being delivered For if any one of these be false as doubtless they are his demonstration falls with them But that we may further see the virtue of this demonstration it may be observed that he who will suffer-himself to be perswaded by these vain reasonings may with as much reason be a Jew or a Pagan as a Papist The Jewish Doctrine held forth by their Talmud as also the former Doctrines of the Scribes and Pharisees were believed by that people to be delivered ever from Moses and Ezra here is an effect like this of the Papists perswasion therefore in no Age could it be changed but was ever delivered and therefore true if the Romish Tradition be upon these grounds sufficiently proved indefectible Amongst the Gentiles the Opinions of Jupiter Juno Mars c. being gods was believed to have been ever delivered to them from some Divine Revelation of its Original for else they could never have believed them to have been gods Now since it is certain the Gentiles received this by Tradition from their Fathers and the first Generations of mankind after Noah were undoubtedly instructed in the truth concerning God of which Noah was a Preacher of long continuance amongst them since according to this Discourser no Age could deceive them in delivering what it knew false or in delivering for certain what it knew was not certain Yea since the Tradition of Gentile Polytheism was more general than the Popish Tradition that is it was received and delivered amongst more Nations and contradicted by fewer persons than the Romish Doctrines were and therefore if Tradition be demonstrated to be indefectible by this Argument for the Papists it must be also for the Gentiles Yet this belief amongst the Gentiles of Polytheism necessarily supposed a failing of Tradition in this great point that there is one only God So far is it from proving that their Tradition could not fail I shall now in the close of this Discourse as I promised n. 8. give an instance of a Point in which there is an Innovation in the present Oral and Practical Tradition of the Roman Church which is in denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Communicants The present Tradition and practice of the Church of Rome is that the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate do receive only in one species to wit that of Bread and this they declare to be lawful and the contrary not to be necessary or commanded of God and to be ordered upon just causes to be a true receiving the Sacrament and to be the way whereby they may receive whole Christ and they condemn yea and Anathematize any who shall speak the contrary as may be seen Concil Constanc Ses 13. and Conc. Trid. Ses 5. Now both those Councils do acknowledge that Christ did institute and the ancient Church administred this Sacrament under both kinds and therefore by their own acknowledgement they keep not in practice to what was delivered But the Question is Whether their present practice and Doctrinal delivery opposeth any former delivery of Doctrine Now that I may lay a good foundatipn and such as no Romanist will reject to know what was once the received and delivered Doctrine in the Church of Rome I shall apply my self not to any private Father though approved which possibly he will except against as not a sufficient testifier of Tradition but to such a constitution of the Bishop of Rome as is still acknowledged to have been an approved Canon and therefore the Doctrine of the Roman Church which is this of Gelasius the First We have found that some having received only a portion of the holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the consecrated Blood who because I know not by what superstition they are taught to be bound up must without doubt either receive the whole Sacrament or be kept back from the whole because the division of one and the same Mystery cannot come without great Sacriledge This is delivered for an approved Canon by all Papists Ivo placed it in the beginning of his Decretum Gratian inserted it De Consecratione Dist 2. c. comperimus It is owned by Bellarmine de Eucharistia lib. 4. c. 26. by Baronius ad Ann. 496. n. 20. and Binnius in Vit. Gelasii Nor is it denied by any that I know And whereas the present Tradition asserts that it is not necessary the Laity and Clergy not Consecrating should receive in both kinds this old Tradition saies plainly that they who receive not both kinds must receive neither it being one and the same Mystery or Sacrament And though there are some Causes now declared just and rational to order that the Communion shall be only in one kind and the Council of Constance ubi supra condemn those who call this practice Sacrilegious yet it is possible the same reasons might move some in Gelasius his time to receive only in that one kind but what ever the reason was he declared it could never be approved and its Principle was Superstition and in practice there could never be a division in this one and the same Sacrament without great Sacriledge Now though these words are very plain yet there are two waies the Papists make use of to pervert the sense of them which I shall discover to be vain and frivolous answers and so vindicate this testimony The first answer is that this Canon refers to the Priests not the Laity This is the interpretation in the Rubrick of Gratian and is mentioned as probable by Bellarmine But 1. These words of the Canon are generally spoken by Gelasius so as to include the Laity and with no colour of reason can they be restrained to the Clergy and speaking of them whom he would have driven back or kept back from the Sacraments and of them who are taught the ordinary receivers are plainly included if not chiefly intended and finding fault with this that some abstained reason will evince that all are faulted who did so abstain 2. The restraining this to the Clergy is contrary to the History and general practice of those times it being certain and confessed that even in the Western Church not only till that time but for some hundreds of years after this Sacrament was administred to all in both kinds In this case to conclude that when some were found to abstain from one kind they must be supposed to be of the Clergy would be a vain surmise 3. This answer accordeth not with the Doctrine of those ancient times which owned the Laity to have the same right to receive in both kinds with the Clergy Thus Chrysostome who was owned as Saint and Father at Rome Hom. 18. in 2. Ep. Corinth There is saith he something wherein there is no difference betwixt the Priests and the People to wit as to the receiving the dreadful Mysteries for we have all alike right to partake of them Not as it was under the Old Testament the Priest did eat some things and the people other
considers that Faith or the knowledge of God the vulgar may both have since they may be saved § 8 9 10. and they may have doubts concerning it § 11. and since this Faith is a rational assent § 12. which they who are out of the Church should imbrace § 13. and eminent Wits may be satisfied in § 14. and the most skill'd Adversaries cannot shew its Rule possibly false § 15. and this Rule must assure us what Christ said § 16. From this he gathers seven Properties of the Rule of Faith § 17. 1. It must be plain and self-evident as to its existence unto all 2. Evidenceable as to its Ruling Power to Inquirers even the rude Vulgar 3. Apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons 4. To satisfie fully the Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters 5. To convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries 6. Built upon unmoveable grounds that is absolutely certain in it self 7. And absolutely ascertainable unto us Having given some account of his Discourse I come now to examine whether he hath laid a sufficient foundation to raise from thence the properties of the Rule of Faith and then whether the properties mentioned be rightly raised and do agree to the Rule of Faith The ground he lays from the words Rule and Faith is not sufficiently sure and stable for since these words Rule of Faith even as he treats of them do admit of some ambiguity in their sense it had been necessary to have first declared what was here intended to be signified by them For besides that the phrase of regula fidei or the Rule of Faith is by Irenaeus and Tertullian and other Ancients sometimes made use of for a kind of Creed or comprisal of the chief Articles of Christian Faith I say besides this the word Rule being here a Metaphor the true meaning of it in this place must be searched into Nor doth he sufficiently describe his Rule by saying it is able to regulate or guide him who useth it for still by a Rule may be understood either that which is able to guide him who useth it that by it something to be inquired after may be discovered knowably or else a Rule is that from which all things about which such a Rule may be made use of may receive the most exact perfect and compleat way of trial and discovery Now that is not the Rule of Faith by which a man may be guided to believe some Divine revealed truths or most truths which yet may either misguide in some others or not most exactly guide to the knowledge of them but it is that by which all Divine revealed truths are sufficiently discovered by which there may be had the best determination of all Questions about such truths which are necessary to be decided and which is the most sure and firm ground of believing every Divine revealed truth The want of considering and observing this hath cast this Author upon a threefold miscarriage First He hath omitted the most principal and necessary property of the Rule of Faith which is that it is the way to know try and determine all matters of Faith or revealed Truth and that it is sufficient to do all this so far as it is requisite it should be done For if this property be omitted all those laid down by this Discourser will not have light enough to discover which is the Rule of Faith certainly and infallibly For instance this sentence God Created the Heavens and the Earth or any other such like so delivered to us that it appears certainly to come from God though it cannot be called a Rule of Christian Faith because it contains not so much Divine truth as is necessary either for every mans Salvation or for the determining Controversies in Religion so far as it is requisite they should be decided and this is received as much amongst the unbelieving Jews as amongst Christians yet all the properties mentioned by this Discourser may be applied unto it as much as to the Rule of Faith 1. It may be to all self-evident as to its existence That there is such a truth delivered 2. It may be knowable to have a ruling power even to the Vulgar 3. It may settle them who undoubtingly receive it 4. It may satisfie either Dissenters or Doubters 5. It may convince Adversaries 6. It may be certain in it self and 7. Ascertainable to us A Second miscarriage hence arising is That in this Treatise he useth the phrase of the Rule of Faith in a very uncertain fallacious and ambiguous sense sometimes to signifie one thing and sometimes another For under Faith as he treats of it he sometimes includes all Divine revealed truth so far as to a general ending of Controversies about them So Praef. § 7. he saith Controversie or the skill to know what is Faith if a Science must be grounded on some self-evident Principle and soon after he tells us he hath indeavoured to shew the first Principle Catholicks proceed on self-evident and this he calls the first principle in controversie Where it is plain he includes under Faith all Divine revealed truths concerning which there are any Controversies raised But in Disc 1. § 8. where he lays as a ground that the Vulgar are to be saved that is are to have Faith or the knowledge of God he cannot mean that they must be surely and rationally determined as he grants Faith must be such an assent in all points of Faith about which there is any Controversie for it is plainly evident that even amongst the Papists the Learned men have not been determined in all points de Fide by the help of their Tradition So by the Rule of Faith he sometimes means an only way to come to Faith as Disc 2. § 9 10. he saith Faith is not possible to be had without the Rule of Faith other times he understands by it only a sufficient way to come to Faith as Disc 1. § 8 9. he calls it the means to arrive at Faith or come to Faith Sometimes he calls it the ordinary way to Faith so Corol. 1. and yet thence concludes none can pretend to have Faith who hold not to the true Rule and yet as having his heart misgiving him in this confidence he saith Disc 1. § 11. The Rule of Faith is the best if not the only means to come to the knowledge of Faith Now to treat of the Rule of Faith in such a manner as not to keep to one sense but some time by his Rule to mean an only way sometimes a sufficient way sometimes an ordinary way other times the best if not the only way and by Faith of which it is the Rule sometimes to understand such Faith as is in all the believing Vulgar and at other times under Faith to take in all Controversie about matters revealed of God this is a strange jumbling of different things together and as it discovers much want of accurateness and rational proceeding in the Author so
letters are Barbarians as to our speech Cap. 5. He saith Tradition being thus in the Church let us come to that proof which is from Scripture and so spends several Chapters in shewing the Doctrine of Christ and the Apostles out of Scriptures From what hath been observed it is evident 1. That the Hereticks Irenaeus dealt with were in some thing of the Spirit of this Discourser that is only for their own Tradition and would neither be tryed by Scriptures nor any other Tradition but what was amongst themselves as our Discourser will disown tryal by Scriptures and by what was delivered in the Fathers Writings or Councils Cor. 14. and from all other Churches but the Roman Church Cor. 13 17. 2. That the reason why he so much insisted upon Tradition was because these Hereticks as they denied Scripture so they pretended to the best Tradition which way of his arguing speaks not Tradition the Rule of Faith but of considerable use in this case even as if we should dispute with a Pagan who owns not Christian Revelation concerning the truth of Christian Religion the using rational Arguments against him will shew that we count them very useful in this case but will not conclude that we own reason and not revelation for a Rule of Faith so if a Christian shall urge the Doctrine of the Old Testament as sufficient and certain against the Jew it would be a vain consequence to inferr that he makes this only and not the New Testament-Revelation the Rule of his Christian Faith 3. That Irenaeus did not think the urging the present Tradition of the Church sufficient against those Hereticks but thought it necessary to have recourse to the ancient Churches Tradition and this Doctrine of the ancient Church he evidenceth sufficiently from the writings as also from the verbal testimonies of them who were famous in the ancient Church and Protestants are as ready as any to appeal to the ancient Church and had we such a man as Polycarp who conversed with S. John we would receive his testimony as far as Irenaeus did But having only ancient Writings which Irenaeus thought sufficient in the case of Tradition we readily appeal to them 4. That when Irenaeus saies the Apostles Tradition is manifest in the whole World lib. 3. c. 3. or lib. 1. c. 3. though there be divers tongues in the World yet the vertue of Tradition is one and the same That is the Church in the whole World believes and delivers the same Faith He speaks this against those Hereticks about those great Articles of Faith That there is one God and one Jesus Christ c. as himself expresseth lib. 1. c. 2. and lib. 3. c. 3. for even in the time of Irenaeus there was not in all the World an agreement in all Doctrines since Victor Bishop of Rome and Irenaeus did not agree in this whether it was Lawful to Excommunicate the Asian Churches for their different observation of Easter Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 6. Now is this any consequence That Doctrine which teacheth one God c. against those Hereticks was generally continued in the Church till Irenaeus his time which was not two hundred years after Christ therefore all Doctrine must certainly be preserved without corruption in the Churches Delivery above sixteen hundred Years after Christ though we certainly know that besides Protestants other Churches do not now deliver the same things 5. When he said Ought we not to have followed Tradition if the Apostles had not left us the Scriptures He saith not we ought to do so now they have left them but rather in these words intimates the contrary But now more directly to see his opinion of the Rule of Faith consider these words of his lib. 3. c. 1. The Gospel they then preached they after delivered to us by the Will of God in the Scriptures to be the foundation and pillar of our Faith And then shewing how the Evangelists have delivered to us by Writing saith If any man assent not to them he despiseth even Christ the Lord and the Father and is condemned of himself and resisteth his own salvation Lib. 2. c. 46. Wherefore since the holy Scriptures both Prophetical and Evangelical clearly and without ambiguity and as they may of all be heard declare c. they appear very dull who blind their eyes at such a clear discovery and will not see the light of preaching C. 41. Having therefore the truth it self for our Rule and the testimony of God being openly manifest we ought not to reject the firm and clear knowledge of God If we cannot find the solution of all things in Scripture we must believe God in these things knowing that the Scriptures are perfect being spoken by the word of God and his Spirit Lib. 4. c. 66. Read more diligently the Gospel which is given us by the Apostles and read more diligently the Prophets and you shall find every action and every Doctrine and every passion of our Lord set forth in them Lib. 3. c. 11. The Gospel is the pillar and firmament of the Church and the Spirit of life wherefore it is consequent that it hath four pillars he hath given us a fourfold Gospel which is contained in one Spirit If then according to Irenaeus men may believe by the Scripture and that is the pillar and foundation of Faith and they that seek may find all Doctrine in it which is there clear and manifest is not this enough to shew he makes it a Rule of Faith If not we have observed him calling it by the name of a Rule also and declaring that none but the Barbarous Nations did then receive the Faith in an unwritten way SECT XI What was owned by Origen as the Rule of Faith ANd first in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where in the begining of his Prooem having observed that some who profess themselves to believe in Christ differ in so great things as concerning God our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost by which words he manifestly refers to such Hereticks as Irenaeus before him treated of Such were Montanists Valentinians Marcionists c. he begins to lay a Rule he will proceed by in the words referred to by this Author Let the Ecclesiastical Preaching delivered from the Apostles by order of succession and remaining in the Church to this time be preserved that only truth is to be believed which in nothing differs from the Ecclesiastical Tradition This is his Rule he will proceed by in these Books by which in opposition to those Hereticks he means the Churches delivery of truth which was chiefly contained in the Scriptures as I shall evidence first because he useth promiscuously the phrases of Ecclesiastical Preaching and Scripture frequently in this Prooem and excepts against the Book called The Doctrine of Peter as being no part of it and in the end of the same Prooem declares that therefore he who would treat of these things to know what is truth in
acts of Worship and refused to receive any such both under the Old Testament Judg. 13.16 17 18. and the New Rev. 19.10 ch 22.9 Yea the Apostle cautions against the worshipping of Angels Col. 2.18 and the ancient Church prohibited it by her (q) Conc. Laodic c. 35. nor in the New Canons 11. And in the Gospel God himself whose right it is to direct and appoint in whose name we should approach unto him hath directed us to come to him in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and hath encouraged us thereto by promising that what we so ask he will give Joh. 16.23 and that our Lord himself will do what we so ask Joh. 14.13 14. And that Christ is able to save to the uttermost those that come unto God by him and he ever lives to make intercession for them Heb. 7.25 And what further encouragement need be given or desired But not a word is spoken to direct us to any deceased Saint or to any Angel to make any of them our Intercessor And this is the great encouragement proposed to us in approaching to God that having a great High-Priest who is passed into the Heavens Jesus the Son of God and who can be touched with the feeling of our Infirmities we may come boldly to the Throne of Grace Hebr. 4.14 15 16 and that if any Man sin we have an Advocate with the Father Jesus Christ the Righteous 1 Joh. 2.1 And in the Precepts our Saviour gives to guide our Prayer and Worship he directs us to referr them only to God Matt. 4.10 Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve and Luke 11.2 when ye pray say Our Father which art in Heaven 12. And though S. Stephen suffered Martyrdom in a short time after our Saviour's Ascension and S. James whose Martyrdom (r) Annal. Eccl. an 44. n. 2. Baronius places in the forty fourth year of Christ and the Blessed Virgin also in all probability died before the writing of any part of the New Testament nor in the Primitive Church Yet in all the New Testament where there are such frequent expressions of praying to and calling upon God with Supplications to our Blessed Saviour there is not the least intimation of any adoration or invocation to these eminent Saints or any others who were departed And yet S. Paul assures us that some of the Brethren who were Witnesses of our Saviour's Resurrection were fallen asleep before the time of his writing the first Epistle to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 15.6 And it hath been at large observed and proved by sufficient evidence that no genuine Writer of the first Centuries hath any thing in him to express or favour invocation of Saints This is shewed by (ſ) in Letter of Invocation of Saints the Bishop of Lincoln for the first three hundred years and (t) Voss Thes Theol. Disp 10. Vossius speaks of three hundred and seventy After which time some expressions were used which made way for this practice but yet no such thing was brought into any publick Liturgy for some hundred years after 13. It may be here added that if we consider the Saints they invocate Of the Canonization of Saints besides what Objections may be made against particular Persons it may be noted that the general Worship given to Saints hath respect to all those who are Canonized by the Roman Bishop And there is no sufficient reason to believe that all such are truly Saints The form of Canonization declares the Person canonized (u) Sacr. Cerem ut Sanctum à Christi fidelibus venerandum that he is to be worshipped of Christians as a Saint That none may receive publick adoration but they who are canonized by the Pope is owned by (w) De Sanct. Beat. c. 19. Bellarmine who also declares that (x) ib. c. 9. it is to be believed that the Pope doth not erre in Canonizing But he who believes the truth of this must frame an higher notion of the Papal Infallibility than that Cardinal hath given us For he tells us (y) de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2. it is a thing agreed betwixt Catholicks and Hereticks that the Pope as Pope and joined with all his Council may err in matters of Fact and such as depend on the information and testimony of men He tells us indeed in the same place that in propounding matters of Faith or enjoyning rules of Duty and Practice he cannot err But since no matter of Fact is more lyable to mistake than to discern whether a person be eminently and sincerely holy or no especially as they proceed in the Church of Rome where the Testimonies concerning their working Miracles are of great moment in this case it may therefore according to the Cardinals own position be thought at least doubtful whether the Pope may not mistake in judging a Man to be truly a Saint and then it may seem hard to believe that all must needs be Saints whom he declares to be such by Canonization 14. Of denying the Cup in the Eucharist to the Laity A Second Instance I shall here consider is That they at Rome debarr the people of the Cup in the Holy Communion which was manifestly one part of that Holy Sacrament as it was instituted and commanded to be received by our Saviour And therefore this contains an Opposition to what was established by Christ In the Church of Rome both the Laity and the Clergy except in ordinary Communions only the person consecrating or as they speak the conficient Priest receive only the one element in the Eucharist and not the other of the Cup. And though the Council of (b) Sess 22. in fin Trent wholly waved the determining this Question concerning the Cup Whether it might be granted to any of the Laity And referred this wholly to the prudence of the Pope who hath still continued the former use in one kind yet that Council freely declared their sense concerning the Doctrines and Rules of Duty referring to the Sacrament Here it declares that (c) Sess 21. c. 1. the Laity and the Clergy who do not consecrate are obliged by no Divine Precept to take the Eucharist in both kinds and that it cannot be doubted salva fide but that the Communion in one kind is sufficient to Salvation and that whole Christ and the true Sacrament is taken under either kind alone and therefore they who so receive are deprived of no grace necessary to Salvation And they so declare these things with others concerning the Sacrament that if any person shall speak contrary thereto even to say that the Catholick Church was not moved by just or sufficient reasons in ordering the Laity and Clergy who do not consecrate to communicate only under the Species of bread he shall be under an Anathema and they also forbid all Christians for the future ne de iis aliter credere audeant that they do not dare to believe otherwise of
great veneration as being founded upon the highest evidence since no evidence can be above infallible certainty and there can be no evidence against it but what appears to be such is a mistaken fallacy and therefore no doubts ought to be admitted for there cannot be any need of reforming the Doctrine of such a Church By this method also so far as men believe this they are kept in a peaceable subjection but in a way of fraud and neglect of truth We account all honest and prudent ways to promote peace with truth to be desireable But if stedfastness in errors such as those of the Scribes and Pharisees or of any Hereticks or Schismaticks be more desirable than to understand or embrace the truth then may the devices of the Roman Church be applauded which have any tendency to promote peace And yet indeed all their other projects would signifie little if it were not for the great strictness and severity of their Government This pretence to Infallibility is in the consequence of it blasphemous because as it pretends to be derived from God it makes him to approve and patronize all their gross errors and Heretical Doctrines And if any other persons should have the confidence to require all they say to be received upon their authority as unquestionable and infallibly true though it appear never so unlikely to the hearers or be known by them to be false such a temper would not be thought tolerable for converse but it is only admired in those of Rome where there is as little reason to admit it as any where else and no proof at all thereof but very much to be said to confute it For 5. First It is hard to believe The asserters of Infallibility are not agreed who is the keeper thereof that that Church should have been possessed of Infallibility for above 1600 years which doth not yet agree where to fix this Infallibility It is great pity that if they have Infallibility they should not know where it is And it is strange it should be accompanied with so much uncertainty that those of the Romish Communion should still disagree and be to seek who the person or persons is or are that are Infallible and whether any be such or not Many of the Romish Church claim Infallibility to belong to the Pope This way goes Bellarmine and many others who assert the judgment of Councils Whether the Pope whether General or Provincial to receive their firmness from the Pope's Confirmation and then (e) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 1 2 3. asserts that he cannot err in what he delivers to the Church as a matter of Faith And yet (f) de Pont. Rom. l. 2. c. 30. he grants that the Pope himself may be a Heretick and may be known to be such and by falling into Heresie may fall from being Head or Member of the Church and may be judged and punished by the Church And this is to give up his Infallibility since he who may fall into Heresie and declare it may err in what he declares And (g) Theol. Mor. l. 2. Tr. 1. c. 7. n. 1 2. Layman who asserts that the Pope in his own Person may fall into notorious Heresie and yet that in what he proposeth to the whole Church he is by Divine Providence infallible still acknowledgeth that this latter assertion is not so certain that the contrary should be an error in Faith Yea he admits it possible and to be owned by grave Authors such as Gerson Turrecremata Sylvester Corduba and Gr. de Valentia that the Pope may propose things against the Faith And this is to profess his Infallibility to be uncertain and indeed to be none at all And some of the Popes have been so unwary as in their Publick Rescripts to let fall such expressions which betrayed themselves to have no confidence of their own Infallibility Pope Martin the fifth determined a case proposed concerning the (h) Extrav Com. l. 3. Tit. 5. c. 1. sale of a yearly Revenue to be no Vsury because one of the Cardinals had given him an account that such parts were allowed to be lawful by the Doctors Now it is not like that if that Pope thought his own judgment to be Infallible that he would profess himself to proceed in his Declaration upon the judgment of others And Pope Innocent the third considering those words of S. Peter Submit your selves therefore to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's sake whether to the King as Supreme c. would have it observed that the King is not expresly called Supreme (i) Decretal l. 1. Tit. 33. c. 6. Solite sed interpositum for sitan non sine causa tanquam but this word as is interposed perhaps not without cause but for sitan and perhaps are not a stile becoming the pretence to Infallibility since the one acknowledgeth and the other disclaims the doubtfulness of the thing declared But so much modesty was very needful in this Epistle when both this Observation it self and many other things in that Epistle were far enough from being infallibly true as the founding the Pope's authority upon Jer. 1.10 and on God's creating two great Luminaries and such like things of which above 6. But others of the Romish Church or a General Council own the infallible judgment in matters of Faith to be only fixed in a general Council That Adrian the sixth was of this Opinion is owned by (k) de Pont. Rom. l. 4. c. 2. Bellarmine to whom (l) Lâ—ym ubi sup Layman adds Gerson and others of the French Church Now there is much more to be said for this than for the former Notion And though a General Council cannot claim absolute infallibility of judgment in all cases because it is possible the erring Party may happen in some cases to be the greater number as appeared in some of the Arian Councils which so far as concerned the greatness of them bad fair for the Title of General ones Yet if a General Council be regularly convened and proceed orderly with a pious intention to declare truth and without design of serving interests and Parties there is so much evidence concerning Matters of Faith that it may be justly concluded that such a Council will not err in them but that its Determinations in this case are infallibly true But the admitting the Infallible Decision of such a General Council in points of Faith is so far from the interest of the Church of Rome that the eager promoters of the Popish interest will by no means close with this For a General Council having respect to the whole Catholick Church and not being confined to the particular Roman limits The Church of Rome can upon this principle plead no more for any Infallibility resident in it than the Church of Constantinople or the Church of England may do To this purpose the General of the Jesuits Lainezius (m) Hist Conc Trid. l. 7. p.
it occasions incoherency and confusion in this his Discourse A Third miscarriage hence arising is That he buildeth part of his discourses upon a supposition which is certainly false to wit that all that Faith which is in the Vulgar or in any others is immediately produced by the application of the Rule of Faith so Disc 1. § 8 9. whence § 14. he calls the Rule of Faith the immediate producer and cause of the assent of Faith both with reference to the ruder sort and to the Learned Now though the Rule of Faith be the surest way to beget Faith or to try any point of Faith yet is not all Faith in all persons immediately produced by it but many times by other means Thus the Discourses of Origen Tertullian and Cyprian and their Writings have doubtless perswaded and prevailed with many to receive the Christian Faith by them and believe many things declared in it yet neither their words nor writings were any Rule of Faith since both in some things appear erroneous The Goths were brought in to Christianity by the preaching of the Arians and by that means believed many Christian truths and of later years many Pagans have believed the Christian Doctrine some by the preaching of Protestants and others by the Papists yet cannot all these ways of delivery be called the Rule of Faith nor indeed any of them Yea it is sensibly evident that many Christian truths are received and believed both among Protestants and Papists by the Vulgar either from the teaching of a Parent or from a private Doctor or Teacher which may be subject to some error and so are not the Rule of Faith since they may misguide and yet in many things of revealed truth this is the common case of the Vulgar before they come to understand the Rule of Faith or that which they own as such even before the Protestant comes to understand the Scripture and what is in it contained and before the Papist understands the Tradition of the Church and how he may know what is as such delivered since all that is taught or written by some particular persons cannot be as such received I come now to examine the particular properties of the Rule of Faith above recited The first property is That it must be self evident as to its existence to all His ground for this is that the rudest Vulgar who are capable of Faith are uncapable of any skill by speculation § 3 4 9 10. But First This proves not that it must be self-evident by which he means as appears in the following Discourse that that which is the Rule of Faith appeareth evidently to be such barely by considering this Rule in it self without any other helps and advantages since without this way of self-evidence it may be sufficiently evidenceable to all capacities in such a manner as the Vulgar are capable of knowing it The Statutes of England are a Rule for the decision of Cases in the Law concerning the matters contained in them but that they are so cannot appear satisfactorily in all these Laws by the bare reading of them but their being sufficiently and generally attested and acknowledged to be enacted by the Legislative Power and unrepealed evidenceth them to be such The Vulgar know that the last Will and Testament of a man is as a Rule to shew who hath title to the Goods of the deceased and they are capable of knowing which is the last Will and Testament of a person otherwise than from the bare reading of it to wit by the full witness and evident testimony of credible persons concerning it The ordinary Jews were capable of knowing the ten Commandments and the Books of Moses to be given them from God to guide them otherwise than by the reading of them to wit by delivery of them as such by the constant testimony of all the Jews in that and the succeeding Ages Whence it may appear to be self-evident that the Vulgar are capable of receiving other proof than self-evidence though not by deep speculation yet by testimonial evidence Nor 2. Will it hence follow from his proof that the Rule of Faith should be evident to all as to its existence By all he cannot here include them who have no knowledge of Gospel Revelation But I suppose he intends all who have faith or are in the way to attain it But in this latitude it is no property of the Rule of Faith to be actually evident to all these since there may be some Faith which is not immediately grounded upon the Rule as was before shewed Howbeit since the Rule of Faith is intended to confirm and determine matters of faith so that they may be received with a full and firm assent and is thence of great use to all to settle and stablish them in the faith I assert that the Rule of Faith is evidenceable unto all or may be made evident unto all who have capacities of reason both that it is and that it is a Rule if they be willing to receive that evidence which is sufficient The second property That it is evidenceable as to its ruling power to Enquirers even the rude Vulgar I allow supposing them willing to be satisfied with good evidence The third property I admit That it is apt to settle and justifie undoubting persons that is that they who rely on it without doubting may be satisfied that they act rationally The fourth property is That it is able to satisfie the most Sceptical Dissenters and rational Doubters Had he appeared only to mean by Sceptical the most curiously inquisitive I would readily have granted this property but it is suspicious that he includes such Scepticks as design to reject evidence because when he applies this Rule Disc 3. § 3. he speaks of his Sceptick as one who would find somewhat to reply rationally or at least would maintain his suspence with a Might it not be otherwise If he indeed includes persons who set themselves to reject evidence I answer the Rule of Faith needeth not be able to satisfie them nor can it since they are not capable of satisfaction and such were many of the Heathen Philosophers of the Hereticks among Christians and probably of the Scribes and Pharisees All he said for the proof of this property was That those who are out of the Church are intended by Christ to be brought in to embrace the faith and persons of highest reason and enquiry in the Church may be satisfied concerning the faith § 13 14. This is true of them who will embrace light and evidence where they find it but not of them who reject it and Protestants will affirm that the Rule of Faith taking in the testimonial evidence which is given concerning that Rule is able to satisfie all Dissenters or Doubters who are ready and willing to receive rational satisfaction The fifth property is That it must be able to convince the most obstinate and acute Adversaries This he supposeth proved from § 15.
Doctrine of Faith as words written and spoken by men declare their sense and meaning to one another and thus we own them to be the Rule of Faith § 3 4 5 6 7 8. He frames six Objections against the Scriptures being sufficiently evidenceable to the Vulgar which excludes his two first Properties of the Rule of Faith First They cannot be certain by self-evidence that this is Gods Word which cannot be discovered but by deep speculation nor can this be concluded till all seeming contradictions are solved § 3. Secondly Nor can they know how many Books are divinely inspired either by self-evidence or by any skill they are possest of § 4. Thirdly Nor is it evidenceable to their capacities that the originals are any where preserved entire nor can they be assured of the skills of others by which they know it § 5. Fourthly Nor can they know that the Scriptures are rightly translated for they are not capable to judge of the honesty and skill of the Translators § 6. Fifthly If it be most truly translated yet innumerable Copies before Printing and since Printers and Correctors of the Press are to be relyed on by which means they can have no evidence of the right letter of Scripture § 7. Lastly Still they are far to seek unless they were certain of the true sense of Scripture which the numerous Commentators and infinite Disputes about concerning Points and Christs Divinity shew not to be the task of the vulgar § 8. Ad § 3. To the first Objection I answer That it is sufficiently evidenceable even to the Vulgar that the Scriptures are the Word of God Now though the self-evidence of this or what may be gathered by inspection into the Book of Scripture is very considerable as to the truths contained in Scripture by observing that it contains powerful and heavenly Doctrines suitable to God and great Prophecies wonderfully fulfilled yet as to the writing which contains these truths we have another more plain way and generally evidenceable to all persons to assure them that these Books are Gods Word which is that by the general delivery or tradition of the Church of Christ or of all who appear to have the chief care of their own souls these Books have in all Ages since Christ and almost in all Countreys been preserved as the Writings of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists they have constantly and publickly read them as such and given them to us as containing that Doctrine which was so wonderfully confirmed by Miracles In this manner we receive all the Books of Holy Scripture as Gods Word and by this way we have a plain and withal a very full certainty or by this means in S. Austin's words De Civ Dei lib. 15. c. 23. The authority of the true Scriptures comes to us from the Fathers by a most certain and known succession Compare the certainty of it with any Historical Writings in the World or with any other matters of fact in any former Age and the certainty of Scripture is much the greater because it is more generally delivered and hath been more constantly read Compare this again with any Records in the World and the knowledge of any Charter of any Society the Records of a Court the Statutes of a Colledge or the Charter of a Corporation are surely known to be such by the Officers of that Court and the Members of that Corporation and even by the Vulgar in a succeeding Age because they are in written Records delivered as such to them and every one taketh this to be a sufficient certainty especially if he know that all foregoing Members of such Societies or Officers of such Courts are under the obligation of an Oath to preserve such Records or Charters entire and upon this evidence they doubt not to believe what this Record or Charter doth contain And much more certain is the delivery of Scripture Records as the Word of God since there are not only one but great multitudes of Christian Societies over the whole World who all agree in this delivery and all these Societies by their Profession and the Christian Sacraments are under the highest obligations not to falsifie in any thing and especially in the delivery of such Monuments which are of Divine Inspiration To all this add the great evidence we have from the Writings of the ancient Fathers that they did religiously own and honour this Book as the Word of God Lastly Compare the certainty of this truth of the Word of God being contained in Scripture with the certainty of Doctrine by unwritten Tradition or rather with its uncertainty wherein we must consider that this delivering to us the writing of the Holy Scriptures is of the same nature with that whereby Monuments preserved Records or Charters are delivered from one generation to another which the common apprehensions of men shew to be a much surer way of delivery than this Tradition by way of hear sayes since in every Corporation which hath a Charter delivered down safely from their Predecessors if the Members of it would be sure what are the Priviledges that belong to it they will not think it the safest way to enquire what are the common Opinions of that Society and rely on this which is like the way of Oral Tradition but they will consult the Charter it self and so rest satisfied in what is there contained in their sure Records And the vulgar Christians will conclude the truth of Christian Doctrine or what God delivered to be more fully in the Scripture than in the words of other Christians or Tradition by the same way but by much greater evidence than that by which men of all Societies will conclude the truth of what concerns their Priviledges or what Emperours or Kings have granted them to be more fully contained in their Charters than in common reports Nor is this Tradition which we honour owned by us a Rule of our Faith but a rational evidence or a help and ground of our knowledge of this truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God or the Writings divinely inspired For in matters of Faith though a man is supported by reason which will give an account why he owns such a testimony to be from God yet as to the matter or thing believed he doth not exercise his reason to prove the truth of the thing by rational evidence but submits his reason to rely on the credibility of the Divine Testimony and upon this Testimony owns what is attested by it but when we say we own the Scriptures to be Gods Word by the forementioned way of Tradition we act our reason as to the thing received by us and do own and acknowledge this as truth from that rational evidence which Tradition affords to our reason and so do receive it as true in a way of rational knowledge which by this Traditional evidence we prove truth The things contained in Scripture we receive by faith because contained in a divinely inspired Writing and
here we enquire not for rational evidence to prove them true Here then we can be no more said to build our faith on the Rule of Tradition than publick Justice can be said to be administred by the Rule of Tradition when Cases are decided by Acts of Parliament which have been successively delivered from one Age to another But as he hath hitherto builded on a mistake to imagine that we have no way to prove Scripture the Word of God but only by considering the Letter of Scripture in it self so in the end of § 3. he supposeth that we must be able to satisfie all seeming contradictions in Scripture before we can own it to be Gods Word But cannot every ordinary Christian both humbly and truly acknowledge that in things delivered by God there may be many things above his understanding to comprehend and above his apprehension to reconcile which yet may be in themselves both true and good In this doing we have the same ground to believe Scripture to be Gods Word which S. Austin had in his forsaking Manicheism who makes this Confession to God Confes lib. 6. c. 5. Thou didst perswade me that they were to be blamed not who believed thy Books which almost in all Nations thou hast established on so great authority but who believed them not Therefore when we were unable by evident reason to find out truth and for this cause had need of the authority of the holy Scriptures I now began to believe that thou wouldst by no means have given to that Scripture so excellent authority throughout all Lands unless thou wouldst that thou shouldst be believed by it and that thou shouldest be sought by it Now the absurdities which used to offend me I referred to the height of the Mysteries Ad § 4. To the second Objection concerning the number of the Books of holy Scripture I shall first enquire What ground the Vulgar have to own all the Books received by Protestants and particularly by the Church of England as Canonical to be the divinely inspired Scriptures or the Word of God Now they may safely and with good ground receive all these Books because they are so owned by the same above-mentioned Tradition or delivery of all Churches as they received them from the beginning nor was there ever in the Church any doubt of the Books we receive of the Old Testament or of any of the Evangelists or of the most of the Epistles And though there was some doubt at some time in some places concerning some few Books yet these doubts were never general nor did they in any place continue but were check'd by known consent in the beginning of Christianity of which S. Hierom speaks ad Dardanum Ep. 129. We receive them following the authority of ancient Writers Now that all these Books have been alwayes thus delivered by the Catholick Church as the Word of God the Vulgar hath sufficient reason to acknowledge since it hath the same certainty with the way of delivering so many preserved Records by the agreement of such multitudes of Societies which is a much more certain way than Oral Tradition of Christs Doctrine as was shewed n. 6. This delivery of these Books is commonly asserted by the present Age and by men of greatest knowledge amongst the Protestants nor at this time doth the Roman Church reject any of them Though indeed S. Hierom tells us That in his time the Latin Custom did not receive the Epistle to the Hebrews amongst Canonical Scriptures in his Commentaries upon Isa 6. and Isa 8. and elsewhere Which Eusebius also takes notice of Eccl. Hist lib. 3. c. 3. lib. 6. c. 21. So that the Roman Church was not then the most faithful preserver of what was delivered in the Church Catholick which did acknowledge this and the other Scriptures by which they are sufficiently delivered to us and by which S. Hierom did receive even this Epistle as he particularly writes in the above-mentioned Epistle ad Dardanum Now being secure of these Books we are sure that we have safe delivery of all necessary truth required to salvation for as it is observable that concerning the Doctrine of Jesus Christ no other Church nor the present Roman Church doth pretend to any other Book of Scripture in the New Testament so S. Luke chap. 1. hath assured us that in his Gospel are written what things are necessary to be believed as the Christian Faith So that hitherto it appears how common Christians may know enough for their salvation and yet further they knowing all these Books to be of God can thence conclude that whatever is declared in them is true and what ever is condemned there is false or evil and by this means they may attain much knowledge And though these vulgar Christians may safely be unacquainted with the Controversie concerning the Apocryphal Books as is evident from what is above said and men of greater learning and knowledge for whom the tryal of all Controversies is a more proper work are and may be fully certain concerning it by their fully perceiving what was the Jewish and Christian Churches Tradition in this point yet the vulgar may possibly be sufficiently satisfied that none of those Books are part of the Scriptures divinely inspired For since they can understand from men of knowledge and learning that none of those Books were received in the Jewish Church to whom the Oracles of God were committed Nor were they any of them generally received as of divine inspiration and for proof of Doctrines by the Catholick Christian Church they may thence conclude that it is as safe for them not to own them as such as it was for the Catholick Christian Church and the Jewish Church whom neither Christ nor his Apostles charged with any sin and corruption in this particular And likewise they may see that they have as little reason to be guided by the particular Romish Church in opposition to the Church Catholick concerning these Books as S. Hierom had concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews especially since they of Rome have not fixedly kept and declared the same Books at all times for Scripture Thus we have a certainty of the Canon of Scripture which Protestants own for their Rule but this Discourser cannot but know that concerning Traditions which he makes his Rule neither the vulgar Papists nor yet the learned can certainly know in all points how many and which are truly such which hath occasioned great disputes and high contests amongst them of the Romish Church Ad § 5. To the third Objection concerning the preserving of the Originals I answer That it is not necessary for the vulgar either to know or enquire concerning the Originals it is enough for him to have evidence that the Scriptures remain entire though he know not what Language was their Original But if it be enquired how every one may know that these Scriptures are preserved entire and how they who have any apprehensions of the Original may
of Faith That it must be apt to settle and justifie those unlearned persons who rely undoubtingly upon it that this may be done such a person he saith must proceed on such Principles as he takes to be true ones Thus he cannot act in receiving Scripture because as he can himself have no self-evidence of its being Gods Word so it is senseless for men to believe a multitude which sayes it may possibly err in what it tells them Or if here skill in History Language or Fathers may secure them from error this he cannot judge of And principally when he considers that they who pretend to Scripture differ and condemn and persecute each other his reason will tell him that since there is but one truth for want of the light or directive power of that Rule they all but one party and may be that also go miserably astray To this I answer The Principles which he relies on who closeth with Scripture are such as may abundantly satisfie him which indeed will follow from what was said to the former Discourse concerning the rational evidence he hath of the Scripture What he adds that it is senseless to receive Scriptures as Gods Word from the delivery of a multitude who say they may possibly err is if not a senseless yet a very unaccountable Assertion Will he think that nothing can be credited that is seen by the eye because in a mist or some dark place the eye may be possibly mistaken or can there be nothing truly known by the understanding of a man because he who is Master of the best reason may in some things misapprehend if this Author would thus argue he must disclaim all pretences to demonstrations and Science yea and certainty likewise in all things in the World We know in common affairs that all men are capable of being mistaken where they have not sufficient evidence and yet we do not thence discredit the preservation of Records and Charters as if that could be no way assured since we know men are capable here of sufficient evidence to inform them and Protestants are no more fallible nor acknowledge themselves no more fallible than all men are that is they may be deceived where they have not sufficient light and evidence to discern by but where they have this light and discern and receive it there they neither are nor can be deceived and such evidence as we have shewed they have of the Scriptures so that the knowledge thus grounded in Protestants is infallibly certain not from the infallibility of the persons as if they were no where liable to error but from the infallibleness of the clear evidence of truth which whoever receives is certainly as to that thing so evidenced free from error Yet we receive Gods Word not only from the delivery of Protestants but of all ancient Churches who yet were and owned themselves to be men subject to error Yea the Church of Rome and even the Council of Trent who pretend to infallibility do also deliver all the Books we receive but we have no more reason to believe them for this pretence than we should have to believe certainly all that man shall say who hath the confidence to declare his tongue not liable to utter falshood when we can certainly know this very speech cannot be truth There is nothing else in these Paragraphs which hath not been before answered saving what he objects concerning the differences amongst Protestants which do not conclude Scripture which is our Rule either uncertain or not sufficiently clear For there are many things which many men over eagerly inquire after and too rashly determine which it may be God did not think fit to determine in his word though all things requisite and necessary are clear enough and there are many things clear enough in the Scripture to diligent inquirers whilst some err about them by too hastily closing with some conceptions of their own not grounded on sufficient evidence and then too passionately promoting of them and in neither of these cases the Rule is to be blamed but the persons and to one of these heads belong all our differences This same Argument was urged both by Jews and Heathens and particularly by Celsus against Christian Religion as is related by Clem. Alex. Strom. 7. Orig. lib. 3. cont Cels who pleaded that Christian Religion was not to be heeded and believed because they who professed it differed so much from each other or opposed contradicted and blamed each other and many Heresies were spread amongst them To which they returned answer That such differences were common in all cases where men entertained any thing by their judgments if the things were any way eminent and excellent such there was amongst Philosophers who were Gentiles and such amongst the followers of Judaism so that he who would close with this Argument must reject all ways of knowledge and professions of Religion They observed likewise that men will not refuse all Physick because amongst Physicians there are many various opinions nor will Travellers refuse to go in the Kings High-way because some went out of this Road-way to by-paths which bring them to Precipices nor should we for this reject the Scriptures and Christian Religion but more diligently seek into them since it is foretold that there must be Heresies and that the Tares will be with the Wheat To this purpose those Fathers answered for Christianity and the same answer pleads for us But if this Author do indeed believe that there cannot be evidence enough in that Rule where they who profess to follow it are of different opinions let him begin at home and put it into practice and it will ingage those of the Romish Communion to renounce their Rule of Faith since it is plainly evident that there have been many different opinions and high animosities amongst the pretended followers of that Rule not only formerly amongst the followers of different School-men and their different Orders of the Clergy but also more of late amongst the Jesuits and the Priests of other Orders more especially the Jansenists and the same continue to this day To all this I shall add that if by reason of the things objected by this Authour the Scripture be not now sufficient to justifie him in his belief who shall receive it as a Rule then by the same reason were the Beraeans to be condemned who searched the Scriptures to examine the Apostles Doctrine for which S. Luke commends them Act. 17.11 Nor could they justifie Timothy's receiving them from a Child yet S. Paul commends that in him and sayes they were able to make him wise unto Salvation 1 Tim. 3.15 For as they could have no more self evidence of Scripture than we have so they received these Scriptures from men whom themselves believed to be fallible for the Scriptures they received as delivered by the Jewish Church which if they had not judged fallible they could not have given heed to the Apostles Doctrine
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
consent in all material things Nor can I imagine that either this Author or any understanding Papist can believe this story for since it appears to be much their design to bring the New Testament and Old likewise so far into question that it might not be capable of being a Rule if they thought in truth that Archbishop Vsher observed so much of various readings as would effectually do this it cannot be doubted they would soon collect and publish such various readings or procure some other to do it unless they do imagine that that was observed by Bishop Vsher which cannot be observed by any other man Now as their not performing this perswades us Protestants that the Papists themselves do not believe this story so it discovers to us that we have no reason at all to believe it our selves Thus having discovered the Doubts moved by this Discourser not to be acute and convictive we conclude that this Property notwithstanding these Doubts doth belong to Scripture that it is defensible against the most acute Adversaries and there is sufficient evidence concerning it to prevail with them An Answer to the fourth Discourse shewing that the two last Properties of the Rule of Faith do agree to Scripture § 1. THese two last Properties are Certainty in it self and ascertainableness to us That the latter cannot agree to Scripture is the subject he saith of his foregoing Discourse and depends upon the former its being certain in it self What he urged in his foregoing Discourse I have in mine answered and shall now examine what he writes against the certainty of Scripture § 2. To shew Scripture not certain in it self he tells us the material Characters in Books may be burnt torn blotted out or worn out and this he calls a deep consideration because it would be a disorderly proceeding to lay such a weak means for so main an end as the salvation of mankind These are indeed but vain and empty words which he calleth his deep consideration For doth this Author imagine that there is no certainty in any other Records which are preserved because they consist of matter capable of perishing and where did he learn that nothing which is not of the most unalterable nature in the World must be made the means of mans salvation Let this deep Considerer think whether after the Promise to Abraham of the Messias to come out of Isaac's Seed this Seed could not be a means for the Salvation of mankind because Isaac might possibly have been killed before he had any Seed and all his Children were mortal men and was there not a much greater possibility then of Isaac's death before he had any Seed or of all his Seed after than there now is of all the Copies of Scripture being destroyed And may not the same be urged concerning the Seed of David and Solomon Yea so perniciously dangerous are the assertions of this Authour that they would tempt men to reject the ever-blessed Jesus as well as the Scriptures But dare he say that the life and Ministry of our Lord Jesus could not be a means for the salvation of mankind because he was in our nature lyable to death and to him who only considers this nature it might seem possible he might have died before he had declared all Gospel-Doctrine But this empty and vain consideration of this Author hath its foundation either in imagining the World without a God to order it or at least in supposing that the means of mans salvation must have their effect from the strength of nature and not from God who can use the weak things of the World to confound the Mighty But the Scriptures are not so lyable to be destroyed as any thing else in nature as this Authour falsely asserts Was there but one Copy to be found as it was in Josiah's time if this was in the hands of a professed enemy to Religion there might be fear of the Scriptures being lost if we had no eye to Divine Providence But since there are so many millions of Copies and the number yearly increased and these in the hands of many thousands who would hazard their lives to preserve them there will appear more reason to fear that all the generation of mankind now growing up should perish and die before they come to their full stature and so mankind cease for want of propagation than to imagine that all the Copies of Scripture should be destroyed For as it is certain that in every generation many thousands die in their infancy or childhood so there can be no demonstration nor rational proof that all shall not unless it be by considering the Providence of God and as a Copy of Scripture is in it self much more durable than the life of a man as appears by many Copies written several ages since and these Copies are more capable of lying undiscovered from the eye of an enemy than a man is who must be where he may have food to preserve him so there is as much reason to eye or hand of Providence in preserving Scripture as in preserving mankind For these Scriptures never could be destroyed when there were not such innumerable Copies as now there are When the Jews only had these Oracles of God many learned men are of opinion that Manasseh and some that Amon designed the destroying all Scripture Copies yet there was one left which was found in the Temple and brought to Josiah Antiochus Epiphanes as Josephus relates Antiqu. Jud. lib. 12. c. 7. made the same attempt but could not effect it And after Christ the same was indeavoured by Dioclesian Euseb Hist Eccl. lib. 7.20 but such designs prevailed not and yet then there was not probably one Copy of Scripture for some hundreds now Yea further if the case should be such that no Copy of Scripture was to be found it is not impossible with God who could have raised Isaac from the dead if he had been slain by extraordinary messengers to renew the Scriptures if they were not otherwise to be had God hath taken other care by his Providence for their preservation yet those ancient Fathers as Tertullian de Habitu Muliebr c. 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. Irenaeus advers Haeres lib. 3. c. 25. and S. Hierome c. who were of opinion that the Scriptures then written were lost at the time of the Captivity did assert them again restored by Ezra But that Position of the Scriptures then being lost is exploded by the most learned and judicious Papists such as Baronius ad An. 180. Bellarmine and others not only as being an Apocryphal story contradicted in Neh. 8.1 2. but by Baronius in the place cited it is expresly declared not possible that since they had at least as many Copies of Scripture as Synagogues yet none of them should be preserved Much less can they now be lost since it is not improbable that there are now as many thousands of Copies as were then Jewish Synagogues Hence we may observe that
faithful delivery of Christian truths by word of mouth to be a very useful way to bring many to the Faith or to establish them in it and we doubt not but that very great Multitudes who have not the advantage of using reading or hearing the Scriptures may by this means be brought to believe Such was the case of some barbarous Nations in the Primitive times and of many Pagans in these later times But since the ceasing of the extraordinary gifts of revelation in the Church the most faithful delivery of these truths is that which is guided by the Scripture and takes that for its Rule and such are the sober instructions of knowing and well grounded Protestants and no other delivery can be faithful but that which is agreeable to the Scripture and its ruling Power and this was the commendation Irenaeus gave to Polycarp Eus Hist Eccl. lib. 5. c. 20. that he delivered all things consonant to Scriptures Yet though this way of delivery by word of mouth is very useful yet it was then only a sure Rule of Faith when these truths were delivered of them who were inspired of God and thereby were infallible in their delivery and such was the delivery by the Apostles and Evangelists both in their preaching and in their Writing Next to the Apostles but not equally with them we would value the delivery of Apostolical men But in after-ages we deny any certainty of infallible delivery of truths in the way of Oral Tradition and acknowledge that only a certain delivery which appears such by its accord and agreement with the Scripture Rule And as to the sense of Scripture we doubt not but when God gave the Primitive Church gifts of interpretation there was a delivery of the sense of Scripture not only in plain and necessary things which are obvious from the words but even in many more hard and difficult Texts of Scripture Yet all obscure Scriptures were not even in those times explained and their explications generally received since S. Peter speaks of many things in S Pauls Epistles which were hard to be understood which if the interpretation of them had been generally delivered and received in the Churches in Gods name they could not have been The great and necessary Doctrines were then received and delivered according to the true intent and meaning of Christ and that was agreeable to the Scriptures Hence the delivery of any truth to all Churches in the Apostles times and its being received by them so far as this could be made evident was a very useful way to destroy Heresie yet the Fathers who made use of this way did also shew that these truths were plain in Scripture To these Churches so far as the Doctrine by them received can be manifested we would willingly appeal for a trial of Controversies and do readily imbrace such truths as by sure evidence appear to be the Doctrine held by those Churches Partly as thus delivered and chiefly as clear in Scripture we receive those Articles of Faith contained in the Creed commonly owned in the Catholick Church but the Creed we conceive to be delivered in a much more sure and safe way than Oral Tradition since the words of it have with common consent been agreed on fixed and determined the want of which advantage in the Romish Tradition doth manifest it to be very alterable and uncertain in other Doctrines But that all points of Christian Doctrine or Apostolical interpretations of hard Scriptures are infallibly delivered from the Primitive Churches by the way of Oral and Practical Tradition we deny Nor can there be more reason to perswade us that the present delivery of the Romish Church doth faithfully preserve such Doctrines and interpretations than would also perswade that when Ezra read the Law and caused the people to understand the sense of it we might certainly find the Doctrines by him taught and the interpretations by him given amongst the Traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees as surely as we could have them from Ezra's mouth or from them who heard him and were faithful relaters of his teaching I will only further here observe that Tradition may be considered either as a meer speculation and notion and thus a man may imagine a constant delivery of the self same things truths and actions by the successions of several generations without considering whether there really be any such delivery or whether it can be rationally expected and to treat of such a Tradition as this being a Rule of Faith is but to discourse of aiery fancies and imaginations Or else Tradition may be considered as something reall and in being and thus we may inquire whether such a Tradition as is to be found in the Church or in the World be a sure way to deliver truth infallibly to Posterity This is that we Protestants deny and if this Author intend not the proof of this he will speak nothing to the purpose and will only shew that such Tradition as they of Rome or any other in the World have not might be the Rule of Faith and notwithstanding all this they will be destitute of it I shall now examine his Discourses of Tradition in which every Reader will be able to observe that he hath made no proof considerable unless he hath said more for the Tradition of the Romish Church than can be said to prove Religion not corrupted before the Flood or after the Flood amongst the Gentiles or before the Captivity and at the time of Christ amongst the Jews § 1. Coming to inquire whether that Tradition be the Rule of Faith which he calls Oral and Practical he thus explains it We mean a delivery down from hand to hand by words and a constant course of frequent visible actions conformable to those words of the sense and faith of the fore-Fathers Our business in this Discourse is to inquire whether this can be a Rule of Faith which the Discourser affirms and Protestants deny § 2. To understand this way of Tradition he observes on this manner Children learn the names of Persons Rooms and things they converse with and afterwards to write read and use civil carriage And looking into the thing they gain the notions of several objects either by their own senses or by the help of having them pointed at and this he observes is the constant course of the World continued every Age yea every Year or Month. This is Tradition in Civil matters Concerning this Tradition it may be observed that about matters visible to sense the Objects or Things and the names of the things must be distinctly considered The common notions of Objects visible as of Heaven Earth Sun Moon Rooms Man Trees c. are by common apprehensions even of Children received from Senses not by tradition of a former Generation and those apprehensions are preserved by the view of the visible objects But the words or names are indeed delivered in such a way of Tradition but words thus delivered are not
be proved Yea evident it is that among the most eminent Fathers who lived not long after the Apostles daies there are acknowledged some errors and they were not alone in them but had many partakers and followers Cyprian erred about re-baptizing Justin Martyr Papias Irenaeus Lactantius and others were in the error of the Chiliasts and many other erroneous opinions were in some of the forementioned Authors and in Clemens Alexandrinus and much more in Tertullian and Origen So that though this ground if the others all hold may help us to know the great points of Religion yet it can be no security to all the truths of God from the multitude of Believers The second ground is of the time nature with the former which concerns only the chief truths of Religion in the generality of Christians For the faithful could not while free from error believe this which is an error that the want of understanding any truth of God was the way to damnation for S. Paul saith expresly that they must receive the weak in the faith and God hath received him and God is able to make him stand Rom. 14.1 3 4. So that though they did know the great truths of Christian Faith necessary to Salvation and therefore would diligently learn them and teach them and though they did know that the denial or rejecting of any truth which they had evidence was of God was likewise dreadfully dangerous which would ingage them to hold fast all the truth they had received upon account of the highest hopes and fears fet before them yet would not the same inforcements lie upon them to shew the necessity either of their own knowing or of their Children being instructed in all manner of truths since there were Mysteries and strong meat for the perfect and milk for the weak Yet I also assert that as there were many persons of eminent knowledge in the mysteries of the Gospel in the Apostles daies who had great gifts of knowledge and interpretation by the teaching of these men if it was diligently heeded all Divine truth might possibly be received by some others in the next Generation who had capacities of understanding them but I have no reason to judge that these were multitudes And the love of God and his truth would excite all the faithful as they had opportunity both to indeavour to know all truth of God and also firmly to receive and declare it but this will not free them from all ignorance or capacity of erring The third ground is many waies imperfect and reacheth not to the proof of the case in hand for first it is not enough to prove Tradition indefectible to know that fears and hopes when strongly applied will have this effect but we must know that in all Ages they were thus strongly applied to the generality of testifiers or to the greatest number of the Church visible but alas how evident is it that in all Ages the causes of hope and fear have not been so applied by very great numbers in the Church that they should take due care of their souls by a holy life And since the Devil oft designs the perverting the Doctrine of Christ as well as corrupting the practice of Christians and they who reject a good Conscience are in a ready way to make shipwrack of the Faith what possible security can be given that those Motives hopes and fears are a firm security to preserve Doctrine Secondly though it is not to be doubted but that many pious men would be affected with such hopes and fears who had this Doctrine delivered to them yet considering that such pious men if considered as Fore-Fathers might have careless and wicked Children or as Priests and Teachers might have careless and irreligious Successors there must needs appear very great danger that in any family or place this Tradition will not be in every Age faithfully continued by the prevalency of such hopes and fears Nor is this only a Notion since it is certain that a very great part of the Christian Church did in the Primitive times entertain the Arian Heresie and promoted it and taught it to their Children And since it is evident that gross ignorance and sensuality hath reigned in some Ages more late among the generality both of Clergy and People in the Romish Church there can be from this ground no rational security given that any great part of the deliverers were conscientiously careful to deliver faithfully according to what they had received because it appears they did not act as men prevailed upon by such hopes and fears would do His last ground likewise is unsound for in the way of Tradition all Divine truth cannot be evidenced to be knowable not only because as is abovesaid much may be undelivered by the truly faithful and much perversely delivered by the corrupt and much mistaken but even that also which in the way of Oral Tradition is delivered by the best deliverers cannot in all things be clearly discovered to be a sufficient Tradition For first we cannot know whether the best deliverers now in the World in this Oral way do deliver sufficiently that which was by the former Generation to them declared for this must either be in a form of words received from the Apostles or without such a form if they deliver the Apostles very words it cannot be doubted but then the sense intended by the Apostles is as fully delivered as the Apostles themselves delivered it since the same words must needs signifie the same things But they who reject the way of Scripture-delivery as the Rule of Faith pretend not to any such form of words which should contain all truth But a delivery without a form of words is only a delivery of what is conceived judged or apprehended to be the sense of the former Generation and this is a way liable to error because it relies on the skill of every Generation or the way of framing thoughts and conceptions of all these truths and likewise upon a skill of fully expressing such conceptions in words after they are rightly framed in the mind and both these parts of art must be secured in the most exact manner to every succession of deliverers Now as it is not certain that in all Ages there hath been a readiness of full expression of what they conceived to be truth so for certain Controversies and Disputes they shew in many things that mens apprehensions are not unerrable Secondly if it had been certain that some in the late past Generations did deliver all truths fully yet in the way of Oral Tradition it cannot be known evidently who they are and which is that true Tradition for all men acquainted with Church History know that when there have been differences amongst great Doctors of the Church in their delivery this hath sometimes occasioned the calling of Councils to determine them and declare which is the Doctrine to be held in the Church as about the Religious use of Images in the
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