that one God in Trinity in whom the members of the Catholick Christian Church believed and into whose Name they were Baptized he is the object of the Christian Worship and Service and with one heart doth that Church give glory to the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost but they who disown the Trinity cannot be expected to perform this Worship and Service thereto 5. But besides what might be cited out of some of the Quakers Books against the Trinity I shall take the liberty to give a little account of what my self hath formerly been concerned in Almost three and twenty years since some of the chief Quakers being busie in these parts two of their Principal Teachers sent to me Nine Questions or Positions rather challenging me to dispute with them the first of which was against the three Persons of the Deity and the other took in all those things I here discourse of against the Quakers with more also I then accepted this challenge and we went through all these nine in three days discourse In the first day they plainly declared themselves against the three Persons of the Trinity much as they had done about the same time in their Conference with (k) The Quaker disarm'd Mr. Smith at Cambridge At that time in the Year 1659 I had the opportunity of charging George Whitehead in the presence of George Fox and as great a number of other Witnesses as the specious room in which we were could contain with as horrid and blasphemous words against the Trinity as I ever read or heard of which were contained in a Book written by him and three other Quakers against one Mr. Tounsend which was Intituled Ishmael and his Mother cast out I even tremble to write the words which the licentiousness of those times gave way to (l) Ishmael c. p. 10. The three Persons which thou wouldst divide out of one like a Conjurer are denied and thou shut up with them in perpetual darkness for the Lake and the Pit But he neither did nor could deny that this wicked assertion was written and published by him and his Companions and the same thing was urged against him out of the same Book at the Conference at Cambridge 6. Sometime after this as if they had a mind to shew themselves particularly zealous in the opposition of the Holy Trinity I received a paper (m) Directed to them that affirm that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead and that the Father is the first and the Word the second and the Spirit the third and that the second was begotten as to his Godhead of Five Queries containing very many branches under them wholly levelled against the Doctrine of the Trinity and subscribed by George Whitehead and George Fox And after I had returned an Answer to these I received another large paper containing a long Harangue against the Holy Trinity with George Whitehead's name alone subscribed In this paper which I have by me it is declared That to call three distinct persons in the Trinity are Popish terms and names
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
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
the Doctrine delivered by this Discourser or by Protestants Yet further these words of Tharasius confirming the Letters of Adrian then read we may observe how those Letters also as they were recorded by that Council agree with the Protestant Doctrine Now Adrian in that Epistle to Constantine and Irene which Tharasius refers to exhorts them to acquiesce in the Tradition of the Orthodox Faith in the Church of Blessed Peter and Paul the chief of the Apostles and to imbrace it as it hath been done by other Emperours honouring their Vicar with all their heart For these chief of the Apostles who did begin the Catholick Orthodox Faith did command their Faith to be preserved by writing as by Laws enacted even to all them who should succeed them in their Seats and so saith he our Church doth keep it Yea as to the Question in hand then about Images Adrian there urgeth Arguments from Scripture with such expressions as this As the holy Scripture hath it so let us have it and after his arguments from Scripture adds wherefore it is not to be doubted and then indeavours to shew the consent of Fathers Whence it is evident Adrian urged the Emperors to close with the delivery of the Church of Rome because then that Church did keep to the written Laws of the Apostles and by this means preserved their Faith and Scripture he follows to put things out of doubt this was then as appears the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and if that be it which will please this Discourser let him take it and follow it In Act. 3. of this Council this Discourser cites these words We receive and venerate the Apostolical Traditions of the Church But is this enough for this Authors purpose 1. Is every thing that is received and venerated made a Rule of Faith 2. Must these Apostolical Traditions needs be Oral Tradition Or did the Apostles deliver nothing in Writing These words are in an Epistle of Theodore of Jerusalem to that Council which was by it approved but in that Epistle as throughout this Council they pretended to the Scriptures and Doctrine of the Fathers cited from their Writings to ascertain them of the Doctrine of the Apostles as to the then disputed point concerning Images Yea that we may know what in that Epistle was meant by Apostolical Tradition it is more plain in the end of that Epistle in these words Whereas therefore it is sufficiently plain that the Scripture receiveth them wherefore it is lawful Whence though this Council was erroneous in the decision of the Controversie then in the World for ought hath been yet produced it doth not appear to have been in the same error with this Discourser concerning the Rule of Faith His next testimony from this Council is Act. 7. where the Council have these words We walking in the Kings High-way and insisting upon the Doctrine of our holy and Divine Fathers and observing the Tradition of the Catholick Church in which the holy Spirit dwells do define But what if the Doctrine of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church meant by them was not Oral but written As for the Fathers testimonies its plain they were not received by Oral Tradition but were such as were found in their Writings and were thence cited both in the Letter of Adrian in the second action of that Council and in the testimonies produced Act. 4. As for Tradition it is observable that in the definition of this Council in which are the forecited words they declare that they receive the Churches Traditions whether in Custome or in Writing but then they declare things so received by them to agree to the Gospel and all such customs of the Church if truly such will Protestants as heartily receive as this Council These things they might observe though they did not make them a Rule of Faith And that the Tradition they relied on as the ground of their Faith was chiefly the holy Scriptures may appear probably because in the beginning of the fourth Action where they produce the grounds of their Tradition they first urge several Scriptures Exod. 25. Numb 7. Ezek. 41. Heb. 9. and others and after them the Fathers Writings but it appears more certainly in the seventh Action where is their Synodical Epistle to Constantine and Irene in which they urge many Scriptures to prove the truth of what this Council defined and then say These to wit Scriptures being so confessedly and without all doubt we believe these things to be acceptable and pleasing to God Whence it appears that the Rule by which they did without all doubting believe was the holy Scriptures and what else is a Rule of Faith So that they principally relied on the Scriptures and in consent with them on the written Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and the customs of the Catholick Church And this is that Protestants will not disclaim but allow as a Rule though they will keep better to it than this seventh General Council as it is called did Lastly From the first Action of this Council he cites these words which were spoken by Basilius of Ancyra as part of a recantation of his former opinions and seem to be allowed by that Council They who contemn the Writings of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church and bring for their excuse and inculcate the words of Arius Nestorius Eutyches and Dioscorus saying unless we were sufficiently instructed out of the Old and New Testament we would follow the Doctrines of the Fathers and of the six holy Synods and the Traditions of the Catholick Church let him be accursed And so will Protestants say They who contemn the preaching of the holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholick Church against Arius and those other Hereticks which preaching and Tradition did declare it self grounded and was truly grounded upon Scripture imbracing and venting the words of these Hereticks which we know were against Scripture though these persons pretend Scripture to be on their side which we know is not let him be accursed Nor from these words will it follow as he would have it that it was ever the pretence of most execrable Hereticks to decline Tradition and pretend sufficient light from Scripture the contrary to this hath been by me shewed and will be further manifested These words do not speak it the constant practice of Hereticks to pretend to Scripture but only speak of some certain Hereticks whose time is defined to be betwixt the sixth and seventh General Councils for if they had not lived after the sixth Council they could not have declared why they did not follow the six General Councils and if they had not lived before the seventh General Council their words could not have been there produced But such words as these of those Hereticks which decline the true Tradition of the Church founded in Scripture and satisfie themselves with empty pretences of Scripture Protestants will condemn Yet lest the gloss upon these words